2016
DOI: 10.1007/s10596-016-9604-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

History matching of multi-facies channelized reservoirs using ES-MDA with common basis DCT

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
20
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
0
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…DCT is also used to extract the main information of a static model in a history matching area [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35]. After original data are transformed to coefficients of discrete cosine functions, the coefficients are arranged in descending order of frequencies of cosine functions.…”
Section: Combined Distancementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…DCT is also used to extract the main information of a static model in a history matching area [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35]. After original data are transformed to coefficients of discrete cosine functions, the coefficients are arranged in descending order of frequencies of cosine functions.…”
Section: Combined Distancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The selection of a subset of DCT coefficients depends on the objective of the research. For example, to characterize channel reservoirs, several papers applied DCT to permeability data to extract only the main channel trends in the ensemble models with low frequencies' coefficients [27][28][29][30][31][32]34,35]. The channel trends in reservoirs can be described with only a small number of coefficients.…”
Section: + ( − 3) =mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These methods typically involve the following steps: (1) estimating a prior ensemble of facies distribution using indicator geostatistical models, (2) translating the ensemble facies distribution to continuous shape parameters that describe the facies boundaries, (3) performing EDA on the shape parameters to improve the match between model predictions and observations, and (4) updating the facies distribution using the updated shape parameters. All of the aforementioned parameterization methods impose no spatial structure constraints on facies (e.g., facies volume proportions, correlation lengths, or juxtapositional tendencies) in the process of data assimilation, which may lead to an unrealistic discontinuity and/or overfitting in resulted facies distribution (Jung et al, 2017;Ma & Jafarpour, 2018;Nejadi et al, 2015;Vo & Durlofsky, 2016;Zhao et al, 2017). Chang and Zhang (2014) proposed to alleviate the facies discontinuity issue by updating facies indicators on a coarse representation of the computational grid and then using interpolation to generate the rest of the facies field.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If essential features are adequately acquired, updating the features can also yield an improved history matching performance over calibrating original parameters. For these reasons, discrete cosine transform (DCT) [14,15], discrete wavelet transform [1], K-singular value decomposition (K-SVD) [16,17], and autoencoder (AE) [18] have been employed as ancillary parameterizations of ensemblebased methods. For history matching of channelized reservoirs, DCT has been utilized to preserve channel properties because DCT figures out overall trends and main patterns of channels by using only essential DCT coefficients [19][20][21][22].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%