MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2938416552 · doi:10.2118/195247-ms

Practical Application of Pareto-Based Multi-Objective Optimization and Proxy Modeling for Steam Alternating Solvent Process Design

2019· article· en· W2938416552 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Western Regional Meeting · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanada First Research Excellence FundUniversity of AlbertaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsMulti-objective optimizationComputer sciencePropanePareto principleProcess (computing)Process engineeringMathematical optimizationEngineeringMathematicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Steam alternating solvent (SAS) process is a thermal heavy oil recovery technique, where steam and solvent (e.g., propane) are injected alternatively through the same well configuration as in the steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) process. The SAS process is deemed to be more energy-efficient and environment-friendly with less greenhouse gas emission and water usage. However, proper design of the SAS process is challenging as multiple conflicting objectives need to be optimized simultaneously. Conventional optimization methods that aggregate multiples objectives into a single weighted objective are not appropriate. In this work, a novel workflow is developed to identify a set of Pareto-optimal operational parameters for the SAS process. First, a synthetic base model is constructed based on data gathered from the cold lake reservoir. Sensitivity analysis is carried out to determine the main decision variables [e.g. solvent (propane) concentration and duration of solvent injection in each cycle] and to formulate the objective function (e.g., recovery factor and cumulative propane injection). Next, a set of initial SAS models encompassing a wide range of decision variables are generated and subjected to flow simulation, and the corresponding objective functions are computed. Third, a response surface (proxy) model is calibrated to approximate the non-linear relationship between the multiple objective functions and the decision variables. Finally, a non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II (NSGA-II) is applied as a multi-objective optimizer to obtain a set of optimal decision parameters. The predictions from the base model are corroborated by several previous SAS simulation studies in the literature, where comparable production trends and patterns are observed. It is observed that both the solvent compositions and duration of solvent injection in each cycle would have significant impacts on the objective functions. The proposed hybrid optimization workflow can facilitate the identification of a set of Pareto-optimum solutions with considerable savings in computational costs.

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.

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 score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.281 · 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