1887
Volume 72, Issue 5
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

Abstract

Digital rock physics is a workflow that relies on imaging techniques to quickly and cost‐effectively estimate the petrophysical properties of small core samples taken from reservoirs. By using digital representations of rock samples as input, physics‐based simulators can estimate properties such as porosity and permeability. The accuracy of these estimates depends on the quality of the digital volumes generated from micro‐computed tomography scans. To enhance the accuracy, denoising is necessary to reduce image noise caused by various experimental factors like electronic noise and bad pixels. This study introduces a novel two‐step denoising pipeline that combines adaptive morphological filtering with non‐local means smoothing, ensuring both noise reduction and preservation of edges. The effectiveness of the proposed pipeline is assessed through qualitative evaluation using optimal segmentation results and quantitative evaluation using a non‐reference metric and equivalent number of looks. Comparing the results of the two‐step approach with traditional non‐local means and morphology‐based filtering using a multi‐resolution structurally varying bitonic filter, the non‐reference metric and equivalent number of looks values are higher, indicating improved denoising performance. Furthermore, the denoised rock volume is subjected to the next step in the digital rock workflow to compute important petrophysical properties like porosity and permeability. The findings indicate that our proposed pipeline significantly improves the accuracy of estimating physical parameters such as porosity and permeability.

© 2024 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. © 2023 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13429
2024-05-21
2026-02-18

