Digital rock physics benchmarks - Part I: Imaging and segmentation

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.

[1]  P. Jacobs,et al.  Applications of X-ray computed tomography in the geosciences , 2003, Geological Society, London, Special Publications.

[2]  F. Birch The velocity of compressional waves in rocks to 10 kilobars: 1. , 1960 .

[3]  A. Nur,et al.  Effects of porosity and clay content on wave velocities in sandstones , 1986 .

[4]  Christoph H. Arns,et al.  Digital rock physics: 3D imaging of core material and correlations to acoustic and flow properties , 2009 .

[5]  Erik H. Saenger,et al.  Digital rock physics: numerical prediction of pressure-dependent ultrasonic velocities using micro-CT imaging , 2012 .

[6]  W. B. Lindquist,et al.  Pore and throat size distributions measured from synchrotron X-ray tomographic images of Fontaineble , 2000 .

[7]  Hertz On the Contact of Elastic Solids , 1882 .

[8]  Jean-Michel Morel,et al.  A non-local algorithm for image denoising , 2005, 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'05).

[9]  R. Abela,et al.  Trends in synchrotron-based tomographic imaging: the SLS experience , 2006, SPIE Optics + Photonics.

[10]  J. W. Martin,et al.  Pore geometry and transport properties of Fontainebleau sandstone , 1993 .

[11]  J. Israelachvili,et al.  Measurement of the deformation and adhesion of solids in contact , 1987 .

[12]  H. Giesche,et al.  Mercury Porosimetry: A General (Practical) Overview , 2006 .

[13]  R. Ketcham,et al.  Acquisition, optimization and interpretation of X-ray computed tomographic imagery: applications to the geosciences , 2001 .

[14]  W. B. Lindquist,et al.  Investigating 3D geometry of porous media from high resolution images , 1999 .

[15]  D. Rothman,et al.  Two-fluid flow in sedimentary rock: simulation, transport and complexity , 1997, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[16]  N. Otsu A threshold selection method from gray level histograms , 1979 .

[17]  N. Christensen Compressional wave velocities in metamorphic rocks at pressures to 10 kilobars , 1965 .

[18]  Ratnanabha Sain,et al.  Numerical simulation of pore-scale heterogeneity and its effects on elastic, electrical, and transport properties , 2011 .

[19]  T. Patzek,et al.  Pore space morphology analysis using maximal inscribed spheres , 2006 .

[20]  Y. Keehm,et al.  Permeability prediction from thin sections: 3D reconstruction and Lattice‐Boltzmann flow simulation , 2004 .

[21]  S. Bakke,et al.  Process Based Reconstruction of Sandstones and Prediction of Transport Properties , 2002 .

[22]  Ioannis Chatzis,et al.  Permeability and electrical conductivity of porous media from 3D stochastic replicas of the microstructure , 2000 .

[23]  R. D. Mindlin Elastic Spheres in Contact Under Varying Oblique Forces , 1953 .

[24]  Bülent Sankur,et al.  Survey over image thresholding techniques and quantitative performance evaluation , 2004, J. Electronic Imaging.

[25]  Marco Stampanoni,et al.  X-ray Tomographic Microscopy at TOMCAT , 2009 .

[26]  B. E. Buschkuehle,et al.  An Overview of the Geology of the Upper Devonian Grosmont Carbonate Bitumen Deposit, Northern Alberta, Canada , 2007 .

[27]  M. Tuller,et al.  Segmentation of X‐ray computed tomography images of porous materials: A crucial step for characterization and quantitative analysis of pore structures , 2009 .

[28]  John A. Goldak,et al.  Constructing discrete medial axis of 3-D objects , 1991, Int. J. Comput. Geom. Appl..