2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.jngse.2017.12.032
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reconstruction of 3D porous media using multiple-point statistics based on a 3D training image

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
30
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 59 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
0
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There are both advantages and disadvantages to every technique. A detailed literature review of these methods is discussed elsewhere (Tahmasebi & Sahimi, 2012;Wu, Lin, Ren, Yan, An, et al, 2018a). In our study, we modified the conventional QSGS that was developed by Wang et al (2007).…”
Section: Quartet Structure Generation Setmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are both advantages and disadvantages to every technique. A detailed literature review of these methods is discussed elsewhere (Tahmasebi & Sahimi, 2012;Wu, Lin, Ren, Yan, An, et al, 2018a). In our study, we modified the conventional QSGS that was developed by Wang et al (2007).…”
Section: Quartet Structure Generation Setmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Monte Carlo (MCMC) Method. In 2004, the MCMC reconstruction method was proposed by Wu et al, who applied this technique to the 2D reconstruction of soil structure [149]. In 2006, Wu et al extended the 2D digital core-reconstruction method into three dimensions and proposed an MCMC-based 3D digital corereconstruction method [150].…”
Section: Markov Chainmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In 2017, Peng [173] established a digital core of a shale reservoir by using the MPS method and concluded that the MPS method can effectively reconstruct large-scale digital cores of shale reservoirs by evaluating the function and permeability results. In 2018, Wu et al [149] combined the MPS method with 3D digital core data to reconstruct a more accurate digital core.…”
Section: Markov Chainmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Figure shows the pore size distribution for the 3D printed real samples #1, # 4, #7 and the equivalent computationally-generated samples #9, #11, #15. In this paper, we considered pore size instead of average void diameter, as the former parameter captures better the local features of the 3D pore network [39]. It can be seen that the computationally generated samples have a more homogeneous pore size distribution than the real samples.…”
Section: Comparison Between Computationally-generated and Real 3d Primentioning
confidence: 99%