Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 172 (2019) 819–830

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol

An improved optimization method in gas allocation for continuous flow gas- T

lift system
S. Omid H. Miresmaeilia, Mansoor Zoveidavianpoorb,∗, Madjid Jalilavia, Shahab Geramia,
Ali Rajabic
a
IOR Research Institute, Tehran, Iran
b
Petroleum Engineering Department, Arvandan Oil and Gas Company, NIOC, Khorramshahr, Iran
c
Institute for International Energy Studies (IIES), Tehran, Iran

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The primary objective in the continuous flow gas-lift operations is to inject an optimal gas volume for a group of
Continuous flow gas-lift system wells to maximize oil production. Due to the gas supply constraint in an oilfield, optimization of gas injection
Artificial Neural Network plays an important role in achieving this goal. In this work, for modeling of gas-lift operation, the potential
Bayesian regularization application of an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) using Bayesian Regularization (BR) is investigated and the
Teaching-learning based optimization
results are compared with Levenberg–Marquardt (LM) back-propagation training algorithm. For the optimiza-
algorithm
tion, Teaching–Learning-Based Optimization (TLBO) algorithm is applied to simultaneously solve the well-rate
and gas-lift allocation problems under the injection capacity constraint. The efficiency of the TLBO is in-
vestigated based on (a) convergence rate and (b) the best solution, by comparing its performance with Genetic
Algorithm (GA). Extensive published data are used in model development and comparison. The proposed pre-
diction and optimization model is tested in a gas-lift system for a given period of reservoir life. The prediction
accuracy produced by the BRNN and the LMNN were 99.9% and 99.5% respectively. Results indicate that the
two models have good predictive capability. Also, results show that the BR model appears more robust and
efficient than the LM model and for the optimization algorithms, TBLO outperforms GA in the gas allocation
mapping for continuous gas-lift system. The simulation results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed
model on continuous flow gas-lift operations.

1. Introduction injected gas volume. Normally, typical petroleum production optimi-

Continuous flow Gas-lift operation is one of the most efficient arti-
ficial lift methods employed worldwide. The purpose in such operation
is to reduce the fluid density and the hydrostatic pressure loss in
wellbore by compressing gas at the surface and injecting it into the well.
Further decrease in the hydrostatic pressure head can eventually cause
a problem with the well in terms of an increase in friction pressure loss,
resulting in a decrease of oil production.
In a petroleum production system, declining pressure of a reservoir
will significantly affect the underlying equations evolved to describe
the system. With the presence of gas-lifted wells in such a system, the
quantity of the injected gas at any point in time is considered as a
critical variable; whereas high injection rate does not necessarily in-
creases total production and a low injected rate may result in a decrease
in production rate. In most cases, at a particular point in time, it is
possible to verify the maximum value of oil production for a certain
zation in a gas-lift system focuses on the sequential individual-well
optimization of variables at a fixed point in time (Hamedi et al., 2011;
Khishvand et al., 2015). Based on conventional simulators capabilities,
analyzing and controlling of the key parameter (i.e., gas allocation) is
very difficult to be implemented.
1.1. Literature review
Over the decades, a considerable number of studies with excellent
results have been undertaken to define the optimum rates of gas in-
jection. Through analyzing the relationship between the gas injection
rate and the oil production rate, Mayhill (1974) developed the gas-lift
performance curve (GLPC) to define the optimum gas injection rate. To
determine the most profitable distribution of gas to wells in a con-
tinuous flow gas-lift system, an analytical procedure is presented by
Radden et al. (1974). Gomez (1974) suggested a procedure to generate

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mansoor353@yahoo.com (M. Zoveidavianpoor).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2018.08.076
Received 3 January 2018; Received in revised form 11 July 2018; Accepted 27 August 2018
Available online 01 September 2018
0920-4105/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S.O.H. Miresmaeili et al.
Fig. 1. TLBO algorithm flow chart (from Rao et al. (2012)).
GLPC to determine which well would produce largest amount of oil
when equal amounts of incremental gas were injected into each well.
Hong (1975) investigated the effects of several variables on continuous
flow gas-lift systems. The technique for finding the optimum rate of gas
injection is basically the same as that proposed by Gomez (1974).
Alarcon et al. (2002) presented a mathematical fit to the GLPC for gas
allocation optimization using sequential quadratic programming (SQP).
Kanu et al. (1981) established the method of the “equal slope alloca-
tion” based on economic optimization under both unlimited and limited
gas supply. In summary, historical development of gas allocation is
820
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 172 (2019) 819–830
categorized into two different approaches; (a) economic optimization
and (b) hydrodynamic performance. In the first approach the optimum
gas injection rate is defined by cost-profit relationship; the point of gas
injection rate where the cost of injected gas is equal to the profit of
increased oil production. The methods developed by Mayhill (1974),
Radden et al. (1974), and Kanu et al. (1981) are based on this approach.
For the latter, by considering the constraint of gas injection volume in
an oilfield, the gas injection rate that gives the maximum oil production
is considered. The gas allocation procedures developed by Gomez
(1974), Hong (1975), Nishikiori et al. (1995), Buitrago et al. (1996) and
S.O.H. Miresmaeili et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 172 (2019) 819–830

(LMNN) technique as back-propagation algorithm to replace the net-

work production simulators (Ranjan et al., 2015; Zangl et al., 2006). In
addition, Bayesian Regularized Neural Networks (BRNNs) offer a
simple and usable form of ANN. In terms of computational aspects,
Kayri (2016) and Tien Bui et al. (2012) have shown that BRNN gives
better performance than LMNN. There is also a combination of fuzzy
logic and ANN for surrogate modeling (Ghassemzadeh and Charkhi,
2016). A complication of these proxy approaches of dynamic system is
the numerous variables needed for training an appropriate model for
predicting system behavior; such as reservoir, wells and a surface net-
work, while the latter is sometimes omitted from the total system
(Behjoomanesh et al., 2015; Ghassemzadeh and Charkhi, 2016; Monyei
et al., 2014; Ranjan et al., 2015). Exclusion of surface facilities can
reduce the validity of models as the interaction between wells in the
gathering network is one of the key aspects of the gas allocation for
continuous flow gas-lift system (Dutta-Roy and Kattapuram, 1997).

