Articles | Volume 14, issue 6
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3899-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3899-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Constraining stochastic 3-D structural geological models with topology information using approximate Bayesian computation in GemPy 2.1
Alexander Schaaf
Geology and Petroleum Geology, School of Geosciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB24 3UE, UK
Computational Geoscience and Reservoir Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
Miguel de la Varga
Computational Geoscience and Reservoir Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
Florian Wellmann
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Computational Geoscience and Reservoir Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
Clare E. Bond
Geology and Petroleum Geology, School of Geosciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB24 3UE, UK
Related authors
No articles found.
Friedrich Carl, Peter Achtziger-Zupančič, Jian Yang, Marlise Colling Cassel, and Florian Wellmann
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3203, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3203, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Solid Earth (SE).
Short summary
Short summary
A method for shape quantification based on geometrical parameters is proposed alongside a set of regular geometries established as geomodeling benchmarks. Dimensions, gradient and curvature data is obtained on cross-sections. Data analyses provide insight into the main geometrical characteristics of the benchmark models and visualizes geometrical dis-/similarities between bodies. The method and benchmarks are usable in geomodeling workflows and structural comparisons based on sparse data.
Denise Degen, Moritz Ziegler, Oliver Heidbach, Andreas Henk, Karsten Reiter, and Florian Wellmann
Solid Earth, 16, 477–502, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-16-477-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-16-477-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Obtaining reliable estimates of the subsurface state distributions is essential to determine the location of, e.g., potential nuclear waste disposal sites. However, providing these is challenging since it requires solving the problem numerous times, yielding high computational cost. To overcome this, we use a physics-based machine learning method to construct surrogate models. We demonstrate how it produces physics-preserving predictions, which differentiates it from purely data-driven approaches.
Denise Degen, Daniel Caviedes Voullième, Susanne Buiter, Harrie-Jan Hendricks Franssen, Harry Vereecken, Ana González-Nicolás, and Florian Wellmann
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 7375–7409, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7375-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7375-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
In geosciences, we often use simulations based on physical laws. These simulations can be computationally expensive, which is a problem if simulations must be performed many times (e.g., to add error bounds). We show how a novel machine learning method helps to reduce simulation time. In comparison to other approaches, which typically only look at the output of a simulation, the method considers physical laws in the simulation itself. The method provides reliable results faster than standard.
Michael Hillier, Florian Wellmann, Eric A. de Kemp, Boyan Brodaric, Ernst Schetselaar, and Karine Bédard
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 6987–7012, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6987-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6987-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Neural networks can be used effectively to model three-dimensional geological structures from point data, sampling geological interfaces, units, and structural orientations. Existing neural network approaches for this type of modelling are advanced by the efficient incorporation of unconformities, new knowledge inputs, and improved data fitting techniques. These advances permit the modelling of more complex geology in diverse geological settings, different-sized areas, and various data regimes.
Adam J. Cawood, Hannah Watkins, Clare E. Bond, Marian J. Warren, and Mark A. Cooper
Solid Earth, 14, 1005–1030, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-14-1005-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-14-1005-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Here we test conceptual models of fracture development by investigating fractures across multiple scales. We find that most fractures increase in abundance towards the fold hinge, and we interpret these as being fold related. Other fractures at the site show inconsistent orientations and are unrelated to fold formation. Our results show that predicting fracture patterns requires the consideration of multiple geologic variables.
Mohammad Moulaeifard, Simon Bernard, and Florian Wellmann
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3565–3579, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3565-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3565-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
In this work, we propose a flexible framework to generate and interact with geological models using explicit surface representations. The essence of the work lies in the determination of the flexible control mesh, topologically similar to the main geological structure, watertight and controllable with few control points, to manage the geological structures. We exploited the subdivision surface method in our work, which is commonly used in the animation and gaming industry.
