the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
About the Trustworthiness of Physics-Based Machine Learning – A Considerations for Geomechanical Applications
Abstract. Model predictions are important to assess the subsurface state distributions (such as the stress), which are essential to, for instance, determine the location of potential nuclear waste disposal sites. Providing these predictions with quantified uncertainties often requires a large number of simulations, which is difficult due to the high CPU time needed. One possibility for addressing the computational burden is surrogate models. Purely data-driven approaches face challenges when operating in data-sparse application fields such as geomechanical modeling or by producing interpretable models. The latter aspect is critical for applications such as nuclear waste disposal, where it is essential to provide trustworthy predictions. To overcome the challenge of trustworthiness, we propose the usage of a novel hybrid machine learning method, namely the non-intrusive reduced basis method. This method resolves both of the above challenges while being orders of magnitude faster than classical finite element models. In the paper, we demonstrate the usage of the non-intrusive reduced basis method for 3-D geomechanical-numerical modeling with a comprehensive sensitivity assessment. The usage of these surrogate geomechanical models yields a speed-up of six orders of magnitude while maintaining global errors in the range of less than 0.01 %. Because of this enormous reduction in computation time, computational demanding methods such as global sensitivity analyses become feasible, which provide valuable information about the contribution of the various model parameters to stress variability. The consequences of these added benefits are demonstrated for a benchmark example and a simplified study for a siting region for a potential nuclear waste repository in Nördlich Lägern (Switzerland).
- Preprint
(4203 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 20 Dec 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2932', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Dec 2024
reply
The paper considers machine learning based on non-intrusive reduced basis methods for 3D geomechanical modeling to speed up geomechanical stress calculations. The methodology is tested for modeling the in-situ stress for test cases considering uncertainty in geological structure, rock parameters, and boundary conditions and illustrating how the methodology enables comprehensive sensitivity assessments.
I accepted to review this paper as I am interested in methods for estimation and uncertainty quantification of in-situ stress. However, as I am new to the methodology presented in the paper, I found it a bit challenging to read as it assumes significant previous knowledge of the reader. Hence, my comments must be seen in light of this lack of expertise.
Specific comments
- There is a language mistake in the abstract in the sentence on l. 4-5.
- I do not fully understand how the need to consider rapid changes in state distribution follows from the description of models 1-3 in the introduction as stated in the sentence on l. 68, starting with "Consequently, ...".
- In section 2.3 it would improve readability if it could be clearly stated what is being modeled as this would link the section better to the previous sections. While section 2.1 refers to "common assumption" and data that is commonly available and not available, it is not fully clear how this links to the assumptions used in the current work. From reading the previous sections, one could guess that it is the four variables describing the stress state (the reduced stress tensor). Later, however, it appears that it is only S_hmin, S_Hmax and S_v which are modeled. The type of heterogeneity that is assumed or allowed in the model must also be stated.
- In section 2.2, I think the constitutive law for linear elasticity and the notation for the related rock parameters should be stated for completeness. Now, Poisson's ratio and Young's modulus are defined, but this is in the caption of Figure 3. I think it would improve readability to define these central parameters when the governing equations are introduced.
- How the boundary conditions are defined is not fully clear to me. Based on what is written it seems to be Dirichlet conditions (with the indicated variability) at the top, but the conditions at the other boundaries are not clear to me. It would be good if the boundary conditions at each face of the domain could be precisely stated. If I understand correctly, the boundary conditions are chosen so that the principal axis of the stress align with the coordinate system.
- I was missing the definition of the notation introduced in Fig. 2, but I realized it comes later (related to eq. (5)), to improve readability, the notation should be introduced when it is first used.
- The definition of the lambdas is missing related to eq (4).
- When I read the section on the synthetic model, I got curious about how the methodology would perform considering layering which is not uniform in depth. It would be nice to comment on this. This also relates to my previous comment on heterogeneity.
- In the pdf of the manuscript that I downloaded, figure 4 a) and b) and related figures are a bit blurry. It seems like the FE simulations and the NI-RB simulations have a very good agreement, but it is a bit difficult to see and due to the resolution it did not help to zoom in on the figure.
- It is not clear to me how "Model Error" is defined, it would be good to have the exact definition.
- Based on the information provided, it is not fully clear to me what is shown in Figure 4 c) and d), it would be good if a definition of "sensitivity" was provided. It would also be good with a comment explaining the "equal" and "non-equal" "x- and y-strains".
- There is a mistake in the sentence starting on l. 386.
- Caption is missing for Figure 9 d).
- I do not understand the bias in the sensitivity analysis that according to the authors is caused by layer thickness and can be mitigated by choosing the same number of elements for each layer. While I can see that the results change if the same number of elements are chosen for each layer, why this is the case is not clear. It is also not clear what "cells" refer to. If the same is meant by "cells" and "elements" it would be good to stick with one terminology.
- The boundary conditions for the Case study presented in Section 4.6 should be stated.
- In the discussion, it is commented (l. 474) that large shifts in the state can occur also for hydrological studies when the permeability contrast is large (e.g. pressure discontinuity if there are almost impermeable zones). This is correct, but it is not in agreement with what was stated in the introduction on l. 72. I think some information needs to be added in order to avoid confusion.
- In the discussion, l. 460. it is referred to visible deviations between the reduced and full-order models, but I am not able to see this in the figure.
- It would be good to include a discussion on how this methodology can/is be combined with real data on stress magnitudes, e.g. from downhole experiments. A short comment is given in the sentence starting on l. 111 but it is not clear to me if or how this is done in the present work.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2932-RC1
Data sets
Non-Intrusive Reduced Basis Code for Elastic Geomechanical Models Denise Degen, Moritz Ziegler, Oliver Heidbach, Andreas Henk, Karsten Reiter, and Florian Wellmann https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13767010
Model code and software
Non-Intrusive Reduced Basis Code for Elastic Geomechanical Models Denise Degen, Moritz Ziegler, Oliver Heidbach, Andreas Henk, Karsten Reiter, and Florian Wellmann https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13767010
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
288 | 48 | 10 | 346 | 3 | 3 |
- HTML: 288
- PDF: 48
- XML: 10
- Total: 346
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1