1.2. Bayesian regularized neural network

Proxy modeling attempts to surrogate complex systems and ease

their computations. A popular approach for such task is using ANNs.
Neural networks inspired by the functionality of human brain are
highly nonlinear functions and consist of interconnected nodes called
perceptron. The term “perceptron” refers to the layers of computational
units in an artificial neural network. A single layer perceptron, which
consists of a single layer of interconnected nodes, can be considered as
the simplest form of feed-forward neural networks. A perceptron feeds a
generated signal based on the inputs by a multiple linear regression into
an activation function. In order to achieve accurate output, weights and
biases are optimized to minimize the modeling error. Basic form of a
neural network can be viewed as

Y = N (X , W ) (1)
Fig. 2. Graphical workflow for modeling and optimization procedure. The
optimization results and trained model outputs are validated against simulation Where X is the input vector, W are the weights, and Y is the cor-
results. responding output. In this study, BRNNs are used because they are
robust and flexible. BR proposed by MacKay (1992) can overcome the
problem in interpolating noisy data. It also allows estimating the ef-
Alarcon et al., 2002) are based on this approach. fective number of parameters actually used by the model. BR expands
Although rigorous models and commercial software exist for in- the cost function to search not only the minimum error, but also the
tegrated modeling of components of a production system network, such minimum error using the minimal weights. It works by introducing two
systems are not free of problem. In addition to their high computational Bayesian parameters, α and β , to show which direction (minimal error
cost, incorporating exterior components to the simulator is highly or minimal weights) the learning process must seek. A combined cost
complicated and sometimes not possible. For example, introducing a function for training is formed as follows
new economic model or a new optimizer to the already built-in model
M = αEW + βED (2)
or software can cause considerable overhead and computational cost.
Usually the problems of the flexibility and computational time of
Where ED is the sum of squared error and EW is the sum of squared
commercial simulators are compensated with the concept of surrogate
weights. By using BR, one can avoid costly cross validation. In com-
modeling. Accordingly, many authors introduced different surrogate
parison to cross validation techniques, BR does not split input data into
modeling schemes to ease the computational burden of simulation. It
subsets (training and validation) and instead adds a penalty term (αEW)
should be pointed out that, throughout this paper, the terms “surrogate
to the traditional objective function of neural networks. In addition one
modeling” and “proxy modeling” are used interchangeably. The usage
of the major advantage of the BR algorithm is that it determines the
of piecewise linear approximation is a popular approach for describing
optimal number of neurons in the hidden layer objectively (Bui et al.,
production system (Neto et al., 2015; Ray and Sarker, 2007; Silva and
2012). Therefore, it is particularly useful to those cases that cannot be
Camponogara, 2014). Response surface methodology is also proposed
modelled, if a portion of data is reserved to a validation set for example,
for such systems (Behjoomanesh et al., 2015). While such models suc-
when there is not enough data available or modeling problem is rela-
cessfully capture the main features of the production system, they are
tively large in terms of parameter size. The superiority of the BRNN
not suitable for time-dependent analysis and cannot be extended to
versus LMNN have been documented by other researchers. As shown by
recognize the pattern of production during the reservoir life. In such
Bui et al. (2102), Kayri (2016) and Tien Bui et al. (2012), the BRNN
cases, a popular approach is the use of Artificial Neural Network (ANN)
model appears more robust and efficient than the LMNN model. Reg-
models.
ularization also reduces (or eliminates) the need for testing different
ANNs are powerful tools for modeling highly nonlinear systems;
numbers of hidden neurons for a problem. Furthermore, using BR
they are especially useful in estimating parameters and predicting dy-
technique adds little overhead to the computation (Foresee and Hagan,
namic behavior of systems. The procedure mostly consists of using feed-
1997).
forward neural networks with Levenberg-Marquardt neural network

