Gautier Laurent - Implicit Modelling and volume deformation
1. 0/31
Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
CONTROLLING FOLDS WITH AN
IMPLICIT MODELLING APPROACH
AND
RIGID ELEMENT METHOD FOR GEOLOGICAL
STRUCTURAL MODELLING
Gautier Laurent
Laurent Aillères
Lachlan Grose
Guillaume Caumon
Monash
GeoRessources
2. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
Expert-driven approach
Sparse Data
Qualitative Models
Modelling Geological Structures
The modeller’s approach:
• Honour data
• One state = current state
The geologist’s approach:
• Geological scenario
• Multiple phases
Approaches to GeomodellingIntroduction
1/31
Data
(current state)
time
Geological structures
(current state) Geological scenario
Tectonics / kinematics concepts
Need to reconcile these
two approaches
Data-driven approach
Lots of Data
Quantitative Models
Part I: Provide tools to implement interactive Deformation Events
Part II: Better integrate Structural Data for Folding
3. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
Interactive deformation tool
ReedPart I
2/31
Part I
-
Rigid Element Embedding Deformation
4. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
Deformation algorithm for Geomodelling
ReedPart I
3/31
Our specifications:Usage:
Physical Consistency: looks like natural
deformations
Interactive: fast and handy
Robustness: don’t break during computation
Adapted Scale: don’t loose details but don’t
compute too finely
Parsimony: limited number of parameters
Why?
1. Rely more on geologist interpretation
2. Allow easier automation
3. Ease meshing problems
4. And we don’t have enough information
anyway…
Editing
Forward modelling
Restoration
5. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
Another world of deformation tools
Computer Graphics:
• Physically-based deformable models
• Extensive literature with active research
• Eg. Adaptive space deformations based on rigid cells [Botsch et al, 2007]
Transfer to Geosciences [Laurent, 2013]
ReedPart I
4/31
Eg. [Nealen et al., 2006]
Rigid
Element
Embedding
Deformation
eed
6. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
Reed in Geosciences [Laurent, 2013]
Using this interactive tool in Geoscience:
• Dynamic editing of Folding structures
ReedPart I
5/31
7. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
How does Reed work?
Four main steps:
ReedPart I
6/31
Object to be deformed
Deformation tool
Reed
1: Encapsulation in
Rigid Elements
Cost
Function0 1
3: Deformation computation
= Optimisation of a cost function
4: Displacement
Interpolation
Deformed object
2: Define Boundary Conditions
8. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
Cost function
Neighbourhood constraint:
• Minimise difference of displacement
• Integrated over element’s volume
ReedPart I
7/31
Ri
Ti
Rj
Tj
x
Dij
ci cj
9. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
Displacement interpolation
The displacement of the rigid elements is
• Interpolated on the embedded objects
• Only once at the end (performance)
• Locate each point to deform
• Compute displacement for each element
• Combine linearly
ReedPart I
8/31
10. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
A more complete example [Laurent, 2013]
Deformation history modelling (as in Noddy [Jessell and Valenta, 1996])
ReedPart I
9/31
11. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
A more complete example [Laurent, 2013]
ReedPart I
10/31
12. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
A more complete example [Laurent, 2013]
Parameters:
• Shortening
• Axial surfaces
• Amplitude
ReedPart I
11/31
13. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
A more complete example [Laurent, 2013]
ReedPart I
12/31
14. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
Reed Pros and Cons
ReedPart I
13/31
Cons:
• Some missing behaviours
(eg. No Poisson effect)
• No Faults…
Pros:
• Interative
• Space Deformation
• Robust to extreme deformation
• Good approximation of flexural
behaviour
until now!
[Molino et al., 2004]
Question: How to introduce faults in Reed?
Any lead in Computer Graphics?
[O’Brien and Hodgins, 1999]
Not really
15. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
Requirements:
• Being able to evaluate anywhere in 3D
The “distance” to the fault
The direction towards the fault
Result:
Defining a cost function for faults
ReedPart I
14/31
f = 0
f = 1
f = -1 f = -2
f = 2
f
Init
i
i+1
16. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
Implicit Folding
Implicit modelling
Part II
-
Modifying Implicit Methods
To Actually Model Folds
Part II
15/31
17. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
Defining the problems
Time:
• 1st event: S0 (stratigraphy)
• 2nd event: F1 (folding)
• … may have more fold interference
Current geometry =
result of complex (multi event) history
Data/ Measurements:
• Bedding observation:
• Stratigraphy
• Position of a contact
• Orientation of a contact
• Other structural observations:
• Hinges and Limbs
• Axial surfaces (+Fold axis)
• Vergence
• Fold type (Similar/parallel)
• Opening, Cylindricity…
ProblemsPart II
16/31
[Hudleston and Treagus, 2010]
Where
Geomodelling
packages
stops.