Michał P. Michalak, Lesław Teper, Florian Wellmann, Jerzy Żaba, Krzysztof Gaidzik, Marcin Kostur, Yuriy P. Maystrenko, and Paulina Leonowicz
Solid Earth, 13, 1697–1720, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-13-1697-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-13-1697-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
When characterizing geological/geophysical surfaces, various geometric attributes are calculated, such as dip angle (1D) or dip direction (2D). However, the boundaries between specific values may be subjective and without optimization significance, resulting from using default color palletes. This study proposes minimizing cosine distance among within-cluster observations to detect 3D anomalies. Our results suggest that the method holds promise for identification of megacylinders or megacones.
Clare E. Bond, Jessica H. Pugsley, Lauren Kedar, Sarah R. Ledingham, Marianna Z. Skupinska, Tomasz K. Gluzinski, and Megan L. Boath
Geosci. Commun., 5, 307–323, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-5-307-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-5-307-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Virtual field trips are used to engage students who are unable to go into the field with geological field work. Here, we investigate the perceptions of staff and students before and after a virtual field trip, including the investigation of the success of mitigation measures designed to decrease barriers to engagement and inclusion. We conclude that negative and positive perceptions exist and that effective mitigation measures can be used to improve the student experience.
Lauren Kedar, Clare E. Bond, and David K. Muirhead
Solid Earth, 13, 1495–1511, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-13-1495-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-13-1495-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Raman spectroscopy of carbon-bearing rocks is often used to calculate peak temperatures and therefore burial history. However, strain is known to affect Raman spectral parameters. We investigate a series of deformed rocks that have been subjected to varying degrees of strain and find that there is a consistent change in some parameters in the most strained rocks, while other parameters are not affected by strain. We apply temperature calculations and find that strain affects them differently.
Jennifer J. Roberts, Clare E. Bond, and Zoe K. Shipton
Geosci. Commun., 4, 303–327, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-4-303-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-4-303-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The potential for hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to induce seismicity is a topic of widespread interest. We find that terms used to describe induced seismicity are poorly defined and ambiguous and do not translate into everyday language. Such bad language has led to challenges in understanding, perceiving, and communicating risks around seismicity and fracking. Our findings and recommendations are relevant to other geoenergy topics that are potentially associated with induced seismicity.
Clare E. Bond and Adam J. Cawood
Geosci. Commun., 4, 233–244, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-4-233-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-4-233-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Virtual outcrop models are increasingly used in geoscience teaching, but their efficacy as a training tool for 3D thinking has been little tested. We find that using a virtual outcrop increases the participants' ability to choose the correct geological block model. That virtual outcrops are viewed positively, but only in a blended learning environment and not as a replacement for fieldwork, and virtual outcrop use could improve equality, diversity and inclusivity in geoscience.
Stephanie Thiesen, Diego M. Vieira, Mirko Mälicke, Ralf Loritz, J. Florian Wellmann, and Uwe Ehret
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 4523–4540, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-4523-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-4523-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
A spatial interpolator has been proposed for exploring the information content of the data in the light of geostatistics and information theory. It showed comparable results to traditional interpolators, with the advantage of presenting generalization properties. We discussed three different ways of combining distributions and their implications for the probabilistic results. By its construction, the method provides a suitable and flexible framework for uncertainty analysis and decision-making.
Cited articles
Baddeley, M. C., Curtis, A., and Wood, R.: An introduction to prior information derived from probabilistic judgements: elicitation of knowledge, cognitive bias and herding, Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 239, 15–27, 2004. a
Bardossy, G. and Fodor, J.: Evaluation of Uncertainties and Risks in
Geology: New Mathematical Approaches for Their Handling,
Springer Science & Business Media, 2013. a
Bistacchi, A., Massironi, M., Dal Piaz, G. V., Dal Piaz, G., Monopoli, B.,
Schiavo, A., and Toffolon, G.: 3D Fold and Fault Reconstruction with an
Uncertainty Model: An Example from an Alpine Tunnel Case Study,
Comput. Geosc., 34, 351–372, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2007.04.002,
2008. a
Bond, C., Gibbs, A., Shipton, Z., and Jones, S.: What Do You Think This Is? “Conceptual Uncertainty” in Geoscience Interpretation, GSA Today, 17,
4, https://doi.org/10.1130/GSAT01711A.1, 2007. a, b
Bond, C. E.: Uncertainty in structural interpretation: Lessons to be learnt,
J. Struct. Geol., 74, 185–200, 2015. a
Bond, C. E., Shipton, Z. K., Gibbs, A. D., and Jones, S.: Structural models:
optimizing risk analysis by understanding conceptual uncertainty, First
Break, 26, 6, https://doi.org/10.3997/1365-2397.2008006, 2008. a
Brandes, C. and Tanner, D. C.: Fault-related folding: A review of kinematic
models and their application, Earth-Sci. Rev., 138, 352–370, 2014. a
Butler, R. W., Bond, C. E., Cooper, M. A., and Watkins, H.: Interpreting
structural geometry in fold-thrust belts: Why style matters, J.
