Advertisement

Computational Geosciences

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 35–53 | Cite as

Trajectory-based DEIM (TDEIM) model reduction applied to reservoir simulation

  • Xiaosi Tan
  • Eduardo GildinEmail author
  • Horacio Florez
  • Sumeet Trehan
  • Yahan Yang
  • Nazish Hoda
Original Paper

Abstract

Two well-known model reduction methods, namely the trajectory piecewise linearization (TPWL) approximation and the discrete empirical interpolation method (DEIM), are combined to take advantage of their benefits and avoid their shortcomings to generate reduced-order models for reservoir simulation. To this end, we use the trajectory-based DEIM (TDEIM) to approximate the nonlinear terms in the simulation. Explicitly, we express such quantities in the test simulation as the sum of their equivalents evaluated at the closest available training point from the high-fidelity training trajectory and a perturbed contribution defined as the difference between the test and the training runs. We only interpolate this difference term in the reduced space of DEIM instead of the original one, resulting in computational savings and improvement in accuracy. TDEIM is further combined with the proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) method to provide an efficient POD-TDEIM framework. We test our new methodology on three examples, involving two-phase (water-oil) heterogeneous reservoir models. First, the performance of POD-TDEIM is compared with POD-TPWL and POD-DEIM on a 2D reservoir model. For the same set of high-fidelity training runs, POD-TDEIM outperforms the other two methods. We further propose an extended TDEIM in which the nonlinear term is expanded along the training trajectory to include an additional higher order derivative. An example of a 3D reservoir model is then presented to show the capability of the extended TDEIM to improve the accuracy of the reduced model further when handling significant discrepancies between the training and test boundary controls. We also present another 3D example to demonstrate the superior correctness and numerical stability of using Petrov-Galerkin projection with TDEIM over the Galerkin projection.

Keywords

Model reduction Trajectory piecewise linearization Discrete empirical interpolation method 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of our manuscript and their many insightful comments and suggestions. We also appreciate Dr. Lou Durlofsky for his valuable ideas to improve this paper.

