Fuzzy Classification for Lithology Determination from Well Logs

  • Antoine Toumani
Part of the Modern Approaches in Geophysics book series (MAGE, volume 21)


A new hybrid fuzzy classification method has been employed successfully for the discrimination of lithology from well logs. It is based on the correlation of log responses from key boreholes having a known lithology, with the logs from neighbouring boreholes where only well logs are available. The method combines a model-based supervised classification and a model-free unsupervised clustering into a single classification. Both supervised/unsupervised parts are linked together by the fuzzy membership of the log data within the determined lithology. Fuzzy membership of the data serves also as a quality measure of the classification results, and provides valuable information concerning the reliability of the model. The classification approach has been used successfully for determining Upper Carboniferous lithologies from open hole logs in a multi-well study.


Coal Seam Fuzziness Measure Fuzzy Classification Hybrid Classification Lithology Column 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bensaid, A.M., Hall, L.O., Bezdek, J.C., and Clarke, L.P., 1996, Partially supervised clustering for image segmentation: Pattern Recognition, 29, 859–871.Google Scholar
  2. Bezdek, J.C., 1981, Pattern recognition with fuzzy objective function algorithms: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bezdek, J.C., 1996, A sampler of non-neural fuzzy models for clustering and classification: EUFIT 96, 4thGoogle Scholar
  4. European Congress on Intelligent Technique and Soft Computing, September 2, Tutorial Presentation, Aachen, Germany.Google Scholar
  5. Büttgenbach, T., 1990, Statistische Untersuchungen der Geschwindigkeits — Dichte Relation in kristallinen Gesteinen auf der Basis einer Datenbank: Ph.D. Dissertation, H77, Universität zu Köln, Germany.Google Scholar
  6. Choe, H., and Jordan, J.B., 1992, On the optimal choice of parameters in a fuzzy c-means algorithm: IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems, San Diego, 349–354.Google Scholar
  7. De La Cruz, M.A., and Takizawa, H., 1985, Automatic facies analysis in the Arab formations, El Bunduq field, offshore Abu Dahbi/Qatar: 60’h Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE, Las Vegas, NV September, 22–25.Google Scholar
  8. Delfiner, P.C., Peyret, O., and Serra, 0., 1984, Automatic determination of lithology from well logs: 59th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE of AIME, Houston, Texas, September, 16–19.Google Scholar
  9. Duda, R.O., and Hart, P.E., 1973, Pattern classification and scene analysis: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  10. Dunn, J.C., 1974, A fuzzy relative of the ISODATA process and its use in detecting compact, well separated clusters: J. Cybem., 3, 32–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gustafson, D.E., and Kessel, W.C., 1979, Fuzzy clustering with a fuzzy covariance matrix, in Fu, K.S., Ed., Proc. IEEE-CDC, 2, IEEE Press, Piscataway, New Jersey, 761–766.Google Scholar
  12. Hoffman, L.J.B., Hoogerbruge, P.J., and Lomas, A.T., 1988, LOGIX, a knowledge-based system for petrophysical evaluation: SPWLA 29th Annual Logging Symposium, June 5–8, R 1–13.Google Scholar
  13. Keller, J.M., Gray, M.R., and Givens, J.A., 1985, A Fuzzy K-nearest neighbour algorithm: IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-15, July/August, 580–585.Google Scholar
  14. Krishnapuram, R., and Keller, J.M., 1993, A possibilistic approach to clustering: IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 1, 98–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lashgari, B., 1991, Fuzzy classification with application to geophysical data, in Aminzadeh, F., and Simaan, M., Eds., Expert systems in exploration, Geophysical Development Series, 3, Society of Exploration Geophysicists.Google Scholar
  16. Mitchell, W.K., and Nelson, R.J., 1988, A practical approach to statistical log analysis: SPWLA 29th Annual Logging Symposium, June 5–8, 1–19.Google Scholar
  17. Pedryc, W., 1985, Algorithm of fuzzy clustering with partially supervision: Pattern Recognition Lett., 3, 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Quirein, J., Kimminau, S., La Vigne, J., Singer, J., and Wendel, F., 1986, A coherent framework for developing and applying multiple formation evaluation models: SPWLA 27th Annual Logging Symposium, June 9–13, S 1–19.Google Scholar
  19. Ruspini, E., 1969, A new approach to clustering: Information and Control, 15, 22–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schmitz, D., 1983, Die Interpretation der verschiedenen Gesteinstypen des Oberkarbons (Westfal A-C) aus Kernbohrungen des Ruhrreviers nach geophysikalischen Bohrlochmessungen: Ph.D. Dissertation, Technische Universität Hannover, Germany.Google Scholar
  21. Serra, O., and Abott, H.T., 1982, The contribution of logging data to sedimentology and stratigraphy: Trans. of SPE ofAIME, Feb., 117–131.Google Scholar
  22. Serra, O., Delfiner, P., and Levert, J.C., 1985, Lithology determination from well-logs: Case study: SPWLA 26rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 17–20, WW 1–19.Google Scholar
  23. Serra, 0., 1986, Fundamentals of well-log interpretation: 2, The Interpretation of Logging Data, Elsevier publication.Google Scholar
  24. Stephanou, H.E., 1985, Imperfectly supervised classification using fuzzy prototypes- IEEE Proceedings of Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conf., San Francisco, 144–148.Google Scholar
  25. Stowe, I., and Hock, M., 1988, Facies analysis and diagenesis from well logs in the Zechstein carbonates of northern Germany: SPWLA 29rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 5–8, HH 1–25.Google Scholar
  26. Toumani, A., 1995, Fuzzy Klassifikation von geophysikalischen Bohrlochmessungen zur Lithologie-bestimmung am Beispiel des Oberkarbons: Ph.D. Dissertation, Universität zu Köln, H102, Germany.Google Scholar
  27. Westphal, H., and Bornholdt, S., 1996, Lithofacies prediction from wireline logs with genetic algorithms and neural networks: Zeitschrift der deutschen geologischen Gesellschaft, Stuttgart, Germany, 455–474.Google Scholar
  28. Wollt; M., and Pelissier-Combescure, J., 1982, FACIOLOG–automatic electrofacies determination: SPWLA 23rd Annual Logging Symposium, July 6–9, F 1–23.Google Scholar
  29. Xuanli, L.X., and Gerardo, B., 1991, A validity measure for fuzzy clustering IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 13, 841–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zadeh, L.A., 1965, Fuzzy sets: Information and Control, 8, 338–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antoine Toumani
    • 1
  1. 1.GeoTec Division, Geo-EngineeringDMT GmbHEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations