DOI: 10.

2118/206741-PA Date: 14-September-21 Stage: Page: 1 Total Pages: 15

Virtual Multiphase Flowmetering Using

Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System
(ANFIS): A Case Study of Hai Thach-Moc
Tinh Field, Offshore Vietnam
Tran Ngoc Trung, Bien Dong Petroleum Operating Company; Trieu Hung Truong, Ha Noi University of Mining
and Geology; and Tran Vu Tung*, Ngo Huu Hai, Dao Quang Khoa, Nguyen Thanh Tinh, and Hoang Ky Son,
Bien Dong Petroleum Operating Company

Summary
For any oil and gas company, well-testing and performance-monitoring programs are expensive because of the cost of equipment and
personnel. In addition, it may not be possible to obtain all of the necessary data for a reservoir for a period of time because of produc-
tion demand constraints or changes in surface process conditions. To overcome these challenges, there are many studies on the imple-
mentation and value of virtual flowmetering (VFM) for real-time well performance prediction without any need for a comprehensive
well-testing program.
This paper presents the VFM model using an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) at Hai Thach-Moc Tinh (HT-MT)
gas-condensate field, offshore Vietnam. The ANFIS prediction model can tune all its membership functions (MFs) and consequent
parameters to formulate the given inputs to the desired output with minimum error. In addition, ANFIS is a successful technique used
to process large amounts of complex time series data and multiple nonlinear inputs-outputs (Salleh et al. 2017), thereby enhancing pre-
dictability. The authors have built ANFIS models combined with large data sets, data smoothing, and k-fold cross-validation methods
based on the actual historical surface parameters such as choke valve opening, surface pressure, temperature, the inlet pressure of the
gas processing system, etc. The prediction results indicate that the local regression “loess” data smoothing method reduces the process-
ing time and gives both clustering algorithms the best results among the different data preprocessing techniques [highest value of R and
lowest value of mean squared error (MSE), error mean, and error standard deviation]. The k-fold cross-validation technique demon-
strates the capability to avoid the overfitting phenomenon and enhance prediction accuracy for the ANFIS subtractive clustering model.
The fuzzy C-mean (FCM) model in the present study can predict the gas condensate production with the smallest root MSE (RMSE) of
0.0645 and 0.0733; the highest coefficient of determination (R2 ) of 0.9482 and 0.9337; and the highest variance account of 0.9482 and
0.9334 for training and testing data, respectively. Applied at the HT-MT field, the model allows the rate estimation of the gas and con-
densate production and facilitates the virtual flowmeter workflow using the ANFIS model.

Introduction
It has been reported that the operations of oil and gas platforms generate gigabytes of data every day. However, only a small part of that
data source is standardized, classified, labeled, or processed to support the oil and gas operation process. Digital transformation in the
oil and gas industry is a real need in the development and exploitation process to solve this problem. On the other hand, artificial intelli-
gence (AI) is considered a helpful tool, and a lot has been invested in research and development. In recent years, AI, with many tech-
niques from the artificial neural network (ANN) to the fuzzy inference system (FIS), has made gradual progress and is steadily getting
more robust in the oil and gas industry. With powerful learning algorithms and capabilities of the existing computational devices, there
have been many prediction problems using AI to process large amounts of data (big data) over time series in the oil and gas industry.
Recently, the neural fuzzy system is getting a lot more attention for predictive problems in many engineering fields by taking and
combining the advantages of both the ANN and fuzzy logic (FL) approaches. ANNs build links between input-output pairs for the
system being modeled, and the network has to be trained to compute the desired outputs. ANN has been proved to give positive results
in many fields of oil and gas research, such as predicting sand production (Kanj and Abousleiman 1999), predicting drilling troubles for
the base of new wells on the existing information on the well stock of the oilfield (Lind and Kabirova 2014), predicting wax formation
points (Adeyemi and Sulaimon 2012), predicting fracture pressure (Ahmed et al. 2019), predicting hydrate formation temperature (Ola-
bisi et al. 2019), optimizing gas lifting operation to maximize recoveries (Ranjan et al. 2015), predicting permeability, and detection of
hydrocarbon reservoir boundaries (Neta et al. 2002).
On the other hand, FL and fuzzy set theory are used to identify decision-making characteristics through a set of “if-then” rules
(Zadeh 1965). FL has two main features:
1. A mathematical model demonstrating human knowledge relating to ambiguous (fuzzy) concepts using only if-then rules.
2. A natural and efficient mechanism for systematic solutions to complex problems described by uncertain and
inaccurate information.
FL approaches have been applied in the oil and gas industry for more than 20 years with a lot of successful studies, such as control-
ling pressure in a fracturing fluid characterization facility (Rivera 1994), predicting permeability and lithofacies in uncored wells
(Cuddy 1997), managing the excavation system (Lin et al. 2021), and identifying and locating horizontal wells (Popa 2013). For most
applications, FL allows us to create a simple solution in a short amount of time and use our expertise to optimize the system directly.
However, FL and fuzzy set theory have no learning capability, and the system structure takes a lot of time to optimize. Meanwhile,
neural networks have some advantages, such as:
1. Parallel processing, so the processing speed is very fast.