Funding information

The authors received financial support from ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company, and permission to publish this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Adams, R., Fournier, J.: Sobolev Spaces. Academic Press, Oxford (1975)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amsallem, D., Zahr, M., Choi, Y., Farhat, C.: Design optimization using hyper-reduced-order models. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 51(4), 919–940 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aziz, K., Settari, A.: Petroleum reservoir simulation. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, New York (1986)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cardoso, M., Durlofsky, L.J.: Linearized reduced-order models for subsurface flow simulation. J. Comput. Phys. 229(3), 681–700 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cardoso, M.A., Durlofsky, L.J., et al.: Use of reduced-order modeling procedures for production optimization. SPE J. 15(02), 426–435 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carlberg, K., Bou-Mosleh, C., Farhat, C.: Efficient non-linear model reduction via a least-squares Petrov–Galerkin projection and compressive tensor approximations. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 86(2), 155–181 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carlberg, K., Farhat, C., Cortial, J., Amsallem, D.: The gnat method for nonlinear model reduction: effective implementation and application to computational fluid dynamics and turbulent flows. J. Comput. Phys. 242, 623–647 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chaturantabut, S., Sorensen, D.C.: Nonlinear model reduction via discrete empirical interpolation. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 32(5), 2737–2764 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chaturantabut, S., Sorensen, D.C.: Application of POD and DEIM on dimension reduction of non-linear miscible viscous fingering in porous media. Math. Comput. Model. Dyn. Syst. 17(4), 337–353 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Christie, M., Blunt, M., et al.: Tenth spe comparative solution project: a comparison of upscaling techniques. In: SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Doren, J.F., Markovinović, R., Jansen, J.D.: Reduced-order optimal control of water flooding using proper orthogonal decomposition. Comput. Geosci. 10(1), 137–158 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    van Essen, G., Van den Hof, P., Jansen, J.D., et al.: A two-level strategy to realize life-cycle production optimization in an operational setting. SPE J. 18(06), 1–057 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Florez, H.: Domain decomposition methods for geomechanics. Ph.D. thesis The University of Texas at Austin (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Florez, H., Argáez, M.: Applications and comparison of model-order reduction methods based on wavelets and POD. In: Fuzzy Information Processing Society (NAFIPS), 2016 Annual Conference of the North American, pp. 1–8. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Florez, H., Argáez, M.: A model-order reduction method based on wavelets and POD to solve nonlinear transient and steady-state continuation problems. Appl. Math. Model. 53, 12–31 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Florez, H., Argaez, M.: A reduced order Gauss-Newton method for nonlinear problems based on compressed sensing for PDE applications, chap. 6, pp. 107–128. In Nonlinear Systems - Modeling, Estimation, and Stability. InTech Open.  https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74439. ISBN 978-1-78923-405-3 (2018)
  17. 17.
    Ghasemi, M., Gildin, E.: Localized model reduction in porous media flow. IFAC-PapersOnLine 48(6), 242–247 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ghasemi, M., Ibrahim, A., Gildin, E., et al.: Reduced order modeling in reservoir simulation using the bilinear approximation techniques. In: SPE Latin America and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gildin, E., Ghasemi, M.: A new model reduction technique applied to reservoir simulation. In: ECMOR XIV-14Th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gildin, E., Ghasemi, M., Romanovskay, A., Efendiev, Y.: Nonlinear complexity reduction for fast simulation of flow in heterogeneous porous media. In: SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    He, J., Durlofsky, L.J.: Reduced-order modeling for compositional simulation by use of trajectory piecewise linearization. SPE J. 19(05), 858–872 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    He, J., Durlofsky, L.J.: Constraint reduction procedures for reduced-order subsurface flow models based on POD–TPWL. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 103(1), 1–30 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    He, J., Sætrom, J., Durlofsky, L.J.: Enhanced linearized reduced-order models for subsurface flow simulation. Journal of Computational Physics 230(23), 8313–8341 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hinze, M., Volkwein, S.: Proper orthogonal decomposition surrogate models for nonlinear dynamical systems: error estimates and suboptimal control. In: Dimension Reduction of Large-Scale Systems, Pp. 261–306. Springer (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jafarpour, B., Tarrahi, M.: Assessing the performance of the ensemble Kalman filter for subsurface flow data integration under variogram uncertainty. Water Resour. Res. 47, W05537 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009090 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lie, K.A., Krogstad, S., Ligaarden, I.S., Natvig, J.R., Nilsen, H.M., Skaflestad, B.: Open-source matlab implementation of consistent discretisations on complex grids, vol. 16.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-011-9244-4(2012)
  27. 27.
    Ljung, L.: System ddentification. In: Signal Analysis and Prediction, pp. 163–173. Springer (1998)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Oliver, D.S., Reynolds, A.C., Liu, N.: Inverse theory for petroleum reservoir characterization and history matching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Peaceman, D.W., et al.: Interpretation of well-block pressures in numerical reservoir simulation with nonsquare grid blocks and anisotropic permeability. Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 23(03), 531–543 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Peherstorfer, B., Butnaru, D., Willcox, K., Bungartz, H.J.: Localized discrete empirical interpolation method. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 36(1), A168–A192 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shirangi, M.G., Emerick, A.A.: An improved tsvd-based Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm for history matching and comparison with Gauss–Newton. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 143, 258–271 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Trehan, S., Durlofsky, L.J.: Trajectory piecewise quadratic reduced-order model for subsurface flow, with application to pde-constrained optimization. J. Comput. Phys. 326, 446–473 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yang, Y., Ghasemi, M., Gildin, E., Efendiev, Y., Calo, V., et al.: Fast multiscale reservoir simulations with pod-deim model reduction. SPE J. 21(06), 2–141 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yoon, S., Alghareeb, Z.M., Williams, J.R., et al.: Hyper-reduced-order models for subsurface flow simulation. SPE J. 21(06), 2–128 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Texas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  2. 2.ExxonMobil Upstream Research CompanyHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations