Optimization design of horizontal well fracture stage placement in shale gas reservoirs based on an efficient variable-fidelity surrogate model and intelligent algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydraulic fracturing technique increases shale gas well productivity significantly. Horizontal well fracture optimization has been studied by many researchers worldwide in the past decade. However, most of these researches relied on computationally expensive numerical simulation models for objectives evaluation during the optimization process. This affects the optimization efficiency significantly. To address this issue, surrogate model methods which adapt a simple approximate model are employed to lessen the computational burden. In this study therefore, a novel intelligent variable-fidelity radial basis function (VFRBF) surrogate-assisted model for multi-objective fracture stage placement optimization, namely VFRBF-FSO, is proposed to reduce the computational burden of the numerical simulation-based production optimization. In the VFBRF-FSO method, low-fidelity (LF) and high-fidelity (HF) samples were adopted simultaneously to establish the variable-fidelity (VF) surrogate model. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that variable-fidelity model is used for shale gas horizontal well fracture stage placement optimization. The uniqueness of this proposed method is that a scaling factor and an augment matrix are used to integrate the LF and HF samples to increase the accuracy of the surrogate model. Moreover, two cases with different wells and well types were studied to illustrate the effectiveness and accuracy of the VFRBF-FSO method. The optimization results showed that the VFRBF-FSO method performed comparably with the HF model-based method in terms of convergence and diversity. However, the VFRBF-FSO reduced the simulation runs on the two cases with different wells and fracture types to about five times that of the HF model.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".