821
S.O.H. Miresmaeili et al.
Fig. 3. Schematic of production system.
1.3. Teaching-learning based optimization algorithm
TLBO is a rather new algorithm proposed by Rao et al. (2012) based
on teaching and learning procedures in a classroom. The functionality
of TLBO is divided into two segments; Teacher phase and Learner
phase. In the Teacher phase, learners learn through the teacher. During
this phase a teacher tries to increase the mean result of the class in the
subject taught by him or her depending on his or her capability. At any
iteration, i , there are n number of learners (population size) and M is
the mean result of the learners. The best overall result Xbest , obtained in
the entire population of learners can be considered as the result of the
best learner. However, for the teacher is usually considered as a highly
learned person who trains learners so that they can have better results,
the best learner is considered as the teacher ( Xteacher ). The teacher so-
lution is designated as Mnew because the teacher at any iteration will try
to move the mean value towards its own level. The difference between
the previous mean value and the new one is given by:
DifferenceMeani = ri (Mnew − TF Mi ) (3)
TF is the teaching factor and ri is a random number in the range of
[0,1]. Teaching factor value is either 1 or 2 which is decided randomly.
The values used for calculating “step” (Eq. (3)) are based on solutions
and not the objective function. In teaching phase, the objective/cost
function is used to determine whether the new solution is moving to-
ward optima or not.
The Difference Meani updates the solution as follows
Xnew = Xold + DifferenceMeani (4)
If the Xnew gives a better cost function value, it would be acceptable.
It should be mentioned that, in teacher phase, in order to create a new
solution, each variable will be changed according to the best solution
(Teacher). The best solution itself has the same dimension as the opti-
mization solution (has the same number of variables). In other words,
old solutions are simply updated using the best solution based on Eq.
822
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 172 (2019) 819–830
(4). All the accepted function values at the end of the teacher phase are
maintained and these values become the input to the learner phase.
In the learner phase, for each learner (i ) another learner ( j ) is
selected randomly. If Xi yields a better objective function value in
comparison with Xj , the new solution is generated as follows
Xnew = Xold + ri (Xi − Xj ) (5)
Otherwise, the learning direction would be reversed
( Xnew = Xold + r (Xj − Xi ) ), which indicates that a learner improves
(moves toward the better solution) with the help of a better learner.
And of course, once again the new solutions are acceptable only if they
give better fitness function values. The graphical workflow of the TLBO
algorithm is shown in Fig. 1.
There are some benefits to the TLBO algorithm. For example, all the
nature-inspired algorithms such as the GA, particle swam optimization
(PSO), artificial bee colony (ABC), etc. require various algorithm
parameters to be set and adjusted for their proper working. Proper
selection of parameters is essential for the optimum searching proce-
dure performed by these algorithms. Any changes to the algorithm
parameters can considerably change the effectiveness of the algorithms.
Fortunately, TLBO doesn't have such parameters. It is also easy to im-
plement with simple mathematical formulation and as it is shown in the
next section it is efficient and capable to solve highly nonlinear pro-
blems of production optimization.
The successful application of TLBO is demonstrated by many re-
search works in science and engineering. A study on TLBO algorithm
conducted by Rao and Patel (2013) for the multi-objective optimization
of heat exchangers. Improvement in the results is observed using the
modified TLBO algorithm as compared to the GA approach showing the
improvement for such thermodynamic optimization. Venkata and
Kalyankar (2012) showed that TLBO algorithm can be easily extended
to suit optimization of process parameters of other conventional and
advanced machining processes used in the manufacturing industries.
Due to the wide-spread applicability, many researchers have applied
S.O.H. Miresmaeili et al.
Fig. 4. BRNN training results. (a) output of the created model versus target values for training data, (b) output of the model versus the target values for test data, (c)
combined results (training and test).
TLBO to solve various problems, and some of the recent works include
that of Singh et al. (2013), Niknam et al. (2012), Baykasoğlu et al.
(2014), Niu et al. (2014), and Rao and More (2015).
In this paper we present a new approach for prediction and opti-
mization of gas allocation for continuous flow gas-lift system. ANN is
employed along with two different training algorithms. The optimiza-
tion is then performed with the TLBO algorithm and the results are
compared with GA and an inline SQP algorithm implemented in the
simulator. The gas allocation optimization which is discussed in the
following sections is based on hydrodynamic performance. To check the
effectiveness of the method, it is tested on two different datasets from
the gas lift literature; one is a production system with 6 gas-lifted wells
and the other is a 56-well system. For those two cases, we only used
TLBO and GA. On the other hand, for the main dynamic problem stu-
died in this paper, first BRNN and ANN were used for modeling pur-
poses and then GA, SQP and TLBO were applied for optimizing the
system. The details of this methodology are as follows;
2. Methodology
To determine the rate of gas injection and oil production, a dataset
is utilized to train the ANN with two back-propagation training algo-
rithms, BRNN and LMNN. A set of 544 data point is used as the feed for
the training purpose. Additionally, 40 random datasets which have not
used in the training phase were utilized to verify and compare the re-
sults of the model.
823
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 172 (2019) 819–830
For the optimization purposes, the model is coupled with the TLBO
algorithm. In other words, the optimization algorithm uses the trained
model to obtain the optimum decision variables. In the process of op-
timization, after generating new solutions, they were checked with
maximum and minimum values to constrain within pre-defined para-
meter range. For the current problem of 6-wells, in each time-step, the
algorithm is set to terminate after the completion of 10 iterations. In
each time-step, the final set of learners represents the best value of
decision variables.
2.1. Optimization procedure
The typical objective function used for optimization under gas-lift
injection constraint ( A ) is maximizing field production at any time-step,
as follows
n
max Qo, total = f (Q g1, Qg 2, ..., Qgn) subject to ∑ Q gi <A
i=1 (6)
It should be noted that in gas-lift systems, injection rate is the single
most important factor and hence is extensively used as the decision
variable for optimization problems in the literature (Buitrago et al.,
1996; Miresmaeili, 2016; Ranjan et al., 2015; Wang and Litvak, 2008).
In the present study, the aim of the surrogate-based modeling is esti-
mating the f so that performing predictions and optimization on the
model gives approximate results to the actual simulator or field data.
S.O.H. Miresmaeili et al.
Fig. 5. LMNN training results. Model outputs versus target values for (a) training data, (b) cross-validation data, (c) test data, and (d) all data.
Fig. 6. Boxplot of all data for BRNN and LMNN training methods.
In our proposed approach, the model should approximate the total
oil production (Qo ) in each time-step as well as the reservoir pressure
based on gas injection rates (Qgi ) and reservoir pressure for the previous
time-steps. The reservoir pressure in this manner is a representative
parameter of the reservoir state and how earlier production profile af-
fected the system. In other words, the proxy function estimates the oil
production and reservoir pressures in each time-step (Qo, Pr , new ) based
on a gas-lift injection profile and the previous reservoir pressure before
applying the injection profile (Qgi , Pr , old ). So, the proposed model has
two outputs (pressure, rate) and i+1 input variables (pressure,
824
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 172 (2019) 819–830
injection rates).
Pr , new , Qo = f (Pr , old, Qgi ) (7)
The neural network model is trained based on both pressure and
rate and acts as a low dimensional representation of the high-fidelity
production system (consisting of surface facilities, wells and reservoir).
In comparison with the literature, there is no need for incorporating
further variables of individual wells and reservoir for developing the
model; hence the computations would be more straightforward and
easier to interpret. In this manner, the algorithm won't need to assign a
different Neural Network for each component of the production system.
The resulting model can be used in a step-wise optimization. The gen-
eral workflow is shown in Fig. 2 and the trained model can be either
BRNN or LMNN. The important point is that the training should be
based on changes in reservoir pressure to account for the dynamics of
the problem.
2.2. Case study
The production system for studying and applying the logic of pro-
posed methodology consists of 6 gas-lifted wells, a reservoir and surface
facilities which is used for an Iranian gas-lifted field and is depicted in
Fig. 3. Three wells have separate flowline to the main manifold and
three wells share a common flowline. Such systems include a direct
interaction of wells and hence, show the flexibility of the modeling
scheme for different situations. The data of the surface network, re-
servoir and production wells were used as the input for the prediction.
S.O.H. Miresmaeili et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 172 (2019) 819–830