*Corresponding author
Copyright V
C 2021 Society of Petroleum Engineers

Original SPE manuscript received for review 24 February 2021. Revised manuscript received for review 15 June 2021. Paper (SPE 206741) peer approved 6 July 2021.

2021 SPE Journal 1

ID: jaganm Time: 18:11 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/210131/Comp/APPFile/SA-SPE-J###210131

 DOI: 10.2118/206741-PA Date: 14-September-21 Stage: Page: 2 Total Pages: 15

2. Neural networks can be learned and trained to approximate any nonlinear function, especially when we know an input-output
data set.
Taking the advantages from the natural and efficient mechanism of FL and the training and learning ability ANNs, the ANFIS
model and its principles were proposed by Jang (1992). The ANFIS system builds a set of fuzzy if-then rules and parameter optimiza-
tion with appropriate MFs formulating the mapping from a given input to an output. An ANFIS model can combine learning and com-
putational power of neural networks to the Sugeno-type fuzzy control systems (Jang 1992; Tsoukalas et al. 1997). Therefore, the
adaptive neural fuzzy hybrid system is an excellent combination between the FL system structure and the neural network’s learning
ability (Jang 1993; Jang and Chuen-Tsai 1995). The ANFIS model is highly capable of solving nonlinear and complex prediction prob-
lems but requires computation cost because of complex structures and gradient learning (Salleh et al. 2017).
The ANFIS prediction model is also mentioned in many studies, such as predicting earth pressure balance during tunneling using
improved particle swarm optimization (PSO) with an ANFIS based on the FCM clustering method (Elbaz et al. 2020) and developing
neuro-fuzzy network architecture and fuzzy inference algorithm to predict future data (Lu 2013). However, the amount of data in the
prediction model of Tiwari et al. (2014) (40 cases for classification purpose) and that of Elbaz et al. (2020) (200 data sets) are modest
compared to the data set ofthe current study (20,000 raw data sets of historical value for a year ago). To increase the accuracy of the
prediction model, the authors propose a more extended period of historical data and subsequently increase the raw data set for
training purposes.
This paper proposes a gas and condensate production flow rate prediction model based on the ANFIS system and the Takagi-Sugeno
FIS. The contributions of this paper include:
1. Proposing a gas and condensate ANFIS predictive model by using multiple surface parameters
2. Proposing data smoothing, input selection, and cross-validation techniques to avoid overfitting
3. Evaluating the prediction results based on evaluation metrics to demonstrate the effectiveness of the different models

