IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i6p1765-d522100.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Two-Step Predict and Correct Non-Intrusive Parametric Model Order Reduction for Changing Well Locations Using a Machine Learning Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Hardikkumar Zalavadia

    (Harold Vance Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA)

  • Eduardo Gildin

    (Harold Vance Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA)

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to develop a two-step predict and correct non-intrusive Parametric Model Order Reduction (PMOR) methodology for the problem of changing well locations in an oil field that can eventually be used for well placement optimization to gain significant computational savings. In this work, we propose a two-step PMOR procedure, where, in the first step, a Proper Orthogonal Decomposition (POD)-based strategy that is non-intrusive to the simulator source code is introduced, as opposed to the convention of using POD as a simulator intrusive procedure. The non-intrusiveness of the proposed technique stems from formulating a novel Machine Learning (ML)-based framework used with POD. The features of the ML model (Random Forest was used here) are designed such that they take into consideration the temporal evolution of the state solutions and thereby avoid simulator access for the time dependency of the solutions. The proposed PMOR method is global, since a single reduced-order model can be used for all the well locations of interest in the reservoir. We address the major challenge of the explicit representation of the well location change as a parameter by introducing geometry-based features and flow diagnostics-inspired physics-based features. In the second step, an error correction model based on reduced model solutions is formulated to correct for discrepancies in the state solutions at well grid blocks expected from POD basis for new well locations. The error correction model proposed uses Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) that consider the physics-based reduced model solutions as features, and is proved to reduce the error in QoI (Quantities of Interest), such as oil production rates and water cut, significantly. This workflow is applied to a simple homogeneous reservoir and a heterogeneous channelized reservoir using a section of SPE10 model that showed promising results in terms of model accuracy. Speed-ups of about 50×–100× were observed for different cases considered when running the test scenarios. The proposed workflow for Reduced-Order Modeling is “non-intrusive” and hence can increase its applicability to any simulator used. Additionally, the method is formulated such that all the simulation time steps are independent and hence can make use of parallel resources very efficiently and also avoid stability issues that can result from error accumulation over time steps.

Suggested Citation

  • Hardikkumar Zalavadia & Eduardo Gildin, 2021. "Two-Step Predict and Correct Non-Intrusive Parametric Model Order Reduction for Changing Well Locations Using a Machine Learning Framework," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-47, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:6:p:1765-:d:522100
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/6/1765/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/6/1765/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marc C. Kennedy & Anthony O'Hagan, 2001. "Bayesian calibration of computer models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 63(3), pages 425-464.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matthias Katzfuss & Joseph Guinness & Wenlong Gong & Daniel Zilber, 2020. "Vecchia Approximations of Gaussian-Process Predictions," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 25(3), pages 383-414, September.
    2. Hao Wu & Michael Browne, 2015. "Random Model Discrepancy: Interpretations and Technicalities (A Rejoinder)," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(3), pages 619-624, September.
    3. Xiaoyu Xiong & Benjamin D. Youngman & Theodoros Economou, 2021. "Data fusion with Gaussian processes for estimation of environmental hazard events," Environmetrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(3), May.
    4. Petropoulos, G. & Wooster, M.J. & Carlson, T.N. & Kennedy, M.C. & Scholze, M., 2009. "A global Bayesian sensitivity analysis of the 1d SimSphere soil–vegetation–atmospheric transfer (SVAT) model using Gaussian model emulation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(19), pages 2427-2440.
    5. Drignei, Dorin, 2011. "A general statistical model for computer experiments with time series output," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(4), pages 460-467.
    6. Yuan, Jun & Ng, Szu Hui, 2013. "A sequential approach for stochastic computer model calibration and prediction," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 273-286.
    7. Edward Boone & Jan Hannig & Ryad Ghanam & Sujit Ghosh & Fabrizio Ruggeri & Serge Prudhomme, 2022. "Model Validation of a Single Degree-of-Freedom Oscillator: A Case Study," Stats, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-17, November.
    8. Abokersh, Mohamed Hany & Vallès, Manel & Cabeza, Luisa F. & Boer, Dieter, 2020. "A framework for the optimal integration of solar assisted district heating in different urban sized communities: A robust machine learning approach incorporating global sensitivity analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 267(C).
    9. Campbell, Katherine, 2006. "Statistical calibration of computer simulations," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(10), pages 1358-1363.
    10. Perrin, G., 2016. "Active learning surrogate models for the conception of systems with multiple failure modes," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 130-136.
    11. Antony M. Overstall & David C. Woods, 2016. "Multivariate emulation of computer simulators: model selection and diagnostics with application to a humanitarian relief model," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 65(4), pages 483-505, August.
    12. Na, Wei & Wang, Mingming, 2022. "A Bayesian approach with urban-scale energy model to calibrate building energy consumption for space heating: A case study of application in Beijing," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 247(C).
    13. Andrew White & Malachi Tolman & Howard D Thames & Hubert Rodney Withers & Kathy A Mason & Mark K Transtrum, 2016. "The Limitations of Model-Based Experimental Design and Parameter Estimation in Sloppy Systems," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-26, December.
    14. MacKenzie, Cameron A. & Hu, Chao, 2019. "Decision making under uncertainty for design of resilient engineered systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    15. Pasanisi, Alberto & Keller, Merlin & Parent, Eric, 2012. "Estimation of a quantity of interest in uncertainty analysis: Some help from Bayesian decision theory," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 93-101.
    16. White, Staci A. & Herbei, Radu, 2015. "A Monte Carlo approach to quantifying model error in Bayesian parameter estimation," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 168-181.
    17. Jun Yuan & Haowei Wang & Szu Hui Ng & Victor Nian, 2020. "Ship Emission Mitigation Strategies Choice Under Uncertainty," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, May.
    18. Merle, X. & Cinnella, P., 2019. "Robust prediction of dense gas flows under uncertain thermodynamic models," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 400-421.
    19. Hidy, D. & Barcza, Z. & Haszpra, L. & Churkina, G. & Pintér, K. & Nagy, Z., 2012. "Development of the Biome-BGC model for simulation of managed herbaceous ecosystems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 226(C), pages 99-119.
    20. Wu, Xu & Kozlowski, Tomasz & Meidani, Hadi, 2018. "Kriging-based inverse uncertainty quantification of nuclear fuel performance code BISON fission gas release model using time series measurement data," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 422-436.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:6:p:1765-:d:522100. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.