Quantification of prediction uncertainty using imperfect subsurface models with model error estimation

被引:13
|
作者
Rammay, Muzammil Hussain [1 ]
Elsheikh, Ahmed H. [1 ]
Chen, Yan [2 ]
机构
[1] Heriot Watt Univ, Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland
[2] Total E&P, Geosci Res Ctr, Westhill, Scotland
关键词
Model error (model bias/model discrepancy); History matching (calibration); Error-model; Principle component analysis (PCA); Bayesian inversion; MONTE-CARLO-SIMULATION; RESERVOIR SIMULATOR; FLOW; DECOMPOSITION; CALIBRATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.02.056
中图分类号
TU [建筑科学];
学科分类号
0813 ;
摘要
Subsurface reservoirs are far more heterogeneous and complex than the simulation models in terms of scale, assumptions and description. In this work, we address the issue of prediction reliability while calibrating imperfect/low-fidelity reservoir models. The main goal is to avoid over-confident and inaccurate predictions by including a model for the bias terms (i.e. error-model of a predefined form) during the history matching process. Our aim is to obtain unbiased posterior distributions of the physical model parameters and thus improving the prediction capacity of the calibrated low-fidelity reservoir models. We formulate the parameter estimation problem as a joint estimation of the imperfect model parameters and the error-model parameters. The structure of the error-model and the prior distributions of the error-model parameters are evaluated before calibration through analysis of leading sources of the modeling errors. We adopt a Bayesian framework for solving the inverse problem, where we utilize the ensemble smoother with multiple data assimilation (ES-MDA) as a practical history matching algorithm. We provide two test cases, where the impact of typical model errors originating from grid coarsening/upscaling and from utilizing an imperfect geological model description is investigated. For both cases results from the ES-MDA update with and without accounting for model error are compared in terms of estimated physical model parameters, quality of match to historical data and forecasting ability compared to held out data. The test results show that calibration of the imperfect physical model without accounting for model errors results in extreme values of the calibrated model parameters and a biased posterior distribution. With accounting for modeling errors the posterior distribution of the model parameters is less biased (i.e. nearly unbiased) and improved forecasting skills with higher prediction accuracy/reliability is observed. Moreover, the consistency between the different runs of the ES-MDA is improved by including the modeling error component. Although the examples in the paper consider the oil-water system with permeabilities being parameters of the physical model, the developed methodology is general and can be applied to typical ground water hydrology models.
引用
下载
收藏
页码:764 / 783
页数:20
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Effect of mesh refinement on the estimation of model input parameters using Inverse Uncertainty Quantification
    Abu Saleem, Rabie A.
    Kozlowski, Tomasz
    ANNALS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY, 2019, 132 : 271 - 276
  • [42] Parameter estimation and uncertainty quantification using information geometry
    Sharp, Jesse A.
    Browning, Alexander P.
    Burrage, Kevin
    Simpson, Matthew J.
    JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY INTERFACE, 2022, 19 (189)
  • [43] Impact of measurement error and limited data frequency on parameter estimation and uncertainty quantification
    Zadeh, Farkhondeh Khorashadi
    Nossent, Jiri
    Woldegiorgis, Befekadu Taddesse
    Bauwens, Willy
    van Griensven, Ann
    ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE, 2019, 118 : 35 - 47
  • [44] Wind Power Deterministic Prediction and Uncertainty Quantification Based on Interval Estimation
    Huang, Hui
    Jia, Rong
    Liang, Jun
    Dang, Jian
    Wang, Zhengmian
    JOURNAL OF SOLAR ENERGY ENGINEERING-TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASME, 2021, 143 (06):
  • [45] Impact of runoff measurement error models on the quantification of predictive uncertainty in rainfall-runoff models
    Thyer, M. A.
    Renard, B.
    Kavetski, D.
    Kuczera, G.
    18TH WORLD IMACS CONGRESS AND MODSIM09 INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON MODELLING AND SIMULATION: INTERFACING MODELLING AND SIMULATION WITH MATHEMATICAL AND COMPUTATIONAL SCIENCES, 2009, : 3414 - 3420
  • [46] Subsurface Source Zone Characterization and Uncertainty Quantification Using Discriminative Random Fields
    Arshadi, Masoud
    Kaluza, M. Clara De Paolis
    Miller, Eric L.
    Abriola, Linda M.
    WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, 2020, 56 (03)
  • [47] Uncertainty quantification for the family-wise error rate in multivariate copula models
    Stange, Jens
    Bodnar, Taras
    Dickhaus, Thorsten
    ASTA-ADVANCES IN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS, 2015, 99 (03) : 281 - 310
  • [48] Uncertainty quantification for the family-wise error rate in multivariate copula models
    Jens Stange
    Taras Bodnar
    Thorsten Dickhaus
    AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, 2015, 99 : 281 - 310
  • [49] ACCURATE UNCERTAINTY QUANTIFICATION USING INACCURATE COMPUTATIONAL MODELS
    Koutsourelakis, Phaedon-Stelios
    SIAM JOURNAL ON SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING, 2009, 31 (05): : 3274 - 3300
  • [50] Assessing models for estimation and methods for uncertainty quantification for spatial return levels
    Cao, Yi
    Li, Bo
    ENVIRONMETRICS, 2019, 30 (02)