Digital rock physics benchmarks-Part I: Imaging and segmentation

Authors:
Heiko Andrä;Nicolas Combaret;Jack Dvorkin;Erik Glatt;Junehee Han;Matthias Kabel;Youngseuk Keehm;Fabian Krzikalla;Minhui Lee;Claudio Madonna;Mike Marsh;Tapan Mukerji;Erik H. Saenger;Ratnanabha Sain;Nishank Saxena;Sarah Ricker;Andreas Wiegmann;Xin Zhan
Affiliations:
Fraunhofer ITWM, Germany;VSG, USA;Stanford University, USA;Fraunhofer ITWM, Germany;Kongju University, South Korea;Fraunhofer ITWM, Germany;Kongju University, South Korea;Stanford University, USA;Kongju University, South Korea;ETH Zürich, Switzerland;VSG, USA;Stanford University, USA;ETH Zürich, Switzerland;ExxonMobil, USA;Stanford University, USA;Fraunhofer ITWM, Germany;Fraunhofer ITWM, Germany;ExxonMobil, USA
Venue:
Computers & Geosciences
Year:
2013

Citing 2
Cited 0

Acquisition, optimization and interpretation of X-ray computed tomographic imagery: applications to the geosciences

Computers & Geosciences - Special issue on three-dimensional reconstruction, modelling and visualization of geologic materials
A Non-Local Algorithm for Image Denoising

CVPR '05 Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'05) - Volume 2 - Volume 02

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

The key paradigm of digital rock physics (DRP) ''image and compute'' implies imaging and digitizing the pore space and mineral matrix of natural rock and then numerically simulating various physical processes in this digital object to obtain such macroscopic rock properties as permeability, electrical conductivity, and elastic moduli. The steps of this process include image acquisition, image processing (noise reduction, smoothing, and segmentation); setting up the numerical experiment (object size and resolution as well as the boundary conditions); and numerically solving the field equations. Finally, we need to interpret the solution thus obtained in terms of the desired macroscopic properties. For each of these DRP steps, there is more than one method and implementation. Our goal is to explore and record the variability of the computed effective properties as a function of using different tools and workflows. Such benchmarking is the topic of the two present companion papers. Here, in the first part, we introduce four 3D microstructures, a segmented Fontainebleau sandstone sample (porosity 0.147), a gray-scale Berea sample; a gray-scale Grosmont carbonate sample; and a numerically constructed pack of solid spheres (porosity 0.343). Segmentation of the gray-scale images by three independent teams reveals the uncertainty of this process: the segmented porosity range is between 0.184 and 0.209 for Berea and between 0.195 and 0.271 for the carbonate. The implications of the uncertainty associated with image segmentation are explored in a second paper.