Problem Statement
Time Series Prediction Problems. Much of the world’s data supply is in the form of time series. The size of the time series data
increases exponentially. A time series is a set of observations recording n real values T ¼ ðt1 ; t2 ; …; tn Þ with ti 2 R at a particular time
T. The time series is divided into two categories:
• Discrete-time series is a set of observation points taken at fixed time intervals.
• Continuous-time series is a set of observation points that are continuously recorded over several periods.
Many time series prediction models have been published in recent times, such as tree augmented naı̈ve Bayes structure (Liao et al.
2013), ANN (Arango and Velásquez 2014), support vector machine (Cao et al. 2012), etc. On the other hand, numerous AI-based pre-
diction models have been studied in the oil and gas industry with remarkable results, such as prediction of bubble point pressure with
ANN and FL techniques (Alakbari et al. 2016), decline curve analysis using machine learning and pattern-recognition techniques
(Kianinejad et al. 2019), coreflooding simulation using the k-fold cross-validation technique (Mathew et al. 2020), prediction of the
waterflooding strategy with ANN (Bruyelle and Guérillot 2019), estimation of the disk cutter life by integrating a group method of data
handling-type neural network with a genetic algorithm (GA; Elbaz et al. 2021), prediction of earth pressure balance using an integrated
model of ANFIS with GA (Elbaz et al. 2019), and a model of soil stress–strain behavior using a long short-term memory deep learning
method (Zhang et al. 2021).
In the field of production flow rate prediction, many researchers are using different algorithms and models such as predicting oil pro-
duction as a measure of reservoir performance using autoregressive integrated moving average models (Olominu and Sulaimon 2014),
predicting rates of gas production by using log-derived permeability (Denoo et al. 1981), predicting long-term performance of uncon-
ventional wells based on a linear regression model (Ifejika et al. 2017), and predicting wellhead pressure-flow rate relationship using
ANN with field test surface data (Okon and Appah 2016). These studies all give positive results and show practical applicability.
Indeed, exploiting historical data to predict future data with high accuracy is challenging, and ANFIS is one of the successful tech-
niques used to process large amounts of complex time series data and multiple nonlinear inputs-outputs (Salleh et al. 2017). ANFIS pro-
cesses the calculating and formulating of giving nonlinear inputs to the set of “crisp” values, represented in the form of MFs and fuzzy
rules and then performs defuzzy procedure to generate crisp output out of fuzzy rules for reasoning purpose. The input data set is sepa-
rated into groups of input-output data with clustering techniques, and then it generates tunable MFs and rules into the desired ANFIS
architecture. In addition, ANFIS learns by tuning all its MFs and consequent parameters to formulate the given inputs to the desired
output with minimum error. Some of the major studies are automated history matching using a combination of ANFIS and the differen-
tial evolution algorithm (Rammay and Abdulraheem 2014), the analysis of in-situ permeability in rock masses using ANFIS, backpro-
pagation feed-forward, and the self-organizing map neural network (Shahriar and Owladeghaffari 2007) and improving the drilling rate
of penetration modeling performance using ANFIS (Hamdi et al. 2020). These works show that the ANFIS model is suitable for com-
plex prediction problems with nonlinear and multiple inputs.

Well-Testing and Virtual Flowmeter Program. Well test analysis represents a critical component of reservoir engineering manage-
ment and analysis by providing the estimates of reserves, deliverability, permeabilities, supporting allocation calculation, understanding
of the status of wellbore conditions, and inflow profile along the well (Dakshindas et al. 1999; Aggarwal and Agarwal 2014; Danilko
et al. 2019).
As can be seen in Fig. 1, the HT-MT gas and condensate field consists of the test manifold and test separator with sizing capability
that allows the well performance testing program for a single well at a time. The remaining wells are connected to the gas processing
plant. A well-testing and performance-monitoring program is an expensive task because of the cost of equipment and personnel. In
addition, it may not be possible to obtain all of the necessary data for a reservoir and include all the important wells in the field for a
period of time because of high production demand (Dakshindas et al. 1999). Reducing the choke opening of a well might result in less
fluid flowing and subsequently lower the daily production of the platform. Moreover, operating parameters (such as temperature, pres-
sure settings, and choke size) at the surface system significantly affect the well-testing results. The choke opening of two wells coming
from the same reservoir needs to be considered while evaluating the well test results because one well will influence the flowing of
another. In addition, some of the well test records may be inaccurate because of instrumentation malfunction.
The gas flow rate formula at the outlet of the test separator was calculated by an orifice flowmeter based on the ISO 5167 calculation
procedure with Eq. 1 (Reader-Harris 2013) and then the flow rate-pressure correlations were applied for individual wells, whereas the
total gas flow rate of 16 wells was measured by fiscal metering skid:

