Production-System Optimization of Gas
Fields Using Hybrid Fuzzy/Genetic Approach
Hui-June Park, SPE, Korea National Oil Corporation; Jong-Se Lim, SPE, Korea Maritime University; Jeongyong Roh,
Korea National Oil Corporation; and Joo M. Kang, SPE, and Bae-Hyun Min, Seoul National University
Summary
The design of production systems of gas fields is a difficult task because
of the nonlinear nature of the optimization problem and the complex
interactions between each operational parameter. Conventional
methods, which are usually stated in precise mathematical forms,
cannot include the uncertainties associated with vague or imprecise
information in the objective and constraint functions.
This paper proposes a fuzzy nonlinear programming approach
to accommodate these uncertainties and applies it to a variety
of optimization processes. Specifically, the fuzzy ␭-formulation
is combined with a hybrid coevolutionary genetic algorithm for
the optimal design of gas-production systems. Both the multiple
conflicting objective and constraint functions for production
systems of gas fields are formulated in a feasible fuzzy domain.
Then, the genetic algorithm is used as a primary optimization
scheme for solving the optimum gas-production rates of each
well and the pipeline segment diameters to minimize the invest-
ment cost with a given set of constraints in order to enhance the
ultimate recovery.
The synthetic-optimization method can find a global compro-
mise solution and offer a new alternative with significant improve-
ment over the existing conventional techniques. The reliability
of the proposed approach is validated by a synthetic practical
example yielding more-improved results. This method constitutes
an offering of a powerful tool for cost savings in the planning and
optimization of gas-production operations.
Introduction
The objective of production optimization is to determine the
operational parameters, such as the production rates and the tubing
or pipeline diameter, subject to all of the constraints in a given
period of production for the purpose of increasing the ultimate
recovery and reducing the production costs.
In many mature fields, the typical oil- and gas-production systems
have flowline networks with many wells and surface pipelines to
gather the products for further separation or transportation (Fujii
and Horne 1995). Because oil and gas production is constrained by
the reservoir conditions, the flow capacity of the pipeline networks
and surface facilities, and various safety and economic considera-
tions, the implementation of the optimal control parameters is a
difficult task. The main targets to optimize production system of
gas fields are to deliver the contract rates over the period of the gas
contract and to confirm the deliverability of the pipeline networks
(Schneider et al. 2002).
Generally, production-planning problems are stated in precise
mathematical forms. It is practically impossible, however, to
express the objectives and constraints of such optimization
problems using crisp relations because of the fuzziness of the
information, which might be vague, uncertain, and imprecise when
collected from the field (Liu and Chen 1999). Some constraint
violations may lead to a more adequate and practical solution to
this problem (Xiong and Rao 2004). In this design problem, fuzzy
mathematical programming can be a more efficient and flexible
Copyright © 2010 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 100179) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual
Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria, 12–15 June 2006, and revised for publication.
Original manuscript received for review 15 April 2007. Revised manuscript received for
review 30 July 2009. Paper peer approved 29 September 2009.
June 2010 SPE Journal
tool to accommodate uncertainty quantitatively in the presence of
vague information.
Since the concept of fuzzy logic was introduced by Zadeh
(1965), it has been widely developed and applied to various areas
where intuition and judgment still play a fundamental role. Fuzzy
logic mimics the human decision-making and reasoning processes
and thus is suitable for applications with high levels of complexity
and uncertainty. Recently, fuzzy-logic systems have been used to
solve a number of different problems in a variety of areas, including
physical and chemical systems, production planning and scheduling,
location and transportation problems, resource allocation in financial
systems, and engineering design. In the petroleum industry, fuzzy
logic has been put to work in many different areas since the early
1990s, including reservoir characterization (Hambalek and Gonzalez
2003; Lim and Kim 2004; Rafiei et al. 2009; Shokir 2006; Soto
et al. 2001; Taghavi 2005; Zhou et al. 1993; Cuddy 2000; Kedzier-
ski and Mallet 2006; Finol et al. 2002; Hajizadeh 2007a), optimal
well operations (Alimonti and Falcone 2004; Garrouch and Lab-
abidi 2003, 2005; Rivera 1994; Dumans 1995; Xiong et al. 2001),
stimulation treatment (Xiong and Holditch 1995; Nitters et al. 2000),
and economic analysis (Zolotukhin 2000; de Salvo Castro and
Fereira Filho 2001; Agbon and Araque 2003; Chang et al. 2006).
An extensive list of such applications is presented in Table 1. In
particular, many applications are focused on engineering-design
and control problems (Sengul and Bekkousha 2002; Mohaghegh
et al. 2005; Widarsono et al. 2005; Nikravesh et al. 1997; Taheri
2008; Weiss et al. 2001; Cao et al. 2006; Zarei et al. 2008; Wu et al.
1997; Murillo et al. 2009; Kanj and Roegiers 1999; Hajizadeh
2007b; Garrouch and Al-Ruhaimani 2003) relating to the operation
of production systems and facilities.
Neuroth et al. (2000) applied fuzzy logic to the control of
pump stations for oil- and gas-transport systems, and their method
resulted in a reduction of the maintenance and operational costs.
The design of the fuzzy-logic switchover control is based on the
idea of manipulating one of the pressure-control signals so that
the overall transition from one control mode to the other can be
made more smoothly.
Liu and Chen (1999) applied fuzzy-logic models to the optimi-
zation of surface pipeline systems in Daqing oilfield of China. In
their approach for both single-objective and multiobjective cases in
water-injection oilfields, an optimal solution of the design param-
eters is selected from the fuzzy-logic feasible domain.
Sun et al. (2000) reported on a project, conducted jointly
between SaskEnergy/Transgas and the University of Regina, which
aims at developing an integrated decision-support system for the
optimization of natural-gas-pipeline operations. A fuzzy program-
ming model was used to determine the specific compressor unit
to be turned on or off.
Alimonti and Falcone (2004) applied artificial neural networks
and fuzzy logic to multiphase-flow metering to provide a real-time
monitoring of produced-flow rates and stream composition and to
check the quality of this same information.
However, previous works dealt mostly with the control of some
part of a production systems or facilities. Only a limited work using
the fuzzy nonlinear programming approach has been performed
on production-system optimization, and the application of such
techniques is still rare. In addition, conventional derivative-based
optimization techniques for solving fuzzy-mathematical-program-
ming problems result in suboptimal operations and require problem-
specific algebraic manipulations. Therefore, the implementation of
417