What we are adding.
18. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
Implicit Modelling overview
Stratigraphy Data Control Points + Regularisation term
BasicsPart II
17/31
Stratigraphic value
Orientation
Continuous values
Gradient vary progressively
Stratigraphy
19. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
Discrete Implicit Modelling overview
Discretised Region of Interest Mesh
Stratigraphy = piecewise-linear scalar field
How to take fold measurements into account?
How to overcome “constant gradient” limitations?
limits folding and promotes parallel fold style
BasicsPart II
18/31
Stratigraphy
x
x0
v0 x1
v1
x2
v2
f(x) = λi vi
f = T . v
Build a global
system of linear
equations
Solve to build the
scalar field
20. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
Geological structures parameterisation
How are geological structures taken into account?
• Faults:
• Described by structural parameters
• Centre, Azimuth, Dip, Slip…
• Locality alter the mesh interpolation
• Fold:
• Result of the smoothing of data
Not really controlled
Proposal:
• Fold structure additional fields:
• Axial surface field F1:
• Related (parallel) to foliation field S1
• Easier to measure (visible in the limbs)
• Relatively consistent over the whole area
• Fold Intensity field:
• Derived from vergence and S0 observation
• Quantitative version of the vergence
• Fold axis field P1:
• Vectorial field to impose non cylindricity
MethodPart II
19/31
Vergence: Hey,
Next antiform is this
way!
21. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
Fold Interpolation Process
Interpolate S1
Analyse the vergence to infer the Fold Intensity field
Infer gradient direction:
• Rotation around fold axis direction P1
Interpolate S0
MethodPart II
20/31
S1
Fold intensity
22. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
Fold parameter control
Fold centre position
MethodPart II
With classic constraints
21/31
23. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
Fold parameter control
Fold centre position
Inter-limb angle
MethodPart II
With classic constraints
22/31
24. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
Fold parameter control
Fold centre position
Inter-limb angle
Axial surface orientation
MethodPart II
With classic constraints
23/31
25. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
Fold parameter control
Fold centre position
Inter-limb angle
Axial surface orientation
Wavelength
MethodPart II
With classic constraints
24/31
26. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
Fold parameter control
Fold centre position
Inter-limb angle
Axial surface orientation
Wavelength
Tightness
MethodPart II
With classic constraints
25/31
27. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
Regularisation term
Constant gradient (classic) Parallel Fold
Similar Fold:
• Conservation:
• Normalisation:
MethodPart II
26/31
Z
X
X0
X1
f0
f1
f0X0 . f1 = 0- X1 .
fi = LXi .
28. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
What can we do with that?
Actually simulate folds instead of smoothing stratigraphy.
Eg. Somebody said this is not possible (yet):
• ie. Interpolator smooth the folds.
But with our constraints:
Need to infer fold parameter.
Optimisation/simulation process instead of simple interpolation.
ResultPart II
27/31
29. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
What else can we do?
Fold parameters simulation:
To infer uncertainty related to structural parameters
ResultsPart II
28/31
Measurement-related uncertainty Structural uncertainty
30. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
What else can we do?
Interference patterns:
• Fold is defined by scalar field
Use deformed geometries as S1
Produce a deformed fold
Strategy:
Model latest folds first
Constrain the geometry Fn-1 based on Fn observations
ResultsPart II
29/31
S1 (deformed by F2) S0 (deformed by F1 and F2)
31. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
Some 3D…
The formulation is fully 3D so no problem to go in 3D
Implementation in 3D packages to come soon (StructuralLab/Gocad)
ResultsPart II
30/31
32. Dr Gautier Laurent 3D Interest Group Meeting 10th June 2014
Contributions:
Tools to model 3D folded geometries:
• Take advantage of complete structural observations
• Time-aware approaches:
• Reed: simulate deformation sequence
• Implicit Folding: use latest events to constrain previous ones
• Take fully advantage of implicit approaches… and extend them.
Thank you for your attention.
Any questions?
conclusionsConclusion
31/31
Editor's Notes
- merci au jury -> évaluer mes travaux de thèse
- portent sur : (voir titre)