MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331880329 · doi:10.1021/ef300443j

Prediction of Condensate-to-Gas Ratio for Retrograde Gas Condensate Reservoirs Using Artificial Neural Network with Particle Swarm Optimization

2012· article· en· W2331880329 on OpenAlexaff
Sohrab Zendehboudi, Mohammad Ali Ahmadi, Lesley James, Ioannis Chatzis

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle swarm optimizationArtificial neural networkRange (aeronautics)Experimental dataField (mathematics)Computer scienceBiological systemEnvironmental scienceProcess engineeringMathematical optimizationMathematicsMachine learningEngineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Condensate-to-gas ratio (CGR) plays an important role in sales potential assessment of both gas and liquid, design of required surface processing facilities, reservoir characterization, and modeling of gas condensate reservoirs. Field work and laboratory determination of CGR is both time consuming and resource intensive. Developing a rapid and inexpensive technique to accurately estimate CGR is of great interest. An intelligent model is proposed in this paper based on a feed-forward artificial neural network (ANN) optimized by particle swarm optimization (PSO) technique. The PSO-ANN model was evaluated using experimental data and some PVT data available in the literature. The model predictions were compared with field data, experimental data, and the CGR obtained from an empirical correlation. A good agreement was observed between the predicted CGR values and the experimental and field data. Results of this study indicate that mixture molecular weight among input parameters selected for PSO-ANN has the greatest impact on CGR value, and the PSO-ANN is superior over conventional neural networks and empirical correlations. The developed model has the ability to predict the CGR with high precision in a wide range of thermodynamic conditions. The proposed model can serve as a reliable tool for quick and inexpensive but effective assessment of CGR in the absence of adequate experimental or field data.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations146
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & FuelsSame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207