TABLE 1—FUZZY-LOGIC APPLICATIONS
IN THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY
Reservoir Characterization*
• Virtual measurement (formation permeability and porosity
prediction)
• Lithofacies identification
• Paleotopography modeling
• Inversion of nuclear magnetic resonance log
Optimal Well Operations and Stimulation Treatment**
• Drilling process control (directional drilling, underbalanced
drilling candidate selection, wellbore stability analysis)
• Pressure control system
• Integration of multiphase flowmetering
• Mitigation of gas-hydrate-related drilling risks
• Diagnosis of formation-damage mechanisms
• Multilateral well completion
• Well stimulation treatment design
• Post-fracture deliverability prediction
†
Optimization of Field Operations
• Infill drilling recovery forecast
• Production data analysis
• Injection optimization
• Production-system optimization
• Well-placement optimization
• Pipe sticking prediction and avoidance
• Corrosion prediction
• Formation-damage assessment
• Sand-management solutions
††
Economic Analysis
• Resources and reserves determination
• Risk assessment in petroleum development finance
• Prediction of oil and gas spot prices
*Abdulraheem et al. (2007); Hambalek and Gonzalez (2003); Lim and Kim
(2004); Rafiei et al. (2009); Shokir (2006); Soto et al. (2001); Taghavi ( 2005);
Zhou et al. (1993); Cuddy (2000); Kedzierski and Mallet (2006); Finol et al.
(2002).
** Hajizadeh (2007a); Alimonti and Falcone (2004); Garrouch and Lababidi
(2003, 2005); Rivera (1994); Dumans (1995); Xiong et al. (2001); Xiong and
Holditch (1995); Nitters et al. (2000).
†
Sengul and Bekkousha (2002); Mohaghegh et al. (2005); Widarsono et al.
(2005); Nikravesh et al. (1997); Taheri (2008); Weiss et al. (2001); Cao et al.
(2006); Zarei et al. (2008); Wu et al. (1997); Murillo et al. (2009); Kanj and
Roegiers (1999); Hajizadeh (2007b); Garrouch and Al-Ruhaimani (2003).
††
Zolotukhin (2000); de Salvo Castro and Fereira Filho (2001); Agbon and
Araque (2003); Chang et al. (2006).
a reliable and effective optimization method is crucial in engineer-
ing-design fields. This paper proposes a new hybrid fuzzy-logic
optimization approach for single- or multiobjective gas-production
systems with multiple constraints and provides a feasible solu-
tion by combining the fuzzy-logic ␭-formulation with a hybrid
coevolutionary genetic algorithm. The proposed fuzzy-logic system
can manage the resulting information in terms of reservoir and
production network for an integrated approach to production-sys-
tem analysis. The synthetic-optimization method can find a global
compromise solution and offer a new alternative with significant
improvement over the existing conventional techniques.
The proposed method was applied to a practical case study for
solving optimum allocation of the gas-production rates for each
well and the pipeline segment diameters in order to minimize the
investment cost with a given set of constraints.
This case study demonstrates the feasibility of the proposed
approach as a practical, cost-effective, and robust gasfield
production management tool.
Fuzzy Nonlinear Programming
The conventional approach to design problems is to adopt a
deterministic model formulated in a precise mathematical form.
418
Then, variations in the operating conditions, geometry, boundary
conditions, etc. are considered in the optimization process by the
use of simplifying hypotheses such as consideration of extreme
or mean values or the application of safety factors (Schuëller
and Jensen 2008). Uncertainties associated with variability and
randomness in the process of observation and measurement may
cause significant changes in the performance and reliability of
the design variables. Furthermore, final solutions obtained by a
deterministic model may become infeasible when the uncertainty
in the system parameter is considered. Hence, a proper design
procedure must accommoadate these types of uncertainties. The
resulting system will perform within prescribed margins with a
certain reliability (i.e., a quantitative measure of the system safety
will be available) (Schuëller and Jensen 2008).
The main approaches to optimization under uncertainty can
be classified as stochastic programming (recourse models, robust
stochastic programming, and probabilistic models) and fuzzy
programming (flexible and possibilistic programming), depending
on how uncertainty is modeled. Objective or random uncertainty
has an intrinsically irreducible stochastic nature, which is often
modeled through discrete or continuous probability functions
in stochastic programming. By contrast, subjective or epistemic
uncertainty, including model errors and errors introduced by the
numerical solution of the corresponding problem, is related to a
lack of information that basically could be reduced by additional
information. Fuzzy programming is more appropriate for this type
of uncertainty.
The uncertainty associated with integrated gas-production
systems is not random but rather involves the imprecise description of
information collected from the gas field (Zadeh 1965). In such cases,
it is more reasonable to define the optimization problem with some
tolerance interval for imprecision, such as a membership function in
fuzzy mathematical programming (Liu and Chen 1999).
In general, the mathematical model of multiobjective nonlinear
programming is stated as (Sahinidis 2004; Zimmermann 1991;
Fletcher 1993)
maximize or minimize f ( x ) = ⎡⎣ f1 ( x ) ,..., fk ( x ) ⎤⎦
gi ( x ) ≤ bi ,
subject to i = 1,..., m
h j ( x ) = 0,
j = 1,..., n
li ≤ xi ≤ ui , i = 1,..., n , . . . . . . . . . . (1)
where x is an n-dimensional vector of decision variables, fi(x)
are k conflicting objective functions, gj and hj denote inequality
and equality constraints, bi indicates the allowable interval of the
constraint function gj, and li and ui are the lower and upper bounds
of the design variables, respectively.
In fuzzy programming, objectives and constraints are treated as
fuzzy sets. Some constraint violation is allowed, and the degree
of satisfaction of a constraint including the range of uncertainty
of the coefficients is defined as the membership function of the
constraint (Sahinidis 2004).
The fuzzy feasible region is defined by considering all the
constraints as follows
m
C = ∩ gi , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
i =1
and the membership degree of the decision vector x to the fuzzy
feasible region C is given by
{ }
␮C ( x ) = min ␮ gi ( x ) , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
which is the minimum degree of satisfaction of the design vector
x with respect to all of the constraints.
For a given fuzzy goal G and fuzzy constraint C in a space of
alternatives x, a decision domain D, which is a fuzzy feasible set
resulting from the intersection of G and C , is expressed as
{ }
m
D = ␮G ( x ) ∩ ∩ ␮ gi ( x ) , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
i =1
June 2010 SPE Journal
where ␮G ( x ) and ␮ gi ( x ) denote the membership functions of the
objective and the constraint function, respectively.
The intersection of fuzzy sets is defined by the min-operator,
which is the minimum degree of satisfaction of the decision vector
with respect to all of the objectives and constraints. Then, an opti-
mal solution x* can be selected by maximizing the membership
function of the fuzzy decision set D.
␮ D ( x * ) = max ␮ D ( x ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
The equivalent formulation of the max/min problem using the
fuzzy ␭-formulation is stated as
maximize ␭
subject to ␭ ≤ ␮G
␭ ≤ ␮ gi ( x ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
In fuzzy mathematical programming, objective functions are treated
as constraints, with the lower and upper bounds defining the decision-
maker’s expectations. Some other types of membership function with
additional statistical information have been proposed for the construction
of objective and constraint membership functions. However, the linear
membership function is commonly used because the optimization
solution is relatively insensitive to the actual type of membership
function (Sahinidis 2004). The details of this procedure are presented in
Appendix A. To solve this nonlinear programming problem efficiently,
a hybrid coevolutionary/genetic algorithm is proposed.
Hybrid Coevolutionary/Genetic Algorithm
Optimization processes require the evaluation of objective and con-
straint functions hundreds or thousands of times. Hence, the use of
efficient optimization techniques that require fewer function calls
and guarantee a global optimum is critical. A variety of simulation
techniques can be used for the reliability estimation process. Generally
speaking, optimization techniques can be classified as linear program-
ming, dynamic programming, integer programming, geometric pro-
gramming, heuristic method, Lagrangean multiplier method, etc.
Genetic algorithms have been widely used as global methods
for complex function optimization (Goldberg 1989). To handle the
nonlinear constraints of general nonlinear programming problems,
most genetic algorithms are based on penalty functions, which
penalize infeasible solutions (Sakawa 2002). These methods have
several impediments, such as distorting the evaluation function and
increasing the number of searches.
To overcome the many limitations of conventional genetic algorithms,
a new hybrid coevolutionary/genetic algorithm is proposed for solving
nonlinear optimization problems. This coevolutionary/genetic algorithm
is based on a coevolution and repair strategy consisting of two separate
populations, which are the population of the search points that satisfy the
linear constraints of the problem, S, and the population of the reference
points that satisfy all of the constraints of the problem, X. A reproduction
in one population influences the evaluations of individuals in the other
population. At least one initial reference point that is fully feasible is
required to create an initial population of reference points. The random
generation of initial reference points from individuals, however, is very
difficult for most of the optimization problem.
To avoid this difficulty, gradient-based sequential quadratic pro-
gramming (SQP) is used to create an initial reference population
in the initial phase of the search. Once an initial reference point
is obtained by SQP, an initial reference population is created by
using multiple copies of that point. Subsequently, the coevolution
and repair processes are performed until the prescribed termination
condition is satisfied.
The repair process includes the following steps (Sakawa 2002),
which are also presented in Fig. 1.
1. Generate two separate initial populations using the floating-
point representation.
2. Apply closed crossover and mutation operators, in the sense
that the resulting offsprings always satisfy the linear constraints,
to the population of search points. The details of this procedure
are presented in Appendix B.
June 2010 SPE Journal
3. Generate new random points z = as+(1−a)r from a segment
between search point s ∈ S and reference point r ∈ X using a ran-
dom number a in the range of 0–1.
4. If the newly generated point z is feasible and its fitness value
is better than r, then replace r with z as a new reference point. Also,
replaces s by z with the replacement probability of pr. If generated
point z is infeasible, repeat Step 3 until a feasible point is found
or a preset number of generations is reached.
5. Repeat this repair process for one reference point and all
search points.
6. After evaluating the individuals in the population of reference
points, apply the selection operator to generate individuals of the
next generation using the exponential ranking method.
Consequently, two separate populations coevolve. Because the
objective function is evaluated only for the reference points, the
evaluation function is not distorted, as in the case of penalty-based
methods. A flow diagram of the fuzzy optimization method is
shown in Fig. 1.
Interactive Fuzzy Multiobjective Programming (Sakawa 2002).
For solving multiobjective-programming problems whose
objective functions conflict with one another, the proposed
optimization method is effectively applicable. After determining
the membership function for each of the objectives and constraints,
the decision maker specifies the reference membership values
for all of the membership functions. For the specified reference
membership levels ␮i , i = 1,..., k , the corresponding Pareto optimal
solution (which is, in the minimum/maximum sense, nearest to
the requirement or better than the requirement if the reference
membership levels are attainable) is obtained by solving the
minimum/maximum problem.
{ }
minimize max ␮i − ␮i ⎡⎣ f ( x ) ⎤⎦ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
To circumvent the necessity of performing the Pareto optimality
tests in the minimum/maximum problems, the augmented minimum/
k
maximum problem, in which the term ␳ ∑ ␮i − ␮i ⎡⎣ f ( x ) ⎤⎦ is
i =1
{ }
added to the standard minimum/maximum problem, is adopted
as follows
⎧ k
⎫
minimize max ⎨␮i − ␮i ⎡⎣ f ( x ) ⎤⎦ + ␳ ∑ ⎡⎣␮i − ␮i ( f ( x )) ⎤⎦ ⎬,
⎩ i =1 ⎭
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
User’s interface program
Contain Yes
fuzzy information
No
Crisp mathematical Fuzzy mathematical
modeling module modeling module
Coevolutionary GA
• Floating-point representation
Reference populations Search populations
• Exponential ranking selection • Genetic operation
Repair process
Satisfy
termination condition
Optimum solution
Fig. 1—Flow diagram of fuzzy nonlinear programming.
419
 2
7 4 3 1 TABLE 2—TUBING STRING AND PIPELINE DATA
6 5 FOR OPTIMIZATION EXAMPLES
8
Well
P1 Number Diameter (in.) Length (ft)