Table 1
Optimization results using TLBO.
Time Step Qg1 (MMscf/day) Qg2 (MMscf/day) Qg3 (MMscf/day) Qg4 (MMscf/day) Qg5 (MMscf/day) Qg6 (MMscf/day) Qoil (STB/day) Pr (psi)

1 0.30 0.61 1.25 0.58 1.21 0.06 23719 4170

2 0.74 0.51 0.82 0.70 1.16 0.07 23158 4100
3 0.71 0.81 1.10 0.60 0.76 0.01 22519 4037
4 0.50 0.70 0.96 0.64 0.94 0.27 22059 3978
5 0.77 0.63 0.96 0.78 0.76 0.09 21534 3923
6 0.57 0.69 0.88 0.73 1.04 0.09 21075 3871
7 0.54 0.80 1.04 0.52 1.01 0.09 19815 3811
8 0.44 0.64 0.86 0.88 0.91 0.26 18586 3742
9 0.65 0.64 0.89 0.79 0.99 0.03 17418 3666
10 0.50 0.75 0.84 0.70 1.19 0.03 16180 3584
11 0.76 0.63 0.63 0.89 1.04 0.06 15059 3501
12 0.56 0.75 0.72 0.78 1.16 0.02 13992 3414
13 0.65 0.59 0.78 0.68 1.30 0.01 12937 3326
14 0.79 0.79 0.40 0.86 1.06 0.10 12323 3236
15 0.79 0.70 0.62 0.74 1.09 0.05 11090 3150
16 0.70 0.70 0.60 0.97 0.97 0.07 10316 3066
17 0.63 0.72 0.50 1.04 1.01 0.11 9446 2985
18 0.64 0.74 0.38 1.22 0.94 0.09 8759 2906
19 0.75 0.70 0.44 1.00 1.02 0.08 8316 2830
20 0.66 0.78 0.36 0.97 0.98 0.25 7813 2756

Table 2
Optimization results using GA.
Time Step Qg1 (MMscf/day) Qg2 (MMscf/day) Qg3 (MMscf/day) Qg4 (MMscf/day) Qg5 (MMscf/day) Qg6 (MMscf/day) Qoil (STB/day) Pr (psi)

1 0.56 0.27 1.33 0.52 1.04 0.28 23643 4171

2 0.36 0.43 1.09 0.73 1.01 0.38 23076 4101
3 0.42 0.69 0.89 1.21 0.72 0.07 22469 4038
4 0.72 0.52 0.74 0.56 0.87 0.59 21881 3979
5 0.60 0.49 1.00 0.58 1.24 0.10 21507 3924
6 0.53 1.15 0.64 0.54 0.62 0.52 20755 3873
7 0.32 0.82 0.96 0.83 0.79 0.29 19738 3814
8 0.67 0.72 0.90 0.45 0.75 0.51 18558 3745
9 0.08 0.86 1.02 0.70 0.82 0.53 17062 3671
10 0.25 1.06 0.99 0.95 0.58 0.17 15995 3591
11 0.42 1.27 0.80 0.51 0.99 0.01 14915 3509
12 0.29 0.62 0.91 0.66 1.02 0.50 13958 3424
13 0.64 1.06 0.50 0.68 0.94 0.17 12947 3337
14 0.40 0.89 0.71 0.65 1.10 0.25 12080 3249
15 0.38 0.35 0.62 1.11 0.78 0.75 10960 3165
16 0.76 0.57 0.32 0.91 0.93 0.51 10197 3082
17 0.52 0.67 0.86 0.82 0.99 0.13 9785 2998
18 0.91 1.01 0.57 0.65 0.78 0.08 8710 2920
19 0.84 0.57 0.39 0.87 0.82 0.51 8376 2845
20 0.71 0.64 0.78 0.91 0.60 0.35 7849 2770

Fig. 7. Production profile without gas injection and optimization using GA.