Struct. Geol., 114, 251–273, 2018. a
Calcagno, P., Chilès, J. P., Courrioux, G., and Guillen, A.: Geological
Modelling from Field Data and Geological Knowledge: Part I. Modelling
Method Coupling 3D Potential-Field Interpolation and Geological Rules,
Phys. Earth Planet. In., 171, 147–157,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2008.06.013, 2008. a
Chilès, J. P., Aug, C., Guillen, A., and Lees, T.: Modelling the
Geometry of Geological Units and Its Uncertainty in 3D From
Structural Data: The Potential-Field Method, Proceedings of international symposium on orebody modelling and strategic mine planning, Perth, Australia, 22, 24 pp., 2004. a
Crossley, M. D.: Essential Topology, Springer Science & Business Media,
2006. a
Curtis, A. and Wood, R.: Optimal Elicitation of Probabilistic Information from Experts, Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 239, 127–145,
https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.2004.239.01.09, 2004. a
de la Varga, M. and Wellmann, J. F.: Structural Geologic Modeling as an
Inference Problem: A Bayesian Perspective, Interpretation, 4, SM1–SM16,
https://doi.org/10.1190/INT-2015-0188.1, 2016. a, b, c
de la Varga, M., Schaaf, A., and Wellmann, F.: GemPy 1.0: open-source stochastic geological modeling and inversion, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 1–32, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1-2019, 2019. a, b
Del Moral, P., Doucet, A., and Jasra, A.: An Adaptive Sequential Monte
Carlo Method for Approximate Bayesian Computation, Stat.
Comput., 22, 1009–1020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11222-011-9271-y, 2012. a
Egenhofer, M. J.: Categorizing binary topological relations between regions, lines, and points in geographic databases, Santa Barbara CA National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Technical Report, 9, 76 pp.,
1990. a
Feroz, F. and Hobson, M. P.: Multimodal Nested Sampling: An Efficient and
Robust Alternative to Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods for Astronomical
Data Analyses, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 384,
449–463, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12353.x, 2008. a
Fossen, H.: Structural Geology, Cambridge University Press, 1st Edn.,
2010. a
Fossen, H. and Hesthammer, J.: Structural Geology of the Gullfaks Field,
Northern North Sea, Geological Society, London, Special Publications,
127, 231–261, https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.1998.127.01.16, 1998. a, b
Fossen, H. and Rørnes, A.: Properties of Fault Populations in the Gullfaks Field, Northern North Sea, J. Struct. Geol., 18, 179–190,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8141(96)80043-5, 1996. a
Fossen, H., Odinsen, T., Færseth, R. B., and Gabrielsen, R. H.: Detachments and Low-Angle Faults in the Northern North Sea Rift System, Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 167, 105–131,
https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.2000.167.01.06, 2000. a
Frodeman, R.: Geological Reasoning: Geology as an Interpretive and
Historical Science, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 107, 960–0968,
https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1995)107<0960:GRGAAI>2.3.CO;2, 1995. a
Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., Dunson, D. B., Vehtari, A., and Rubin,
D. B.: Bayesian Data Analysis, Chapman and Hall/CRC, 675 pp.,
https://doi.org/10.1201/b16018, 2013. a
Groshong, R., Bond, C., Gibbs, A., Ratcliff, R., and Wiltschko, D.: Preface:
Structural balancing at the start of the 21st century: 100 years since