T1 3 6,500
P2 Manifold
P3 T2 3 6,600
9 T3 3 7,000
P10
T4 3 6,600
P4 T5 3 7,100
Field gathering center
T6 5 7,500
10
P5 T7 5 7,500
P9
20 T8 5 7,500
11
12 P8 T9 5 6,700
P6 19
P7 T10 3 7,200
T11 3 7,200
T12 3 7,100
13 18
14 15 16 17 T13 5 6,600
T14 5 6,600
Fig. 2—Configuration of gathering system for optimization T15 5 6,600
examples.
T16 5 6,600
T17 3 7,000
where ␳ is a sufficiently small positive value. The proposed T18 3 7,000
optimization technique can be adopted for each string s of the T19 3 7,100
following fitness function.
T20 3 7,200
P1 4 18,000
⎧ k
⎫
f ( s ) = 1.0 + k ␳ − max ⎨␮i − ␮i ⎡⎣ f ( x ) ⎤⎦ + ␳ ∑ ⎡⎣␮i − ␮i ( f ( x )) ⎤⎦ ⎬ . P2 5 14,000
⎩ i =1 ⎭ P3 5 4,500
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9) P4 5 12,500
If the current solution is not acceptable in the interaction processes, P5 5 14,250
update the reference membership values on the basis of the P6 5 15,000
decision condition and return to the corresponding augmented P7 5 13,000
minimum/maximum problem. P8 5 14,500
P9 5 18,700
Applications
P10 10 150,000
This section presents two examples of gasfield optimization. The first
example compares the performance of fuzzy nonlinear programming
with conventional crisp optimization method for the allocation of In this example problem, let the wellheads serve as the solution
well rates to maximize the total gas production. The second example points so that the pressure of each node i can be calculated using
demonstrates the feasibility of interactive fuzzy multiobjective two pressure-transverse calculations (Kumar 1987). If the pressure
programming as a practical gasfield management tool. of wellhead i calculated from the reservoir side and from the
Fig. 2 shows a graphical representation of a synthetic gas- gathering center are denoted as pir and pis , respectively, the system
gathering network with treelike and loop structures modifying of equations for rate determination is
Handley-Schachler et al.’s case study (2000). The network consists
of 20 wells and nine manifolds connected to a single gathering pir = preservoir − ⌬pinflow − ⌬ptubing
center assumed to be operating at a fixed pressure of 2,300 psi. The
pis = pseparator + ⌬ppipeline + ⌬pchoke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)
reservoir block pressures of the wells and the permeability are in
the range of 3,700–4,250 psi and 10–35 md, respectively.
In this synthetic example, a generic design of the production
Table 2 lists the tubing string and surface pipeline data of the
system was used in situations where the reservoir conditions
production system, which are denoted by T1–T20 and P1–P10,
for the wells, such as the reservoir static pressure and block
respectively. All of the tubing strings with diameters between 3 and
permeability, are fixed. In the process of calculating the pressure
5 in. are connected to surface pipelines with diameters between
transverse, the reservoir component refers to wellbore forms the
4 and 10 in. and lengths between 4,500 and 150,000 ft through
boundary conditions for the gathering system. The pressure drop
chokes with a maximum diameter of ¾ in. The specific gravity of
in the tubings and surface pipeline networks are evaluated using
the gas is 0.85, and the temperature of the wellbore and wellhead
the Beggs and Brill (Kumar 1987) correlation from upstream
are 130 and 40°F, respectively.
and downstream, respectively. Short pipe sections onboard in
the surface networks were excluded from the network simulation
Example 1. The objective of the problem is to maximize the total
because the pressure drops through these pipes are very small and
gas-production rate by optimally allocating the flow rate of each
have little effect on the overall behavior of the production system.
well. The optimization problem is formulated as follows:
Sachdeva et al.’s model from Kumar (1987) was used for the
20 calculation of the pressure drop through the chokes.
maximize ∑ qi On the basis of the calculation of the pressure transverse, this
i =1 problem adopts the deliverability constraint suggested by Wang
subject to 0 ≤ qi ≤ 20, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10) et al. (2002):