825
S.O.H. Miresmaeili et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 172 (2019) 819–830

Fig. 8. Production profile without gas injection and optimization with BRNN and TLBO.

Fig. 9. Production profile without gas injection and by using SQP.

Table 3
Gas-lift allocation and oil production for a set of 5-wells (Nishikiori, 1989) and 4600 Mscf/day available gas.
Wells Ex-In Equal Slope Sequential Programming GA TLBO
Buitrago et al. (1996) Kanu et al. (1981) Alarcon et al. (2002)

Qg (Mscf/D) Qo (B/D) Qg (Mscf/D) Qo (B/D) Qg (Mscf/D) Qo (B/D) Qg (Mscf/D) Qo (B/D) Qg (Mscf/D) Qo (B/D)

1 364.8 351.9 187.1 363.6 348.4 342.2 391.7 367.2 394.3 367.4
2 836.8 761.6 72.5 809.5 50.1 734.0 670.6 758.7 672.3 758.9
3 1237.1 1137.6 2758.8 1195.7 555.2 1103.3 1168.6 1141.0 1167.5 1141.1
4 611.0 589.0 6.1 674.3 34.1 598.2 923.8 633.8 918.2 633.4
5 1378.0 788.9 3472.9 802.6 700.5 705.1 1445.3 839.1 1447.7 839.3
Total 4427.7 3629.0 6497.4 3845.7 1688.3 3482.8 4600 3739.8 4600 3740.1
Qg/Qo 1.20 1.45 0.53 1.23 1.23

2.3. Comparison 3. Computational results

In addition to the modeling and optimization of the 6-wells case
study, the optimization algorithm (i.e., TLBO) is compared with the
literature. By applying the TLBO to 5-well and 56-well cases, Ex-In
(Buitrago et al., 1996), equal slope (Kanu et al., 1981) and sequential
programming (Alarcon et al., 2002) were used for the sake of com-
parison. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time this algo-
rithm is applied to a petroleum engineering problem.
The quantitative accuracy of BRNN and LMNN is reported as the
correlation coefficient, R, shown in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. Com-
paring these results, BRNN gives better correlation coefficients and
hence, the BRNN fits the data more accurately. In Fig. 5, the early
stopping caused by cross-validation decreased the initial phase of
training. In contrast, BRNN does not require such cross-validation
procedure, which results in smoother network response (recall that the
regularization modifies the objective function of the neural network

826
S.O.H. Miresmaeili et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 172 (2019) 819–830

Fig. 10. Progress of the computation for the case of total gas volume is limited to 4600 Mscf/day of TLBO and GA for 5-well example case.

Table 4
Gas-lift allocation and oil production for a set of 56-wells (Buitrago et al., 1996) and 22500 Mscf/day available gas.
Well No. GA TLBO Ex-In Well No. GA TLBO Ex-In

Qinj Qo Qinj Qo Qinj Qo Qinj Qo Qinj Qo Qinj Qo

1 526.6 390.1 1227.7 578.6 504.9 357.1 30 0 210 0 210 68.7 309.2
2 635.5 890.3 500.4 734.4 234.6 583 31 0 350.3 0 350.3 1.5 354
3 886.5 647.3 954.4 685.4 725.7 626.6 32 480.9 738 379.9 688.2 451.8 681.2
4 0 280.1 42.7 286.7 478.8 304.2 33 711.5 454.6 712.3 454.7 358.8 220
5 0 280 21 282.4 54.3 287.1 34 0 210 0 210 459 215.6
6 351.9 467.2 288.3 351.1 363.9 356.6 35 476.4 374 347.2 232.9 772.3 265.6
7 533.1 914.7 481.9 869.3 221 833.6 36 252.9 218.2 202.5 213.2 198.5 216.3
8 403.8 341.9 371.7 288.8 333.5 279.6 37 0 40 0 40 170.5 73.2
9 1263.2 1549.5 1286.6 1562.6 431.7 813.2 38 381.9 314.9 421.9 319.9 668.2 325
10 0 230 0 230 365 260.7 39 302.5 212.2 314 213.6 235.1 190.6
11 1293.2 1284.6 1104.9 1165.1 591.6 871.4 40 73.7 22.1 56.7 20.3 114.9 27.9
12 1548.3 640.3 1607 647 2435.4 657.9 41 0 370 0 370 315.1 373.4
13 0 90 0 90 194.9 118.3 42 0 200 0 200 33.7 201.2
14 318.6 342.7 318.8 392.7 184.2 301.2 43 1344.5 409 1226.3 397 1284 404.9
15 1547.1 912.5 1500.1 909.4 649.6 655.2 44 17.4 11.3 0 0 95.6 404.7
16 644.7 380.7 560.7 696.9 228.8 295.3 45 61.4 84 0 79 33.2 83.4
17 620 1073.4 429.9 953.7 188.4 918.9 46 217.6 70.4 96 60.3 289.3 65.8
18 569.7 1299.1 578.9 1300.1 428.8 1234.3 47 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 0 110 0 110 644.7 340.7 48 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 1196.2 384 1309.8 497 929.5 383.1 49 144.1 242.2 123.9 232.6 0 0
21 1548.3 680.9 1511.3 697.8 542.3 384.6 50 1548.3 157.6 1898.1 243.2 0 0
22 458.7 220.2 438.7 218.2 385.8 214.9 51 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 26.6 940 0 940 44.5 945.6 52 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 1548.3 1737 1545.8 1736.7 1713.9 1752.6 53 9 6.7 0 0 0 0
25 108.3 503.8 135.8 506.3 805.4 546.6 54 312.2 47.1 302.1 41 0 0
26 0 95 0 95 591.6 127.2 55 137 325 202.8 403.6 0 0
27 0 150 0 150 247.8 355.9 56 0 0 0 0 0 0
28 0 500 0 500 140.2 1052.7 Total 22499.9 22492.9 22500.1 22545 20479.5 20466.5
29 0 90 0 90 268.5 196.4