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13429
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ahuja, V.R., Gupta, U., Rapole, S.R., Saxena, N., Hofmann, R., Day‐Stirrat, R.J., Prakash, J. & Yalavarthy, P.K. (2022) Siamese‐sr: a Siamese super‐resolution model for boosting resolution of digital rock images for improved petrophysical property estimation. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 31, 3479–3493.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Akin, S., Demiral, M. & Okandan, E. (1996) A novel method of porosity measurement utilizing computerized tomography. In situ, 20(4), 347–365.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Al‐Marzouqi, H. (2018) Digital rock physics: using CT scans to compute rock properties. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 35(2), 121–131.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Andrä, H., Combaret, N., Dvorkin, J., Glatt, E., Han, J., Kabel, M., Keehm, Y., Krzikalla, F., Lee, M., Madonna, C., et al,. (2013) Digital rock physics benchmarks‐Part I: Imaging and segmentation. Computers & Geosciences, 50, 25–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bai, Y. & Berezovsky, V. (2020) Digital rock core images resolution enhancement with improved super‐resolution convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the 2020 12th International Conference on Machine Learning and Computing. New York: ACM, pp. 401–405.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Batcher, K.E. (1968) Sorting networks and their applications. In Proceedings of the April 30–May 2, 1968, Spring Joint Computer Conference, AFIPS '68 (Spring). New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 307–314.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Berg, C.F. & Held, R. (2016) Fundamental transport property relations in porous media incorporating detailed pore structure description. Transport in Porous Media, 112(2), 467–487.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Berg, S., Saxena, N., Shaik, M. & Pradhan, C. (2018) Generation of ground truth images to validate micro‐CT image‐processing pipelines. The Leading Edge, 37(6), 412–420.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bradley, D. & Roth, G. (2007) Adaptive thresholding using the integral image. Journal of Graphics Tools, 12(2), 13–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Buades, A., Coll, B. & Morel, J.‐M. (2005) A non‐local algorithm for image denoising. In 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'05), volume 2. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, pp. 60–65.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen, H., He, X., Teng, Q., Sheriff, R.E., Feng, J. & Xiong, S. (2020) Super‐resolution of real‐world rock microcomputed tomography images using cycle‐consistent generative adversarial networks. Physical Review E, 101(2), 023305.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Da Wang, Y., Armstrong, R.T. & Mostaghimi, P. (2019) Enhancing resolution of digital rock images with super‐resolution convolutional neural networks. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 182, 106261.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Dong, H., Sun, J., Arif, M., Golsanami, N., Yan, W. & Zhang, Y. (2020) A novel hybrid method for gas hydrate filling modes identification via digital rock. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 115, 104255.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Dvorkin, J., Armbruster, M., Baldwin, C., Fang, Q., Derzhi, N., Gomez, C., Nur, B. & Nur, A. (2008) The future of rock physics: computational methods vs. lab testing. First Break, 26(9), 63–68.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Ebadi, M. (2020) Micro x‐ray CT images of two cores (original and filtered). Mendeley Data. Published: 10 June 2020. https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/tz5zwgs85v/2
  16. Eibenberger, E., Borsdorf, A., Wimmer, A. & Hornegger, J. (2008) Edge‐preserving denoising for segmentation in CT‐images. In Bildverarbeitung für die Medizin 2008. Berlin: Springer, pp. 257–261.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Gong, G., Zhang, H. & Yao, M. (2015) Speckle noise reduction algorithm with total variation regularization in optical coherence tomography. Optics Express, 23(19), 24699–24712.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Gupta, U. & Ranjan, U. (2022a) Algebraic reconstruction techniques. In Encyclopedia of mathematical geosciences. Cham: Springer, pp. 17–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Gupta, U. & Ranjan, U. (2022b) Backprojection tomography. In Encyclopedia of mathematical geosciences. Cham: Springer, pp. 1–7.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Jiang, F., Guo, Y., Tsuji, T., Kato, Y., Shimokawara, M., Esteban, L., Seyyedi, M., Pervukhina, M., Lebedev, M. & Kitamura, R. (2023) Upscaling permeability using multiscale x‐ray‐CT images with digital rock modeling and deep learning techniques. Water Resources Research, 59(3), e2022WR033267.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Karimpouli, S. & Tahmasebi, P. (2019) Segmentation of digital rock images using deep convolutional autoencoder networks. Computers & Geosciences, 126, 142–150.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Kong, X., Li, K., Yang, Q., Wenyin, L. & Yang, M.‐H. (2013) A new image quality metric for image auto‐denoising. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, pp. 2888–2895.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Laine, S., Karras, T., Lehtinen, J. & Aila, T. (2019) High‐quality self‐supervised deep image denoising. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv:1901.10277
  24. Landström, A. & Thurley, M.J. (2013) Adaptive morphology using tensor‐based elliptical structuring elements. Pattern Recognition Letters, 34(12), 1416–1422.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Lehtinen, J., Munkberg, J., Hasselgren, J., Laine, S., Karras, T., Aittala, M., & Aila, T. (2018) Noise2noise: learning image restoration without clean data. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv:1803.04189
  26. Liao, Q., You, S., Cui, M., Guo, X., Aljawad, M.S. & Patil, S. (2023) Digital core permeability computation by image processing techniques. Water, 15(11), 1995.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Lindenbaum, M., Fischer, M. & Bruckstein, A. (1994) On Gabor's contribution to image enhancement. Pattern Recognition, 27(1), 1–8.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Liu, M., Ahmad, R., Cai, W. & Mukerji, T. (2023) Hierarchical homogenization with deep‐learning‐based surrogate model for rapid estimation of effective permeability from digital rocks. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 128(2), e2022JB025378.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Millington, R. & Quirk, J. (1961) Permeability of porous solids. Transactions of the Faraday Society, 57, 1200–1207.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Mohan, E., Rajesh, A., Sunitha, G., Konduru, R.M., Avanija, J. & Ganesh Babu, L. (2021) A deep neural network learning‐based speckle noise removal technique for enhancing the quality of synthetic‐aperture radar images. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 33, e6239.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Niu, Q. & Zhang, C. (2019) Permeability prediction in rocks experiencing mineral precipitation and dissolution: a numerical study. Water Resources Research, 55(4), 3107–3121.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Niu, Y., Mostaghimi, P., Shabaninejad, M., Swietojanski, P. & Armstrong, R.T. (2020) Digital rock segmentation for petrophysical analysis with reduced user bias using convolutional neural networks. Water Resources Research, 56(2), e2019WR026597.