2 2021 SPE Journal

ID: jaganm Time: 18:11 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/210131/Comp/APPFile/SA-SPE-J###210131

 DOI: 10.2118/206741-PA Date: 14-September-21 Stage: Page: 3 Total Pages: 15

Cd p pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
qm ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi4 e d2 2Dpq1 ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð1Þ
1b 4
where qm is the mass flow rate; Cd is the discharge coefficient; e is the expansibility factor; b is the diameter ratio of the flow orifice;
d is the diameter of orifice under working conditions; q1 is the working density upstream from the orifice, and Dp is the differential
pressure across the orifice.

Fig. 1—HT-MT gas processing plant diagram with two wells from the same reservoir (BDPOC 2011).

To overcome these challenges, there are many studies on the implementation and value of VFM for real-time well performance esti-
mation without any need for an actual well test. Some of the prominent studies are VFM systems based on the relationship between the
velocity of reservoir fluid and pressure drop across the tubing, fluid, and tubing parameters (Mursaliyev 2018); real-time multiphase
flow monitoring and fluid rate allocation factors among wells in a common collector by a correlation method between flow rate and
wellhead pressure (Moreno et al. 2014); and predicting transient pressure responses with ANN without having the actual well tests at
the field (Dakshindas et al. 1999; Aggarwal and Agarwal 2014). One of the objectives of this study is to formulate an ANFIS system
that can predict a gas and condensate production flow rate based on the real-time surface parameters without any need for an actual
well test.

Material and Methods

FIS. The FIS uses fuzzy if-then rules, which are very familiar to human thinking methods, to process the calculating and formulating of a
given input to output (Fig. 2). The input values belong to the set of crisp values. The FIS is performed to apply the fuzzy interpolation
methods to obtain fuzzy results, and then the defuzzy procedure is performed to find out the corresponding crisp output. The work of the
FIS can involve different types of MFs such as triangular, trapezoidal, bell-shaped, sigmoidal, etc.; logical operations; and if-then rules.

Fig. 2—Block diagram of the FIS (after Rutkowski et al. 2012).

In this study, the FIS creates the output by applying the Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy inference method (Takagi and Sugeno 1985). If this
fuzzy inference value compared to the actual value has an error that does not satisfy the convergence condition, this process is rolled
back to train the neuro-fuzzy network to refine the most suitable set of fuzzy weight values. As a result, the predicted output value will
be as close as possible to the actual value. Based on these fuzzy inference coefficients, the neuro-fuzzy network applies to the test pro-
cess to obtain the corresponding output. The main advantages of FIS are interpretation capability and the natural and efficient mecha-
nism for complex multiple inputs problem because FIS is based on human thinking and biological activities. On the other hand, the
main limitation of FIS is the lack of learning capabilities (Cherkassky 1998).