rather than performing the cross-validation technique). For the main
case example of this study (Figure 33) a five-year production period
with three-month time-steps is considered. The constraint of gas-lift
injection capacity is assumed to be 4 MMscf/day. The parameters of the
optimization algorithms are tuned based on multiple runs and the best
performance of the algorithms is presented. Fig. 6 shows a boxplot that
illustrates how the distribution of the five first order statistics in the
examined methods (i.e., LMNN and BRNN). It appears that each per-
formance group shows a similar dispersion in their lower and upper
whiskers, there is a clear increase in the median values as one moves
from left box (4229) to the right one (5303). Median is the numerical
value separating the higher half of a sample, from the lower half.
By using the TLBO algorithm with 10 population size in each time-
step, the optimization is conducted and the results are shown in
Table 1. Using TLBO solution in the simulator, a cumulative of 28.5
MMbbl is obtained. Table 1 is showing the optimum gas allocation for
injection purpose in each well. Naturally at each time step and for each
well, the optimum injection rate changes in accordance with pressure
decline, production history and optimization constraints. However, a
definite increase or decrease cannot be pointed out for the case studied
in this paper. The same procedure is repeated using GA with the same
population size and adjusted parameters; the results of this optimiza-
tion as well as implementing the obtained injection profile in the si-
mulator are shown in Table 2. In this case, the cumulative production
after 5 years is 28.3 MMbbl which is close to TLBO results. Also by
utilizing the existing SQP solver provided with a simulator, the cumu-
lative production is 28.1 MM bbl is achieved, which shows the tendency
of this method to converge to local optima when used to solve rather

827
S.O.H. Miresmaeili et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 172 (2019) 819–830

Fig. 11. Progress of the computation for the case of total gas volume is limited to 4600 Mscf/day of TLBO and GA for 56-well example case.

complex problems. These results are shown in Figs. 7–9 for GA, TLBO,
and SQP, respectively.
To investigate the efficiency of the deployed TLBO in this study, two
sets of gas-lift data (i.e., 5-well and 56-well) from Buitrago et al. (1996)
are incorporated. Also for the sake of comparison, GA as a well-known
optimization algorithm, Ex-In results as the original algorithm from
Buitrago et al. (1996), Equal Slope method from Kanu et al. (1981), and
Sequential Programming from Alarcon et al. (2002) are used. Based on
the optimization parameters and the adjustment of the algorithms, the
performance of the methods varies. For 5-well case, an initial popula-
tion of 10 individuals is considered for the algorithms and the mutation
rate of GA is set to 0.3 which means 30 percent of each generation will
experience a mutation operator. Similarly, the crossover percentage of
GA is set to 80 percent. For the 56-well case, 50 individuals are present
in the initial population. GA crossover and mutation operators use the
same adjustments as the 5-well problem. It should be noted that these
parameters even in the simplest form of GA is a disadvantage in com-
parison to TLBO which doesn't need such adjustments. The optimization
criterion here is to achieve maximum total production rate using a
given available injection gas. Table 3 shows the optimization results for
the 5-well system under 4600 Mscf/day gas injection constraint. The
objective function convergence of GA and TLBO for 5-well example are
shown in Fig. 10. It should be noted that although two algorithms give
very similar results in terms of injection profile, TLBO converges to the
optimum solution with fewer iterations and hence it is more efficient
and less prone to get stuck in local optima.
Similar to the 6 well case, the 56 well case was used to compare the
performance of the TLBO algorithm with that of GA and Ex-In (from
Buitrago et al. (1996)). It should be pointed out that, the function ap-
proximation used was similar to what Buitrago et al. (1996) originally
used. Also, the data reported in the aforementioned paper are too
limited to be used for training a neural network model. For this larger
scale problem, the same procedure is repeated with a constraint of
22500 Mscf/D available gas and the results are reported in Table 4.
Accordingly, the convergence behavior of GA and TLBO for 56-well
case are shown in Fig. 11. TLBO has a smoother convergence plot and
efficiently obtains the optimum result. Based on these comparisons,
TLBO is capable of successfully solving gas-lift allocation problem.
4. Conclusion
The results of this modeling show that BRNNs are more efficient and
robust in comparison with the classical back-propagation neural net-
works. A recently proposed algorithm based on teaching-learning pro-
cess for solving nonlinear optimization problems is used which shows
satisfactory performance in comparison with the classical SQP method
and the popular GA technique in terms of convergence and efficiency. A
significant advantage of the TLBO is that it doesn't require additional
algorithm parameters. Although the convergence rate of this type of
methods strongly depends on the function being optimized, the rate of
convergence for the problem studied in this study is superlinear. TLBO
is relatively easy to implement and based on the results obtained in this
study it is a promising method to solve gas-lift optimization problems.
The performance of an algorithm depends on the nature of the problem.
For the particular problem studied in this paper, TLBO outperforms
both GA and SQP. The approach in this study uses the reservoir pressure
as a representative parameter for time elapsing aspect of the system.
The results show that the proposed scheme can achieve acceptable
accuracy in modeling and optimization of production systems.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support from IOR Research
Institute, Tehran, Iran and NIOC.

Appendix A

The following example serves to show TLBO method in action.