where qi is the gas-flow rate of well i in the range of 0–20 MMscf/D. pir − pis ≥ 0 i = 1,..., 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (12)

420 June 2010 SPE Journal

 120 initial objective function value, 67.47 MMscf/D estimated by SQP,
represents a small local optimum that is a relatively inferior value
110 compared to the global optimum, 112.81 MMscf/D, because the
search strategy is not extensive enough. Furthermore, the surface of
Objective Function the objective function is extremely complicated because some flow
100
components in the system include discontinuities and flow interac-
tions or a strong dependence between the decision variables. The
90 coevolutionary/genetic algorithm is used mainly to find a small
feasible region surrounding the global optimum point. The applied
80 optimization algorithm reached the maximum possible solution
Average in, on average, fewer than 60 generations without finding a local
Best optimum solution. The proposed hybrid optimization approach
70
efficiently embodies the overall framework of genetic operations
and guarantees with higher degree of success the global optimum
60 compared with the conventional derivative-based algorithm.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Table 3 summarizes a comparison of the optimal solution
obtained by the crisp and fuzzy optimization methods and presents
Generation Number
the allocated production rates of each well with a fixed sink
Fig. 3—Convergence of objective function by coevolutionary pressure. As can be seen from the solution, the fuzzy optimization
genetic algorithm. approach provides an additional total production rate of 4.23 and
8.25 MMscf/D, which represent a 3.7 and 7.3% increase of total
production rate, respectively, over the crisp optimization method.
The deliverability constraint ensures that the optimal rates Conventional crisp optimization methods assume that constraints
identified for the problem lie within the deliverability capacity of delimit as a crisp set of feasible decisions. This implies that, in a
the gathering system. According to the production rates and the surface-pipeline-network system, for example, a wellhead pressure
status of deliverability constraint, the well status, which should of 1,000 psi is acceptable while 1,001 psi is not. This is contrary
be fully closed, be partially closed, or remain fully open, can be to the human expert’s perception developed from many years of
determined (Wang et al. 2002). work experience.
To formulate the optimization problem in the fuzzy domain, an Fuzzy programming considers random parameters as fuzzy
allowable deviation of 3 and 10% for each constraint is considered numbers, and constraints are treated as fuzzy sets. Some constraint
using a linear membership function. The decision variables are the violation is allowed, and the degree of satisfaction of a constraint
gas-flow rates of each well. is defined as the membership function by considering different
Fig. 3 shows the convergence performance obtained by using degrees of weight or importance to violations of the different
the proposed hybrid coevolutionary/genetic algorithm. Starting constraints. The proposed approach can achieve more reliable and
with the initial reference population obtained by SQP, the proposed practical solution to the problem by accommodating uncertainties
approach significantly reduces the computational effort needed related to the imprecise description of information collected in the
to generate fully feasible initial reference points. However, the petroleum-field-optimization process.