Partition Styles for Fuzzy Models. The purpose of the clustering technique is to classify natural groupings of an extensive data set to
produce a precise representation of a Madami or Sugeno-type FIS that best models the data behavior using a minimum number of rules.
In detail, grid partition FIS generates an initial Sugeno-type FIS for ANFIS training using a grid partition on the data (no clustering) for
each FIS input and the output data. Each rule generated by grid partition FIS has one output MF (MathWorks 2020b).
On the other hand, subtractive clustering is a fast algorithm for estimating the number of clusters and the cluster centers for data set
to generate a best fit Sugeno-type FIS (Chiu 1994). Subtraction clustering FIS can create an initial FIS for ANFIS training by first apply-
ing subtractive clustering to extract a set of rules. The gaussmf input and linear output MF will be used to model the data behavior. The
linear least squares estimation will then be used to calculate the rule’s consequent equations (MathWorks 2020b). Jim Bezdek originally
introduced the FCM data technique in 1981 to improve the previous clustering algorithms (Bezdek 1981). The FCM clustering FIS gen-
erates a Mamdani or Sugeno-type FIS with given separate sets of input and output data. The FCM clustering technique classifies data

2021 SPE Journal 3

ID: jaganm Time: 18:12 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/210131/Comp/APPFile/SA-SPE-J###210131

 DOI: 10.2118/206741-PA Date: 14-September-21 Stage: Page: 4 Total Pages: 15

points into a specific number of different clusters based on rules: gaussmf input, gaussmf output MF for Mamdani systems, and linear
MF for Sugeno systems. The linear and gaussmf MFs can be derived from the data set by Eqs. 3 and 9, respectively.
The standard subtractive and FCM clustering rules are as follows:

Rule 1 :
If ðx1 is x1cluster 1 Þ and ðx2 is x2cluster 1 Þ and…and ðxn is xncluster 1 Þ; then ðoverall output f1 is f1cluster 1 Þ

Rule 2 :
If ðx1 is x1cluster 2 Þ and ðx2 is x2cluster 2 Þ and…and ðxn is xncluster 2 Þ; then ðoverall output f1 is f1cluster 2 Þ

Rule n :

If ðx1 is x1cluster n Þ and ðx2 is x2cluster n Þ and…and ðxn is xncluster n Þ; then ðoverall output f1 is f1cluster n Þ

The grid partition clustering technique generates many rules that make data processing and training time not feasible in this study.
Indeed, the grid partition method involves a maximum number of tunable parameters and influences computational time. Subtractive
and FCM clustering techniques generate lower accuracy results in exchange for the computational complexity (Salleh et al. 2017).
Therefore, in this study, the grid partition clustering technique was not applied in the ANFIS prediction model.

ANFIS Architecture. For a first-order Sugeno fuzzy model (Sugeno and Kang 1988; Takagi and Sugeno 1985), we assume the FIS
has two inputs fx; yg and one output z. Fig. 3 illustrates the reasoning mechanism for this Sugeno model (Jang and Chuen-Tsai 1995).
A standard rule set with two fuzzy if-then rules is:
Rule 1 : If x is A1 and y is B1 ; then f1 ¼ p1 x þ q1 y þ r1
Rule 2 : If x is A2 and y is B2 ; then f2 ¼ p2 x þ q2 y þ r2

Fig. 3—Two-input first-order Sugeno fuzzy model with two rules (after Jang and Chuen-Tsai 1995).

The single node in Layer 5 of Fig. 4 is calculated based on the summation of all incoming signals to obtain the final inferred result
for the network (Jang and Chuen-Tsai 1995):

f1 ¼ p1 x þ q1 y þ r1 ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð2Þ

f2 ¼ p2 x þ q2 y þ r2 ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð3Þ
w1 f 1 þ w2 f 2
) ¼
w1 þ w2
f ¼ w1 f1 þ w2 f2 :                                                                   ð4Þ

Fig. 4—Equivalent ANFIS for a two-input first-order Sugeno fuzzy model with two rules (after Jang and Chuen-Tsai 1995).