Consider the following optimization example which is a simple minimization problem;
Objective function is to be minimized, subject to the constraint;
− 1 < xi < 1
Obviously this problem can be easily solved in few seconds and the solution is readily found to be x1 = x2 = x3 = 0, however, to demonstrate the
workflow of the TLBO algorithm, we will follow the first iteration of the algorithm. For simplicity, consider an initial population size of 4 (number of
students). In other words, we use only 4 students (S1 to S4 ) to solve the problem.
Like any other evolutionary-based algorithm (such as GA) the first step is to initialize the population (students) with random solutions. It is

828
S.O.H. Miresmaeili et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 172 (2019) 819–830

important to note that a random number generator is necessary for implementing evolutionary algorithms. Such random number generators are
usually available for most programming languages.
After the initialization stage we end up with 4 random solutions.

Solutions x1 x2 x3 f

S1 −0.06056 −0.38739 −0.12126 0.1684

S2 −0.38628 −0.44997 −0.72251 0.8737
S3 −0.66691 −0.01210 −0.82683 1.1286
S4 0.85368 −0.70305 −0.67904 1.6841

At this point we start the main loop of the TLBO algorithm.

At the beginning of each iteration we compare the results from the last iteration to calculate the mean value for each decision variable and also
determine the current best solution. Only for the first iteration we use the results from the initialization stage. The best solution for the minimization
problem at hand is S1, therefore, in the first iteration S1 is the teacher in the “teaching phase”. The mean values are as follows;

x1 x2 x3

−0.0650 −0.3881 −0.5874

To create new solutions from existing solutions, random coefficients (TF and r ) should be generated. Subsequently, based on equations (3) and
(4), the new solutions are created. For example consider creating a new solution from existing S3 , if TF is 2 and r values are 0.6700, 0.7956, 0.2725
for three decision variables ( x1, x2 , x3), the new solution from S3 is,

x1 = − 0.66691 + 0.6700 × ( −0.06056 − 2 × ( −0.0650)) = 0.71343

x2 = − 0.01210 + 0.7956 × ( −0.38739 − 2 × ( −0.3881)) = 0.29723
x3 = − 0.82683 + 0.2725 × ( −0.12126 − 2 × ( −0.5874)) = −0.53974

The corresponding value of the objective function f for this new solution is 0.889, which is a better result in comparison to the old solution
(1.1286), therefore, the new solution is accepted and used as S3 from now on. It is worth mentioning that if the new solution was not better than the
existing one, the new solution would be discarded and the old solution would be kept for next steps. Same calculations will be repeated to see if
better solutions from S1, S2 and S4 can be generated.
The next step in the main loop is called the ‘Student Phase’ in which two solutions are selected randomly and new solutions are created based on
equation (5). Once again, random values should be generated for performing this step. For instance, if we are creating a new solution from S2 and the
random values for the three decision variables are 0.2839, 0.7173 and 0.1846, assuming that the corresponding randomly selected solution is S4 , the
new solution from S2 will be,

x1 = − 0.38628 + 0.2839 × ( −0.38628 − (0.85368)) = −0.73830

x2 = − 0.44997 + 0.7173 × ( −0.44997 − ( −0.70305)) = −0.26843
x3 = − 0.72251 + 0.1846 × ( −0.72251 − ( −0.67904)) = −0.73053

Using the new solution the cost function is 1.1508 which is worse than the existing solution (0.8737) so the current S2 is kept and the new
generated solution is discarded. It should be pointed out that in the above example, we assumed that the both new solutions generated from S2 and S4
during ‘Teacher Phase’ were discarded and therefore at this point the initialized values are used. Similar calculations should be repeated for S1, S3
and S4 .
After the ‘Learner Phase’, the termination criterion (convergence, tolerances, maximum iterations, etc.) is checked and if it is satisfied the
calculations would stop, otherwise the main loop would be repeated with the existing solutions.

References assessment in the Hoa Binh province of Vietnam: a comparison of the

Alarcón, G.A., Torres, C.F., Gómez, L.E., 2002. Global optimization of gas allocation to a
group of wells in artificial lift using nonlinear constrained programming. Trans. Am.
Soc. Mech. Eng. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 124 (4), 262–268.
Baykasoğlu, A., Hamzadayi, A., Köse, S.Y., 2014. Testing the performance of teachin-
g–learning based optimization (TLBO) algorithm on combinatorial problems: flow
shop and job shop scheduling cases. Inf. Sci. 276, 204–218.
Behjoomanesh, M., Keyhani, M., Ganji-azad, E., Izadmehr, M., Riahi, S., 2015. Assessment
of total oil production in gas-lift process of wells using Box-Behnken design of ex-
periments in comparison with traditional approach. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 27,
1455–1461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.10.008.
Bui, D.T., Pradhan, B., Lofman, O., Revhaug, I., Dick, O.B., 2012. Landslide susceptibility
Levenberg–Marquardt and Bayesian regularized neural networks. Geomorphology
171, 12–29.
Buitrago, S., Rodriguez, E., Espin, D., 1996. Global optimization techniques in gas allo-
cation for continuous flow gas lift systems. In: Proceedings of SPE Gas Technology
Symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers. https://doi.org/10.2118/35616-MS.
Dutta-Roy, K., Kattapuram, J., 1997. A new approach to gas-lift allocation optimization.
Proc. SPE. West. Reg. Meet. 685–691. https://doi.org/10.2523/38333-MS.
Foresee, F.D., Hagan, M.T., 1997. Gauss-Newton approximation to Bayesian regulariza-
tion. In: Proc. 1997 Int. Jt. Conf. Neural Networks, pp. 1930–1935. https://doi.org/
10.1109/ICNN.1997.614194.
Ghassemzadeh, S., Charkhi, A.H., 2016. Optimization of integrated production system
using advanced proxy based models: a new approach. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 35, 89–96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2016.08.045.