TABLE 3—ALLOCATED PRODUCTION RATES OF CRISP AND FUZZY

OPTIMIZATION METHODS WITH A FIXED SINK PRESSURE OF 2,300 psi

Fuzzy Result With an Allowable Deviation for

Well Crisp Result Each Constraints (Mscf/D)
Number (Mscf/D) Deviation of 3% Deviation of 10%

1 6,477 6,752 6,897

2 7,644 7,919 8,115
3 6,445 6,096 6,394
4 8,140 7,822 8,140
5 6,017 5,606 5,925
6 4,855 6,599 6,663
7 7,857 9,595 10,205
8 10,815 12,445 13,640
9 17,318 15,112 14,891
10 4,838 5,459 5,499
11 3,924 4,521 4,508
12 6,524 6,910 7,185
13 2,588 3,435 3,537
14 2,214 2,826 2,966
15 2,218 2,844 2,978
16 3,830 4,499 4,925
17 2,452 2,562 2,641
18 1,836 1,928 2,108
19 3,805 2,481 2,323
20 3,010 1,623 1,672
Total 112,807 117,035 121,064

June 2010 SPE Journal 421

 TABLE 4—INTERACTIVE PROCESSES
OF MULTIOBJECTIVE PROBLEM

1 Interaction 1 2 3
Membership Degree

1 0.8 1

1 1 0.9
f1 (USD) 2,431,350 2,560,880 2,371,833
f2 (MMscf/D) 281.37 319.63 262.07
0.6303 0.5731 0.6566
0 0.6305 0.7731 0.5585
1,594,129 3,858,636
(a) Pipeline Cost, USD
function of the objective is quantified by making use of the
experienced designer’s technical knowledge and expectations and the
data collected from domain experts. After calculating the individual
minimum and maximum of the objective functions, the membership
functions of the two objective functions are represented by the linear
relationship shown in Fig. 4. To elicit a linear membership function
1 of the pipeline cost, the minimum value of unacceptable levels and
Membership Degree

maximum value of totally desirable levels are accessed. In Fig. 4, the

0 rates and minimizing the investment cost of the pipeline network.
112 380
(b) Production Rate, MMscf/D
Fig. 4—Fuzzy objective function (a) pipeline cost, (b) total
production rate.
Example 2. The multiobjective problem described in this example
consists of two objective functions: minimizing the investment cost
of pipeline networks ( f1) and maximizing the total gas-production
rate or delivering the contract requirement over the period of the
gas contract ( f2). The management options for achieving these
objectives consist of optimal well-rate allocation and appropriate
selection of the pipeline-segment diameters. The decision variables
are the gas-flow rates of each well and the pipeline diameter of the
surface production network. The constraints imposed on the system
include the design ranges of the pipeline diameter, which are 4–12,
5–12, and 10–24 in. for P1, P2–P9, and P10, respectively.
It is assumed that the construction cost of the pipeline is USD
4,000/in.-mile, regardless of the pipeline route. The membership
minimum level of the pipeline cost, USD 1,594,129, corresponds to
the selection of all the lower bounds of the pipeline diameter and vice
versa for the maximum level. Then, by taking account of the calculated
minimum and maximum with respect to the total production rate, the
membership function of the production rate is determined.
Table 4 represents the interactive processes used for obtaining
a Pareto optimal solution for maximizing the total gas-production
The reference membership values of ( ␮1 , ␮2 ) from (1.0, 1.0) to
(0.8, 1.0), and (1.0, 0.9) are applied sequentially. In the whole
interaction process, the corresponding augmented minimum/
maximum problem is solved for the initial reference membership
levels, and Tables 4 and 5 present the resulting optimal solutions
and current membership values of the objective functions.
If the decision maker is not satisfied with Interaction 1, Interac-
tions 2 and 3 can be performed to improve the satisfaction levels
for ␮1 and ␮2.
For weighting ␮2 in Interaction 2, the construction cost and
total production rate are increased by USD 2,560,880 and 319.63
MMscf/D, while, for weighting ␮1 in Interaction 3, they are
decreased by USD 2,371,833 and 262.07 MMscf/D, respectively.
The decision maker can efficiently obtain a satisfactory solution
in this manner by updating the reference membership values.
For the contract requirements problem, Fig. 5 shows the
objective function of the gas contract rate. Table 6 lists the resulting
optimal solution for the reference membership values of (1.0, 1.0).
The optimized cost and production rate are USD 2,246,528 and
239.51 MMscf/D, respectively. The proposed approach applies
effectively to various multiple decision problems.

TABLE 5—OPTIMIZATION RESULTS OF MULTIOBJECTIVE PROBLEM

Interaction 1 Interaction 2 Interaction 3

Pipe Number Rate Number Rate Number Rate Number

P1 28.93 5.76 26.17 7.59 21.39 4.72

P2 72.72 8.19 79.16 8.71 66.35 8.78
P3 38.15 6.06 52.29 9.92 49.54 8.64
P4 153.92 11.24 169.08 10.40 128.20 8.51
P5 103.56 11.16 120.86 11.90 78.74 7.81
P6 67.38 8.43 73.06 8.99 48.59 9.30
P7 8.96 6.05 10.87 5.53 4.26 9.20
P8 6.70 7.25 11.61 5.73 11.52 8.61
P9 36.18 6.87 47.80 8.01 30.15 8.22
P10 281.37 14.84 319.63 15.59 262.07 14.19

422 June 2010 SPE Journal

 TABLE 6—OPTIMIZATION RESULTS OF CONTRACT-REQUIREMENTS PROBLEM

Interaction Result Pipe Number Flow Rate (MMscf/D) Diameter (in.)

1 P1 27.49 6.24

1 P2 60.50 7.11

f1 (USD) 2,246,528 P3 35.56 7.58

f2 (MMscf/D) 239.51 P4 128.98 10.14

0.7119 P5 91.05 7.67

0.9024 P6 37.03 5.95

P7 20.63 6.43

P8 32.07 7.09

P9 54.02 8.02

P10 239.51 13.72

tics and Evaluation. Paper SPE 106355 presented at the SPE Technical
Symposium of Saudi Arabia Section, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 21–23
May. doi: 10.2118/106355-MS.
Membership Degree