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Otsu, N. (1979) A threshold selection method from gray‐level histograms. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 9(1), 62–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Payton, R.L., Chiarella, D. & Kingdon, A. (2022) The upper percolation threshold and porosity–permeability relationship in sandstone reservoirs using digital image analysis. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 11311.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Perona, P. & Malik, J. (1990) Scale‐space and edge detection using anisotropic diffusion. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 12(7), 629–639.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Reshetova, G., Cheverda, V., Lisitsa, V. & Khachkova, T. (2020) Multiscale digital rock modelling for reservoir simulation. In SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition. SPE‐196561‐MS. OnePetro.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Saxena, N., Hofmann, R., Alpak, F.O., Dietderich, J., Hunter, S. & Day‐Stirrat, R.J. (2017) Effect of image segmentation & voxel size on micro‐CT computed effective transport & elastic properties. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 86, 972–990.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Saxena, N., Hows, A., Hofmann, R., Alpak, F.O., Dietderich, J., Appel, M., Freeman, J. & De Jong, H. (2019) Rock properties from micro‐CT images: digital rock transforms for resolution, pore volume, and field of view. Advances in Water Resources, 134, 103419.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Schepp, L.L., Ahrens, B., Balcewicz, M., Duda, M., Nehler, M., Osorno, M., Uribe, D., Steeb, H., Nigon, B., Stöckhert, F., et al,. (2020) Digital rock physics and laboratory considerations on a high‐porosity volcanic rock: micro‐xrct data sets. Scientific Reports, 10, 5840.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Sell, K., Saenger, E.H., Falenty, A., Chaouachi, M., Haberthür, D., Enzmann, F., Kuhs, W.F. & Kersten, M. (2016) On the path to the digital rock physics of gas hydrate‐bearing sediments–processing of in situ synchrotron‐tomography data. Solid Earth, 7(4), 1243–1258.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Shamsoddini, A., Trinder, J.C., Wagner, W. & Székely, B. (2010) Image texture preservation in speckle noise suppression. Paper presented at the Technical Commission VII Symposium 2010 Abstract Submission System.
  42. Sheppard, A.P., Sok, R.M. & Averdunk, H. (2004) Techniques for image enhancement and segmentation of tomographic images of porous materials. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 339(1‐2), 145–151.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Sidorenko, M., Orlov, D., Ebadi, M. & Koroteev, D. (2021) Deep learning in denoising of micro‐computed tomography images of rock samples. Computers & Geosciences, 151, 104716.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Smith, S.M. & Brady, J.M. (1997) Susan– a new approach to low level image processing. International Journal of Computer Vision, 23(1), 45–78.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Su, E., Liang, Y., Zou, Q., Niu, F. & Li, L. (2019) Analysis of effects of CO2$\rm {CO_2}$ injection on coalbed permeability: implications for coal seam CO2$\rm {CO_2}$ sequestration. Energy & Fuels, 33(7), 6606–6615.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Sun, H., Yao, J., Cao, Y.‐c., Fan, D.‐y. & Zhang, L. (2017) Characterization of gas transport behaviors in shale gas and tight gas reservoirs by digital rock analysis. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 104, 227–239.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Taud, H., Martinez‐Angeles, R., Parrot, J. & Hernandez‐Escobedo, L. (2005) Porosity estimation method by x‐ray computed tomography. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 47(3), 209–217.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Tomasi, C. & Manduchi, R. (1998) Bilateral filtering for gray and color images. In Sixth International Conference on Computer Vision. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, pp. 839–846.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Treece, G. (2016) The bitonic filter: linear filtering in an edge‐preserving morphological framework. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 25(11), 5199–5211.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Treece, G. (2019) Morphology‐based noise reduction: structural variation and thresholding in the bitonic filter. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 29, 336–350.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Ulyanov, D., Vedaldi, A. & Lempitsky, V. (2018) Deep image prior. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, pp. 9446–9454.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Verma, R. & Ali, J. (2013) A comparative study of various types of image noise and efficient noise removal techniques. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, 3(10)
  53. Verri, I., Della Torre, A., Montenegro, G., Onorati, A., Duca, S., Mora, C., Radaelli, F. & Trombin, G. (2017) Development of a digital rock physics workflow for the analysis of sandstones and tight rocks. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 156, 790–800.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Wang, X., Ge, L. & Li, X. (2012) Evaluation of filters for Envisat Asar speckle suppression in pasture area. ISPRS Annals of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 7, 341–346.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Wang, Z., Bovik, A., Sheikh, H. & Simoncelli, E. (2004) Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 13(4), 600–612.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Wildenschild, D. & Sheppard, A.P. (2013) X‐ray imaging and analysis techniques for quantifying pore‐scale structure and processes in subsurface porous medium systems. Advances in Water Resources, 51, 217–246.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Withjack, E. (1988) Computed tomography for rock‐property determination and fluid‐flow visualization. SPE Formation Evaluation, 3(4), 696–704.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Yaroslavsky, L.P. (2012) Digital picture processing: an introduction, Springer Series in Information Sciences, volume 9. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Zha, D. (2007) Novel ultrasound images shot noise removal algorithm based on 2‐D wavelet decomposition and stable distribution model. In 2007 1st International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, pp. 845–848.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Zha, D. & Qiu, T. (2006) A new algorithm for shot noise removal in medical ultrasound images based on alpha‐stable model. International Journal of Adaptive Control and Signal Processing, 20(6), 251–263.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Zhang, P., Celia, M.A., Bandilla, K.W., Hu, L. & Meegoda, J.N. (2020) A pore‐network simulation model of dynamic CO2${\rm CO}_2$ migration in organic‐rich shale formations. Transport in Porous Media, 133, 479–496.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13429
Loading
Two‐step morphology‐based denoising and non‐local means smoothing improves micro‐computed tomography digital rock images
Geophysical Prospecting 72, 2049 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13429
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13429
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13429
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): computing aspects; data processing; imaging; noise; petrophysics; rock physics; tomography

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error