MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793470572 · doi:10.1002/aic.16098

Real‐time multivariable model predictive control for steam‐assisted gravity drainage

2018· article· en· W2793470572 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sagar N. Purkayastha, Ian D. Gates, Milana Trifkovic

Bibliographic record

VenueAIChE Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsModel predictive controlMultivariable calculusSteam-assisted gravity drainageController (irrigation)MATLABControl theory (sociology)MIMOComputer scienceTrap (plumbing)Petroleum engineeringEngineeringControl (management)Control engineeringOil sandsChannel (broadcasting)Environmental engineeringAsphaltArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thermal recovery techniques, such as steam‐assisted gravity drainage (SAGD), are used to recover the majority of the crude bitumen, in Western Canada. However, suboptimal production techniques have led to a large carbon footprint and a subsequent search for more efficient extraction techniques, than open loop manual control. This article summarizes research on the comparison of performance of a novel multi‐input multioutput (MIMO) model predictive controller (MPC) with steam trap and oil rate controls with a multi‐input single output (MISO) MPC with only steam trap control. An appropriate system identification technique was also used for periodic model update in compliance with changing system behavior. The real‐time control study was made possible by establishing a bidirectional communication between computer modeling group STARS TM (virtual reservoir) and MATLAB (onsite controller) software. The results show a 171% improvement in oil recovery for the novel MIMO MPC over the MISO MPC. © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J , 64: 3034–3041, 2018

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIChE JournalSame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207