1
0 de Salvo Castro, A.O. and Fereira Filho, V.J.M. 2001. The Use of Fuzzy
235 240 245
Production Rate, MMscf/D
Fig. 5—Fuzzy objective function for contract requirements
problem.
Conclusions
This study proposes a fuzzy nonlinear programming approach
combined with a hybrid coevolutionary/genetic algorithm for the
optimal design of gas-production systems. The reliability of the
synthetic optimization method is validated by practical operation
problems including well-rate allocation, the optimal design of
pipeline networks, and multiple decision problems.
Case studies demonstrated that more flexible and practical
results were obtained with the proposed method by quantitatively
accommodating uncertainties related to the field operation than
with conventional methods. The proposed approach can provide
an important element for future planning and optimization of the
production operations of gas fields.
References
Abdulraheem, A., Sabakhi, E., Ahmed, M., Vantala, A., Raharja, I., and
Korvin, G. 2007. Estimation of Permeability from Wireline Logs in a
Middle Eastern Carbonate Reservoir Using Fuzzy Logic. Paper SPE
105350 presented at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Con-
ference, Bahrain, 11–14 March. doi: 10.2118/105350-MS.
Agbon, I.S. and Araque, J.C. 2003. Predicting Oil and Gas Spot Prices
Using Chaos Time Series Analysis and Fuzzy Neural Network Model.
Paper SPE 82014 presented at the SPE Hydrocarbon Economics and
Evaluation Symposium, Dallas, 5–8 April. doi: 10.2118/82014-MS.
Alimonti, C. and Falcone, G. 2004. Integration of Multiphase Flow-
metering, Neural Networks, and Fuzzy Logic in Field Performance
Monitoring. SPE Prod & Fac 19 (1): 25–32. SPE-87629-PA. doi:
10.2118/87629-PA.
Cao, D., Ni, Y., Yao, F., Weng, D., and Fu, G. 2006. Application and
Realization of Fuzzy Method for Selecting Wells and Formations in
Fracturing in Putaohua Oilfield: Production and Operations: Diagnos-
Chang, Y., Dou, H., Chen, C., Wang, X., and Liu, K. 2006. An Innovative
Method: Risk Assessment for Exploration and Development of Oil and
Gas. Paper SPE 104458 presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meet-
ing, Canton, Ohio, 11–13 October. doi: 10.2118/104458-MS.
Cuddy, S.J. 2000. Litho-Facies and Permeability Prediction From Electrical
Logs Using Fuzzy Logic. SPE Res Eval & Eng 3 (4): 319–324. SPE-
65411-PA. doi: 10.2118/65411-PA.
Mathematics of Finance: Risk Evaluation in Petroleum Development.
Paper SPE 69556 presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, 25–28 March. doi:
10.2118/69556-MS.
Dumans, C.F.F. 1995. Quantification of the Effect of Uncertainties on
the Reliability of Wellbore Stability Model Predictions. PhD thesis,
University of Tulsa, Tulsa.
Finol, J., Romero, C., and Romero, P. 2002. An Intelligent Identification
Method of Fuzzy Models and Its Applications to Inversion of NMR
Logging Data. Paper SPE 77605 presented at the SPE Annual Techni-
cal Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 29 September–
2 October. doi: 10.2118/77605-MS.
Fletcher, R. 1993. Practical Methods of Optimization, second edition
(reprint). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Fujii, H. and Horne, R. 1995. Multivariate Optimization of Networked
Production Systems. SPE Prod & Fac 10 (3): 165–171. SPE-27617-PA.
doi: 10.2118/27617-PA.
Garrouch, A.A. and Al-Ruhaimani, F.A. 2003. Predicting Asphaltene Depo-
sition and Assessing Formation Damage. Paper SPE 82258 presented at
the SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, 13–14
May. doi: 10.2118/82258-MS.
Garrouch, A.A. and Labbabidi, H.M.S. 2003. Using Fuzzy Logic for
UBD Candidate Selection. Paper SPE 81644 presented at the IADC/
SPE Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
25–26 March. doi: 10.2118/81644-MS.
Garrouch, A.A. and Lababidi, H.M.S. 2005. Implementation of a Fuzzy
Expert System for Multilateral Well Completion: Case Studies. Paper
SPE 93930 presented at the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference,
Madrid, Spain, 13–16 June. doi: 10.2118/93930-MS.
Goldberg, D.E. 1989. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and
Machine Learning. Columbus, Ohio: Addison-Wesley.
Hajizadeh, Y. 2007a. Intelligent Prediction of Reservoir Fluid Viscos-
ity. Paper SPE 106764 presented at the Production and Operations
Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 31 March–3 April. doi:
10.2118/106764-MS.
Hajizadeh, Y. 2007b. Neural Networks Can Enhance Fuzzy Corrosion Mod-
eling. Paper SPE 106628 presented at the Digital Energy Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, 11–12 April. doi: 10.2118/106628-MS.