829
S.O.H. Miresmaeili et al.
Gomez, V., 1974. Optimization of Continuous Flow Gas Lift Systems. M. S. thesis.
University of Tulsa, OK.
Hamedi, H., Rashidi, F., Khamehchi, E., 2011. A novel approach to the gas-lift allocation
optimization problem. Petrol. Sci. Technol. 29, 418–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10916460903394110.
Hong, H.T., 1975. Effect of Variables on Optimization of Continuous Gas Lift Systems. M.
S. thesis. University of Tulsa, OK.
Kanu, E.P., Mach, J., Brown, K.E., 1981. Economic approach to oil production and gas
allocation in continuous gas lift (includes associated papers 10858 and 10865). J.
Petrol. Technol. 33 (10), 1–887.
Kayri, M., 2016. Predictive abilities of bayesian regularization and Levenberg–Marquardt
algorithms in artificial neural networks: a comparative empirical study on social data.
Math. Comput. Appl. 21, 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/mca21020020.
Khishvand, M., Khamehchi, E., Nokandeh, N.R., 2015. A nonlinear programming ap-
proach to gas lift allocation optimization a nonlinear programming approach to gas
lift allocation optimization. Energy Sources 37, 453–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15567036.2011.584118.
MacKay, D.J.C., 1992. A practical bayesian framework for Backpropagation networks.
Neural Comput. 4, 448–472. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1992.4.3.448.
Mayhill, T.D., 1974, January. Simplified method for gas-lift well problem identification
and diagnosis. In: Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME. Society
of Petroleum Engineers.
Miresmaeili, S.O.H., 2016. Development of a Time-dependent Economic Method with
Start Time Consideration to Optimise Gas-lift Allocation and Scheduling, vol 13. pp.
41–59. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJOGCT.2016.078045.
Monyei, C.G., Adewumi, A.O., Obolo, M.O., 2014. Oil well characterization and artificial
gas lift optimization using neural networks combined with genetic algorithm.
Discrete Dynam Nat. Soc. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/289239. 2014.
Neto, L.R., Camponogara, E., Hardt, R., Silva, T.L., 2015. A piecewise linear-quadratic
approximation for production optimization of gas-lifted oil fields. In: 2015 IEEE
International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE). IEEE, pp.
793–798. https://doi.org/10.1109/CoASE.2015.7294178.
Niknam, T., Azizipanah-Abarghooee, R., Narimani, M.R., 2012. A new multi objective
optimization approach based on TLBO for location of automatic voltage regulators in
distribution systems. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 25 (8), 1577–1588.
Nishikiori, N., Redner, R.A., Doty, D.R., Schmidt, Z., 1995. An improved method for gas
830
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 172 (2019) 819–830
lift allocation optimization. ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol. 117, 87–92.
Niu, Q., Zhang, H., Li, K., 2014. An improved TLBO with elite strategy for parameters
identification of PEM fuel cell and solar cell models. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 39 (8),
3837–3854.
Radden, J.D., Sherman, T.A.G., Blann, J.R., 1974. Optimizing Gas Lift Systems. Paper SPE
5150 SPE 49th Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, TX.
Ranjan, A., Verma, S., Singh, Y., 2015. Gas lift optimization using artificial neural net-
work. In: SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. https://doi.org/10.2118/172610-MS.
Rao, R.V., More, K.C., 2015. Optimal design of the heat pipe using TLBO (teaching–le-
arning-based optimization) algorithm. Energy 80, 535–544.
Rao, R.V., Patel, V., 2013. Multi-objective optimization of heat exchangers using a
modified teaching-learning-based optimization algorithm. Appl. Math. Model. 37 (3),
1147–1162.
Rao, R.V., Savsani, V.J., Vakharia, D.P., 2012. Teaching-Learning-Based Optimization: an
optimization method for continuous non-linear large scale problems. Inf. Sci. 183,
1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2011.08.006.
Ray, T., Sarker, R., 2007. Genetic algorithm for solving a gas lift optimization problem. J.
Petrol. Sci. Eng. 59, 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2007.03.004.
Silva, T.L., Camponogara, E., 2014. A computational analysis of multidimensional pie-
cewise-linear models with applications to oil production optimization. Eur. J. Oper.
Res. 232, 630–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.07.040.
Singh, M., Panigrahi, B.K., Abhyankar, A.R., 2013. Optimal coordination of directional
over-current relays using Teaching Learning-Based Optimization (TLBO) algorithm.
Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 50, 33–41.
Tien Bui, D., Pradhan, B., Lofman, O., Revhaug, I., Dick, O.B., 2012. Landslide suscept-
ibility assessment in the Hoa Binh province of Vietnam: a comparison of the
Levenberg-Marquardt and Bayesian regularized neural networks. Geomorphology
171–172, 12–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.04.023.
Venkata Rao, R., Kalyankar, V.D., 2012. Parameter optimization of machining processes
using a new optimization algorithm. Mater. Manuf. Process. 27 (9), 978–985.
Wang, P., Litvak, M., 2008. Gas lift optimization for long-term reservoir simulations. SPE
Reservoir Eval. Eng. 11, 147–153. https://doi.org/10.2118/90506-PA.
Zangl, G., Graf, T., Al-Kinani, A., 2006. Proxy modeling in production optimization. SPE.
Eur. Annu. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.2118/100131-MS.