Engineering topics

Carey, William

Publications and source records attributed to Carey, William.

3 records

DOE OSTI2023

Prediction and uncertainty quantification of shale well performance using multifidelity Monte Carlo

Uncertainty quantification is an integral component of reservoir management, especially considering the inherent uncertainty in subsurface systems. While a standard practice to estimate the uncertainty, Monte Carlo (MC) simulation is computationally intense when the sampling population comprises high-fidelity simulations. Alternatively, the Multi-fidelity Monte Carlo (MFMC) simulation overcomes this computational intensity by integrating low- and high-fidelity simulations. Our goal is to minimize the number of expensive high-fidelity simulations while maintaining accuracy and using numerous fast and cheap low-fidelity simulations to efficiently sample to input parameter space of interest. We selected gas production from unconventional wells to demonstrate the potential speedups and accuracy of the MFMC approach. The model fidelity usually determines the trade-off between accuracy and efficiency. While the high-fidelity model is more accurate, the low-fidelity model is more efficient. Our high-fidelity simulation includes reservoir simulations of a hydraulically fractured well. On the other hand, our low-fidelity model comprises the parallel-plate flow model. We used differential programming to efficiently solve the 1D flow model, where automatic differentiation is used to efficiently compute the gradients. We matched the production profile of high-fidelity simulations with our low-fidelity simulations. Then, we used a support vector regression to map the high- and low-fidelity input parameters. The mapping function is essential to tune the low-dimensional parameter space of the low-fidelity model to the high-dimensional parameter space of the high-fidelity model. We found that we can use a combination of 9 high fidelity and 10,000 low fidelity simulations to efficiently and accurately simulate pressure management. This method is at least two orders of magnitude faster than only using high-fidelity simulations. Finally, from a broader perspective, MFMC could efficiently estimate the uncertainty of various systems and models, integrating low- and high-fidelity models.

04 OIL SHALES AND TAR SANDS↗

NASA NTRS2014

Preparing for Crew-Control of Surface Robots from Orbit

Since 2010, the European Space Agency (ESA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have been developing robots that can be remotely operated on planetary surfaces by astronauts in orbiting spacecraft. A primary objective of this work has been to test telerobotic technologies that are needed for future deep-space human exploration missions. Specifically, ESA's Multi-Purpose End-To-End Robotic Operations Network (METERON) project and NASA's Human Exploration Telerobotics (HET) project are complementary initiatives that aim to validate communications, operations and robotic systems through a range of ground and flight experiments with humans and robots in the loop. Several experiments have already been successfully completed and others are now in preparation for flight.

telerobotics↗

NASA NTRS2012

Desert Research and Technology Studies (DRATS) 2010 Science Operations: Operational Approaches and Lessons Learned for Managing Science during Human Planetary Surface Missions

Desert Research and Technology Studies (Desert RATS) is a multi-year series of hardware and operations tests carried out annually in the high desert of Arizona on the San Francisco Volcanic Field. These activities are designed to exercise planetary surface hardware and operations in conditions where long-distance, multi-day roving is achievable, and they allow NASA to evaluate different mission concepts and approaches in an environment less costly and more forgiving than space.The results from the RATS tests allows election of potential operational approaches to planetary surface exploration prior to making commitments to specific flight and mission hardware development. In previous RATS operations, the Science Support Room has operated largely in an advisory role, an approach that was driven by the need to provide a loose science mission framework that would underpin the engineering tests. However, the extensive nature of the traverse operations for 2010 expanded the role of the science operations and tested specific operational approaches. Science mission operations approaches from the Apollo and Mars-Phoenix missions were merged to become the baseline for this test. Six days of traverse operations were conducted during each week of the 2-week test, with three traverse days each week conducted with voice and data communications continuously available, and three traverse days conducted with only two 1-hour communications periods per day. Within this framework, the team evaluated integrated science operations management using real-time, tactical science operations to oversee daily crew activities, and strategic level evaluations of science data and daily traverse results during a post-traverse planning shift. During continuous communications, both tactical and strategic teams were employed. On days when communications were reduced to only two communications periods per day, only a strategic team was employed. The Science Operations Team found that, if communications are good and down-linking of science data is ensured, high quality science returns is possible regardless of communications. What is absent from reduced communications is the scientific interaction between the crew on the planet and the scientists on the ground. These scientific interactions were a critical part of the science process and significantly improved mission science return over reduced communications conditions. The test also showed that the quality of science return is not measurable by simple numerical quantities but is, in fact, based on strongly non-quantifiable factors, such as the interactions between the crew and the Science Operations Teams. Although the metric evaluation data suggested some trends, there was not sufficient granularity in the data or specificity in the metrics to allow those trends to be understood on numerical data alone.

Eppler, Dean↗