June 2010 SPE Journal 423

Hambalek, N. and Gonzalez, R. 2003. Fuzzy Logic Applied to Lithofa-
cies and Permeability Forecasting Case Study: Sandstone of Naricual
Formation, El Furrial Field, Eastern Venezuela Basin. Paper SPE
81078 presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petro-
leum Engineering Conference, Trinidad and Tobago, 27–30 April. doi:
10.2118/81078-MS.
Handley-Schachler, S., McKie, C., and Quintero, N. 2000. New Mathemati-
cal Techniques for the Optimization of Oil & Gas Production System.
Paper SPE 65161 presented at the SPE European Petroleum Confer-
ence, Paris, 24–25 October. doi: 10.2118/65161-MS.
Kanj, M.Y. and Roegiers, J.-C. 1999. Fuzzy control: An alternate means
of sand exclusion in wells? Paper 99-0203 presented at Vail Rocks
1999, the 37th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS), Vail,
Colorado, 7–9 June.
Kedzierski, P. and Mallet, J.-L. 2006. Stochastic Simulation of Marine
Reservoirs Through Paleotopography Modeling. Paper SPE 102996
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Texas, 24–27 September. doi: 10.2118/102996-MS.
Kumar, S. 1987. Gas Production Engineering, Vol. 4. Houston: Con-
tributions in Petroleum Geology and Engineering, Gulf Publishing
Company.
Lim, J.S. and Kim, J.W. 2004. Reservoir Porosity and Permeability Estima-
tion from Well Logs Using Fuzzy Logic and Neural Networks. Paper
SPE 88476 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference
and Exhibition, Perth, Australia, 18–20 October. doi: 10.2118/88476-
MS.
Liu, Y. and Chen, G. 1999. Optimal parameters design of oilfield surface
pipeline systems using fuzzy models. Information Sciences 120 (1–4):
12–21. doi: 10.1016/S0020-0255(99)00059-6.
Mohaghegh, S.D., Gaskari, R., and Jalali, J. 2005. A New Method for
Production Data Analysis To Identify New Opportunities in Mature
Fields: Methodology and Application. Paper SPE 98010 presented at
the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Morgantown, West Virginia, 14–16
September. doi: 10.2118/98010-MS.
Murillo, A., Neuman, J., and Samuel, R. 2009. Pipe Sticking Prediction
and Avoidance Using Adaptive Fuzzy Logic and Neural Network
Modeling. Paper SPE 120128 presented at the SPE Production and
Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 4–8 April. doi:
10.2118/120128-MS.
Neuroth, M., MacConnell, P., Stronach, F., and Vamplew, P. 2000. Improved
modelling and control of oil and gas transport facility operations using
artificial intelligence. Knowledge-Based Systems 13 (2–3): 81–92. doi:
10.1016/S0950-7051(00)00049-6.
Nikravesh, M., Dobie, C.A., and Patzek, T.W. 1997. Field-Wise Waterflood
Management in Low Permeability, Fractured Oil Reservoirs: Neuro-
Fuzzy Approach. Paper SPE 37523 presented at the International Ther-
mal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Bakersfield, California,
10–12 February. doi: 10.2118/37523-MS.
Nitters, G., Roodhart, L., Jongma, H., Yeager, V., Buijse, M., Fulton, D.,
Dahl, J., and Jantz, E. 2000. Structured Approach to Advanced Candi-
date Selection and Treatment Design of Stimulation Treatments. Paper
SPE 63179 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, 1–4 October. doi: 10.2118/63179-MS.
Rafiei, Y., Mirkalaei, S.M.M., Masoudi, R., Ataei, A., and Khordoo, M.
2009. A New Approach for Improving Permeability Estimation by
Integrating Sequential Gaussian Simulation (SGS) With Co-Active
Neuro Fuzzy Inference System (CANFIS) Network. Paper SPE 118339
presented at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference,
Bahrain, 15–18 March. doi: 10.2118/118339-MS.
Rivera, V.P. 1994. Fuzzy Logic Controls Pressure in Fracturing Fluid Char-
acterization Facility. Paper SPE 28239 presented at the Petroleum Com-
puter Conference, Dallas, 31 July–3 August. doi: 10.2118/28239-MS.
Sahinidis, N.V. 2004. Optimization under uncertainty: state of the art and
opportunities. Computers & Chemical Engineering 28 (6–7): 971–983.
doi: 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2003.09.017.
Sakawa, M. 2002. Genetic Algorithms and Fuzzy Multiobjective Optimiza-
tion. Norwell, Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Schneider, F.M., Lemanczyk, Z.R., and Eriksen, K. 2002. Application of
an Integrated Field Planning Tool to a Multi-Field Gas Development
Offshore Southeast Sumatra. Paper SPE 77840 presented at the SPE
Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Melbourne, Aus-
tralia, 8–10 October. doi: 10.2118/77840-MS.
424
Schuëller, G.I. and Jensen H.A. 2008. Computational methods in optimi-
zation considering uncertainties—An overview. Computer Methods
in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 198 (1): 2–13. doi: 10.1016/
j.cma.2008.05.004.
Sengul, M. and Bekkousha, M.A. 2002. Applied Production Optimization:
i-Field. Paper SPE 77608 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 29 September–2 October.
doi: 10.2118/77608-MS.
Shokir, E.M. El-M. 2006. A Novel Model for Permeability Prediction in
Uncored Wells. SPE Res Eval & Eng 9 (3): 266–273. SPE-87038-PA.
doi: 10.2118/87038-PA.
Soto, R.B., Garcia, J.C., Torres, F., and Perez, G.S. 2001. Permeability
Prediction Using Hydraulic Flow Units and Hybrid Soft Computing
Systems. Paper SPE 71455 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 30 September–3 October.
doi: 10.2118/71455-MS.
Sun, C.K., Uraikul, V., Chan, C.W., and Tontiwachwuthikul, P. 2000.
An integrated expert system/operations research approach for the
optimization of natural gas pipeline operations. Engineering Applica-
tions of Artificial Intelligence 13 (4): 465–475. doi: 10.1016/S0952-
1976(00)00022-1.
Taghavi, A.A. 2005. Improved Permeability Estimation through Use of
Fuzzy Logic in a Carbonate Reservoir from Southwest Iran. Paper
SPE 93269 presented at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and
Conference, Bahrain, 12–15 March. doi: 10.2118/93269-MS.
Taheri, S.R. 2008. Remote Sensing, Fuzzy Logic and GIS in Petroleum
Exploration. Paper SPE 120199 presented as part of the student paper
contest associated with the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, 21–24 September.
Wang, P., Litvak, M., and Aziz, K. 2002. Optimization of Production
Operations in Petroleum Fields. Paper SPE 77658 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 29
September–2 October. doi: 10.2118/77658-MS.
Weiss, W.W., Wo, S., Weiss, J.W., and Weber, J. 2001. Data Mining at a
Regulatory Agency to Forecast Waterflood Recovery. Paper SPE 71057
presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Petroleum Technology Confer-
ence, Keystone, Colorado, 21–23 May. doi: 10.2118/71057-MS.
Widarsono, B., Atmoko, H., Robinson, W. IV, Yuwono, I.P., Tunggal,
F.S., and Ridwan. 2005. Application of Fuzzy Logic for Determining
Production Allocation in Commingled Production Wells. Paper SPE
93275 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition, Jakarta, 5–7 April. doi: 10.2118/93275-MS.
Wu, C.H., Lu, G.F., Gillespie, W., and Yen, J. 1997. Statistical and Fuzzy
Infill Drilling Recovery Models for Carbonate Reservoirs. Paper SPE
37728 presented at the Middle East Oil Show and Conference, Bahrain,
15–18 March. doi: 10.2118/37728-MS.
Xiong, H. and Holditch, S.A. 1995. An Investigation into the Application of
Fuzzy Logic to Well Stimulation Treatment Design. SPE Comp App 1 (4):
18–24; Trans., AIME, 299. SPE-27672-PA. doi: 10.2118/27672-PA.
Xiong, H., Robinson, B.M., and Foh, S. 2001. Using an Expert System
to Diagnose Formation Damage Mechanisms and Design Stimulation
Treatments For Gas Storage Wells. Paper SPE 72374 presented at the
SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Canton, Ohio, 17–19 October. doi:
10.2118/72374-MS.
Xiong, Y. and Rao, S.S. 2004. Fuzzy nonlinear programming for mixed-
discrete design optimization through hybrid genetic algorithm. Fuzzy
Sets and Systems 146 (2): 167–186. doi: 10.1016/j.fss.2003.09.001.
Zadeh, L.A. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8 (3): 338–353.
doi: 10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X.
Zarei, F., Daliri, A., and Alizadeh, N. 2008. The Use of Neuro-Fuzzy
Proxy in Well Placement Optimization. Paper SPE 112214 presented at
the Intelligent Energy Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, 25–27
February. doi: 10.2118/112214-MS.
Zhou, C.D., Wu, X.-L., and Cheng, J.-A. 1993. Determining Reservoir
Properties in Reservoir Studies Using a Fuzzy Neural Network. Paper
SPE 26430 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, 3–6 October. doi: 10.2118/26430-MS.
Zimmermann, H.-J. 1991. Fuzzy Set Theory and its Applications, second
edition. Norwell, Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Zolotukhin, A.B. 2000. A Novel Approach to Resources and Reserves Deter-
mination. Paper SPE 63199 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition, Dallas, 1–4 October. doi: 10.2118/63199-MS.
June 2010 SPE Journal
Appendix A—Fuzzy Objective Function
In most fuzzy nonlinear programming approaches, the decision
maker has two types of fuzzy goals (Zimmermann 1991; Sakawa
2002). In a minimum/maximum problem, the fuzzy goal (objective
function) fi can be stated as achieving “substantially less than
or equal to some value pi or greater than or equal to qi” (fuzzy
minimium or fuzzy maximum). This type of statement can be
quantified by eliciting a corresponding membership function
␮i[fi(x)] that is a strictly monotonically decreasing or increasing
function with respect to objective function fi(x). For fuzzy goals
expressed as “fi(x) should be in the vicinity of arbitrary value ri”
(fuzzy equal), different functions for the left and right sides of ri
can be used. When the fuzzy equal is included, it is desirable that
fi(x) be as close to ri as possible.
For the previously mentioned fuzzy ␭-formulation problem, the
membership function of the objective ␮G ( x ) and constraints ␮ gi ( x )
can be defined as follows.
Let R = fuzzy feasible region, R1 = ␣-level cut of R for ␣ = 1
( )
and S R = support of R. The (crisp) set of elements that belong
to the fuzzy set R, at least to the degree ␣ is called the ␣–level
set (cut),
R1 = { x | ␮ R ( x ) ≥ ␣} . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-1)
In particular, the support of a fuzzy set R, S R is the crisp ( )
set of all elements whose degree of membership is larger than
zero. The membership function of the objective function, given the
solution space R using the linear variation, is then defined as
⎧0 if f ( x ) ≤ sup f ⎫ current interest is in production optimization in mature gas fields.
⎪ R1 ⎪ Park holds a BS degree in mineral and petroleum engineering
⎪ ⎪
⎪⎪ f ( x ) − sup f
⎪⎪
␮G ( x ) = ⎨ if sup < f ( x ) ≤ sup f ⎬ . . . . . . . (A-2)
R1
Appendix B—Genetic Operators
In the floating-point representation, each individual is coded as a
vector of floating-point numbers of the same length as the solution
vector, and each element is forced to be within the feasible region
(Sakawa 2002).
Selection Operator. As a selection operator, ranking selection is
used, where the population is sorted from the best to the worst and
the selection probability of each individual is assigned according
to the ranking. Among the various linear and nonlinear ranking
methods, the exponential ranking method is adopted. The selection
probability pi for the individual of rank i is determined by
pi = c ⋅ (1 − c )
i −1
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-1)
where c in the range of 0–1 represents the probability when an
individual of rank 1 is selected. Observe that a larger value of c
implies a stronger selective pressure.
Crossover and Mutation Operators. The crossover and
mutation operators used are closed operators in the sense that the
resulting offsprings always satisfy the linear constraints S. For
example, the arithmetic crossover for two points x , y ∈ S yields
␣ x + (1 − ␣ ) y ∈ S , 0 ≤ ␣ ≤ 1, and the resulting offspring always
belongs to S when S is a convex set. As genetic operators for
crossover and mutation, arithmetic crossover and uniform mutation
are adopted, respectively.
Hui-June Park is a reservoir engineer with the Korea National Oil
Corporation in Anyang, Korea. email: phj7606@knoc.co.kr. His
and MS and PhD degrees in civil, urban, and geosystem engi-
neering, all from Seoul National University. Jong-Se Lim is a pro-