Chamberlin, J. Struct. Geol., 41, 1–5, 2012. a
Gutmann, M. U. and Corander, J.: Bayesian Optimization for
Likelihood-Free Inference of Simulator-Based Statistical
Models, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 17, 1–47, 2016. a
Hamming, R. W.: Error detecting and error correcting codes, The Bell system
technical journal, 29, 147–160, 1950. a
Hillier, M. J., Schetselaar, E. M., de Kemp, E. A., and Perron, G.:
Three-Dimensional Modelling of Geological Surfaces Using Generalized
Interpolation with Radial Basis Functions, Math. Geosci.,
46, 931–953, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-014-9540-3, 2014. a
Jaccard, P.: The Distribution of the Flora in the Alpine Zone.1,
New Phytologist, 11, 37–50, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1912.tb05611.x, 1912. a
Jessell, M., Aillères, L., de Kemp, E., Lindsay, M., Wellmann, F., Hillier, M., Laurent, G., Carmichael, T., and Martin, R.: Next Generation
Three-Dimensional Geologic Modeling and Inversion, in: Building
Exploration Capability for the 21st Century, Society of Economic Geologists, https://doi.org/10.5382/SP.18.13, 2014. a
Koller, D., Friedman, N., and Bach, F.: Probabilistic Graphical Models:
Principles and Techniques, MIT Press, 2009. a
Krajnovich, A., Zhou, W., and Gutierrez, M.: Uncertainty assessment for 3D geologic modeling of fault zones based on geologic inputs and prior knowledge, Solid Earth, 11, 1457–1474, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-11-1457-2020, 2020. a
Lajaunie, C., Courrioux, G., and Manuel, L.: Foliation Fields and 3D
Cartography in Geology: Principles of a Method Based on Potential
Interpolation, Math. Geol., 29, 571–584, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02775087,
1997. a
Laurent, G., Ailleres, L., Grose, L., Caumon, G., Jessell, M., and Armit, R.:
Implicit Modeling of Folds and Overprinting Deformation, Earth Planet.
Sc. Lett., 456, 26–38, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2016.09.040, 2016. a, b
Lindsay, M. D., Aillères, L., Jessell, M. W., de Kemp, E. A., and Betts, P. G.: Locating and Quantifying Geological Uncertainty in Three-Dimensional Models: Analysis of the Gippsland Basin, Southeastern Australia, Tectonophysics, 546–547, 10–27, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2012.04.007, 2012. a
MacKay, D. J. C. and Kay, D. J. C. M.: Information Theory, Inference
and Learning Algorithms, Cambridge University Press, 2003. a
Mallet, J.-L.: Space – Time Mathematical Framework for
Sedimentary Geology, Math. Geol., 36, 1–32,
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MATG.0000016228.75495.7c, 2004. a
Marin, J.-M., Pudlo, P., Robert, C. P., and Ryder, R. J.: Approximate
Bayesian Computational Methods, Stat. Comput., 22, 1167–1180,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11222-011-9288-2, 2012. a
Pakyuz-Charrier, E.: Uncertainty Is an Asset: Monte Carlo Simulation for Uncertainty Estimation in Implicit 3D Geological Modelling [PhD Thesis], University of Western Australia, 2018. a
Pakyuz-Charrier, E., Jessell, M., Giraud, J., Lindsay, M., and Ogarko, V.: Topological analysis in Monte Carlo simulation for uncertainty propagation, Solid Earth, 10, 1663–1684, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-10-1663-2019, 2019. a, b, c
Polson, D. and Curtis, A.: Dynamics of Uncertainty in Geological
Interpretation, J. Geol. Soc., 167, 5–10,
https://doi.org/10.1144/0016-76492009-055, 2010. a
Sadegh, M. and Vrugt, J. A.: Approximate Bayesian Computation Using
Markov Chain Monte Carlo Simulation: DREAM (ABC), Water Resour.
