• Comparative Analysis of Subsurface Estimation Ability and Applicability Based on Various Geostatistical Model
  • Ahn, Jeongwoo;Jeong, Jina;Park, Eungyu;
  • Department of Geology, Kyungpook National University;Department of Geology, Kyungpook National University;Department of Geology, Kyungpook National University;
  • 다양한 지구통계기법의 지하매질 예측능 및 적용성 비교연구
  • 안정우;정진아;박은규;
  • 경북대학교 지질학과;경북대학교 지질학과;경북대학교 지질학과;
Abstract
In the present study, a few of recently developed geostatistical models are comparatively studied. The models are two-point statistics based sequential indicator simulation (SISIM) and generalized coupled Markov chain (GCMC), multi-point statistics single normal equation simulation (SNESIM), and object based model of FLUVSIM (fluvial simulation) that predicts structures of target object from the provided geometric information. Out of the models, SNESIM and FLUVSIM require additional information other than conditioning data such as training map and geometry, respectively, which generally claim demanding additional resources. For the comparative studies, three-dimensional fluvial reservoir model is developed considering the genetic information and the samples, as input data for the models, are acquired by mimicking realistic sampling (i.e. random sampling). For SNESIM and FLUVSIM, additional training map and the geometry data are synthesized based on the same information used for the objective model. For the comparisons of the predictabilities of the models, two different measures are employed. In the first measure, the ensemble probability maps of the models are developed from multiple realizations, which are compared in depth to the objective model. In the second measure, the developed realizations are converted to hydrogeologic properties and the groundwater flow simulation results are compared to that of the objective model. From the comparisons, it is found that the predictability of GCMC outperforms the other models in terms of the first measure. On the other hand, in terms of the second measure, the both predictabilities of GCMC and SNESIM are outstanding out of the considered models. The excellences of GCMC model in the comparisons may attribute to the incorporations of directional non-stationarity and the non-linear prediction structure. From the results, it is concluded that the various geostatistical models need to be comprehensively considered and comparatively analyzed for appropriate characterizations.

Keywords: Subsurface characterization;Geostatistics;Groundwater flow simulation;

References
  • 1. Arpat, G.B., 2005, Sequential simulation with patterns, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, USA, 166 p.
  •  
  • 2. Carle, S.F., 1999, T-PROGS: transition probability geostatistical software, Version 2.1, User Manual. Davis, California: Hydrologic Sciences Graduate Group, University of California, USA, 248 p.
  •  
  • 3. Carle, S.F. and Fogg, G.E., 1996, Transition probability-based indicator geostatistics, Math. Geol., 28(4), 453-477.
  •  
  • 4. Deutsch, C.V. and Journel, A.G., 1998, GSLIB: Geostatistical Software Library and User's Guide, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press., New York, 369 p.
  •  
  • 5. Deutsch, C.V. and Tran, T.T., 2002, FLUVSIM: a program for object-based stochastic modeling of fluvial depositional systems, Comput. Geosci., 28, 525-535.
  •  
  • 6. Deutsch, C.V. and Wang, L., 1996, Hierarchical object-based stochastic modeling of fluvial reservoirs, Math. Geol., 28, 857-880.
  •  
  • 7. Goovaerts, P., 1997, Geostatistics for Natural Resources Evaluation, Oxford University Press, New York, 512 p.
  •  
  • 8. Hill, M.C., Harbaugh, A.W., Banta, E.R., and McDonald, M.G., 2000, MODFLOW-2000, The U.S. geological survey modular ground-water model-user guide to modularization concepts and the ground-water flow process, U. S. Geol. Survey, 113 p.
  •  
  • 9. Holden, L., Hauge, R., Skare, O., and Skorstad., 1998, Modeling of fluvial reservoirs with object models, Math. Geol., 30(5), 473-496.
  •  
  • 10. Hu, L.Y. and Chugunova, T., 2008, Multiple-point geostatistics for modeling subsurface heterogeneity: A comprehensive review, Water Resour. Res., 44(11), W11413.
  •  
  • 11. Jeong, J. and Park, E., 2013, A Characterization of Oil Sand Reservoir and Selections of Optimal SAGD Locations Based on Stochastic Geostatistical Predictions, Econ. Environ. Geol., 46(4), 313-327.
  •  
  • 12. Jeong, J., Paudyal, P., and Park, E., 2012, A Preliminary Study of Enhanced Predictability of Non-Parametric Geostatistical Simulation through History Matching Technique, J. Soil Groundw. Environ., 17(5), 56-67.
  •  
  • 13. Koltermann, C.E. and Gorelick, S.M., 1996, Heterogeneity in sedimentary deposits: A review of structure-imitating, processimitating, and descriptive approaches, Water Resour. Res., 32, 2617-2658.
  •  
  • 14. Liu, Y., 2006, Using the Snesim program for multiple-point statistical simulation, Comput. Geosci., 32, 1544-1563.
  •  
  • 15. Park, E., 2010, A multidimensional generalized coupled Markov chain model for surface and subsurface characterization, Water Resour. Res., 46, W11509.
  •  
  • 16. Park, E., Elfeki, A.M.M., Song, Y., and Kim, K., 2007, Generalized coupled Markov chain model for characterizing categorical variables in soil mapping, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 71, 909-917.
  •  
  • 17. Remy, N., Alexandre, B., and Jianbing, W., 2009, Applied Geostatistics with SGeMS, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 264 p.
  •  
  • 18. Strebelle, S., 2000, Sequential simulation drawing structures from training images, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, USA, 187 p.
  •  
  • 19. Strebelle, S., 2002, Conditional simulation of complex geological structures using multiple-point statistics, Math. Geol., 34(1), 1-22.
  •  
  • 20. Walker, R.G., 1976, Facies models, 3. sandy fluvial systems, Geosci. Can., 3, 101-109.
  •  

This Article

  • 2014; 19(4): 31-44

    Published on Aug 31, 2014

  • 10.7857/JSGE.2014.19.4.031
  • Received on Apr 3, 2014
  • Revised on Aug 5, 2014
  • Accepted on Aug 5, 2014