f − sup f S( R)
fessor in the Department of Energy & Resources Engineering at
⎪ sup R1
⎪
⎪ ( )
Korea Maritime University. email: jslim@hhu.ac.kr. His research
⎪
S R R1

if sup f ≤ f ( x )
interests include production optimization and reservoir char-
⎪1 ⎪ acterization using intelligent techniques. Lim holds BS, MS, and
⎪⎩ S( R) ⎪⎭
PhD degrees in mineral and petroleum engineering from Seoul
National University. Jeongyong Roh is a reservoir engineer with
The sup f and sup f refer to the supremum (optimum) of objective the Korea National Oil Corporation in Anyang, Korea. email:
R1 ( )
S R saglio@knoc.co.kr. His current interest is well testing. Roh holds
function f values, which correspond to crisp and fuzzy optimization. BS and MS degrees in mineral and petroleum engineering and
The values of sup f and sup f are obtained by optimization in the a PhD degree in civil, urban, and geosystem engineering, all
R1 S ( R) from Seoul National University. Joo M. Kang is a professor in
crisp and fuzzy feasible domains, respectively. the Division of Energy System Engineering at Seoul National
For inequality constraints gi(x) ≤ bi, let the membership functions University. email: jmkang@snu.ac.kr. His research interests
of the fuzzy sets be defined using the linear type of function over include well testing, reservoir characterization, and gas-produc-
the allowable fuzzy transition intervals di, that is, tion engineering. Kang holds BS and MS degrees in petroleum
and mining engineering from Seoul National University and a
PhD degree in petroleum and geological engineering from the
⎧0 if gi ( x ) > bi + di ⎫ University of Oklahoma. Bae-Hyun Min is a graduate student
⎪ ⎪ in the Division of Energy System Engineering at Seoul National
⎪ b + di − gi ( x ) ⎪
␮ gi ( x ) = ⎨ i if bi < gi ( x ) < bi + di ⎬ . . . . . . . (A-3) University. email: bhmin01@petro.snu.ac.kr. His research inter-
d est includes well-placement optimization using artificial intelli-
⎪ i ⎪
if gi ( x ) ≤ bi
⎪⎩1 ⎪⎭ gence. Min holds BS and MS degrees in civil, urban, and geosys-
tem engineering from Seoul National University.

June 2010 SPE Journal 425