Res., 50, 6767–6787, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015386, 2014. a, b, c
Schaaf, A.: Code and Data for Constraining stochastic 3-D structural
geological models with topology information using Approximate Bayesian
Computation [dataset], Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3820075, 2020. a
Schaaf, A. and Bond, C. E.: Quantification of uncertainty in 3-D seismic interpretation: implications for deterministic and stochastic geomodeling and machine learning, Solid Earth, 10, 1049–1061, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-10-1049-2019, 2019. a
Stamm, F. A., de la Varga, M., and Wellmann, F.: Actors, actions, and uncertainties: optimizing decision-making based on 3-D structural geological models, Solid Earth, 10, 2015–2043, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-10-2015-2019, 2019. a
Sullivan, C. and Kaszynski, A.: PyVista: 3D Plotting and Mesh Analysis through a Streamlined Interface for the Visualization Toolkit (VTK), Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1450, https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01450, 2019. a
Sunnåker, M., Busetto, A. G., Numminen, E., Corander, J., Foll, M., and
Dessimoz, C.: Approximate Bayesian Computation, PLoS Comput.
Biol., 9, e1002803, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002803, 2013. a
Suzuki, S., Caumon, G., and Caers, J.: Dynamic Data Integration for Structural Modeling: Model Screening Approach Using a Distance-Based Model
Parameterization, Comput. Geosci., 12, 105–119,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-007-9063-9, 2008.
a
Tacher, L., Pomian-Srzednicki, I., and Parriaux, A.: Geological Uncertainties Associated with 3-D Subsurface Models, Comput. Geosci., 32, 212–221, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2005.06.010, 2006. a
Theano Development Team: Theano: A Python Framework for Fast Computation
of Mathematical Expressions, arXiv, arXiv:1605.02688 [cs], May 2016. a
Thore, P., Shtuka, A., Lecour, M., Ait-Ettajer, T., and Cognot, R.: Structural Uncertainties: Determination, Management, and Applications, Geophysics, 67, 840–852, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1484528, 2002. a
VanderPlas, J.: Frequentism and Bayesianism: A Python-Driven
Primer, arXiv, arXiv:1411.5018 [astro-ph], November 2014. a
Wellmann, J. F.: Information Theory for Correlation Analysis and
Estimation of Uncertainty Reduction in Maps and Models,
Entropy, 15, 1464–1485, https://doi.org/10.3390/e15041464, 2013. a
Wellmann, J. F. and Regenauer-Lieb, K.: Uncertainties Have a Meaning:
Information Entropy as a Quality Measure for 3-D Geological Models,
Tectonophysics, 526–529, 207–216, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2011.05.001, 2012. a, b
Wellmann, J. F., Horowitz, F. G., Schill, E., and Regenauer-Lieb, K.: Towards Incorporating Uncertainty of Structural Data in 3D Geological Inversion,
Tectonophysics, 490, 141–151, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2010.04.022, 2010. a
Wellmann, J. F., Thiele, S. T., Lindsay, M. D., and Jessell, M. W.: pynoddy 1.0: an experimental platform for automated 3-D kinematic and potential field modelling, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1019–1035, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1019-2016, 2016. a
Wellmann, J. F., de la Varga, M., Murdie, R. E., Gessner, K., and Jessell,
M.: Uncertainty Estimation for a Geological Model of the Sandstone
Greenstone Belt, Western Australia – Insights from Integrated
Geological and Geophysical Inversion in a Bayesian Inference Framework,
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, SP453.12,
https://doi.org/10.1144/SP453.12, 2017. a
Wood, R. and Curtis, A.: Geological Prior Information and Its Applications to
Geoscientific Problems, Geological Society, London, Special Publications,
239, 1.2–14, https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.2004.239.01.01, 2004. a
Zlatanova, S.: On 3D Topological Relationships, in: Proceedings 11th
International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems
Applications, 913–919, https://doi.org/10.1109/DEXA.2000.875135, 2000. a
Short summary
Uncertainty is an inherent property of any model of the subsurface. We show how geological topology information – how different regions of rocks in the subsurface are connected – can be used to train uncertain geological models to reduce uncertainty. More widely, the method demonstrates the use of probabilistic machine learning (Bayesian inference) to train structural geological models on auxiliary geological knowledge that can be encoded in graph structures.
Uncertainty is an inherent property of any model of the subsurface. We show how geological...