4 2021 SPE Journal

ID: jaganm Time: 18:12 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/210131/Comp/APPFile/SA-SPE-J###210131

 DOI: 10.2118/206741-PA Date: 14-September-21 Stage: Page: 5 Total Pages: 15

Fig. 4 shows an ANFIS architecture, in which node functions are similar for the same layers and node functions are of the type
described in the following paragraphs (Jang and Chuen-Tsai 1995; Lin and Lee 1996). We denote the output node i in layer j as Oj; i .
Layer 1: Fuzzify Inputs (Fuzzifier). The first step determines whether the input values belong to each appropriate fuzzy set by
means of MFs (fuzzification). The input data set is always a crisp numerical value and is fuzzified over all the qualifying MFs required
by the rules. The output is a fuzzy degree of membership, generalized by the qualifying MF with the interval from 0 through 1. Indeed,
every node ith in this layer is an adaptive node with a node output defined by Eqs. 5 and 6:
O1;i ¼ lAi ðxÞ for i ¼ 1; 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð5Þ

or
O1;i ¼ lBi2 ðyÞ for i ¼ 3; 4; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð6Þ

where x (or y) is the input to the node and Ai (or Bi2 ) is a fuzzy node set. The outputs of this layer are the membership values of the
premise part, and its output specifies the degree to which the given x; y satisfies the quantifier Ai , Bi . The MFs for Ai and Bi can be any
appropriate parameterized MFs such as trapezoidal or triangular MFs. For example, Ai can be characterized by the generalized bell
function with a maximum equal to unity and a minimum equal to zero from Eq. 7:
1
lAi ðxÞ ¼ " 2 #bi ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð7Þ
x  ci
1þ
ai

where fai ; bi ; ci g is the set of tunable parameters. In this study, the authors used the gaussmf MF with c representing the MF’s center
and r determining the MF’s width (Eq. 8). Parameters in this layer are referred to as precondition (or premise) parameters.
2
ðxci Þ
lAi ðxÞ ¼ e 2r2 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð8Þ

The next necessary steps are implementing the fuzzy inference engine based on the fuzzy rule base to generate a fuzzy output set, as
detailed in the following subsections.
Layer 2: Apply Fuzzy Operator. The fuzzy operator is applied to obtain one number representing the rule antecedent result of two
or more membership values from fuzzified input variables. Every node in this layer is a fixed node labeled P. Each node output repre-
sents the firing strength of a rule. Every node is calculated by multiplying the incoming signals and sending the product out by Eq. 9.
For instance:
O2;i ¼ xj ¼ lAi ðx1 Þ  lAi ðx2 Þ for i ¼ 1; 2: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð9Þ

Layer 3: Apply Implication Method. The implication is implemented for each rule. For convenience, outputs of this layer represent
the normalized firing strengths of each rule, also known as the rule weight (a number from 0 through 1). Every fixed node in this layer
(labeled NÞ is the ratio of the ith rule to that of all the rules as can be derived from Eq. 10:
xj
O3;i ¼ xj ¼ P : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ð10Þ
xi

Layer 4: Aggregate All Outputs. Every ith node in this layer is an adaptive node with a node function indicating the weighted con-
sequent or the contribution of the rules toward the overall output. The output of the aggregation process is one fuzzy set for each output
variable. Parameters in this layer are referred to as weighted consequent parameters (Eq. 11):
O4;i ¼ w i fi ¼ wj ðpi x þ qi y þ ri Þ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð11Þ

where wi is the output of Layer 3, and fpi ; qi ; ri g is the set of tunable parameters.
Layer 5: Defuzzifier. The FIS’s final step is to perform the defuzzifier process to find the corresponding crisp output. The single
node in this layer is a fixed node labeled R, which calculates the sum of all the rules’ outputs to obtain the final inferred result for
the network:
X P
wi f i
O5;i ¼ overall output ¼ wi fi ¼ Pi : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð12Þ
i i wi

Thus, we have constructed a network with the same function as a Sugeno fuzzy model with adaptive network capability in which we
can easily combine Layers 3 and 4 to obtain a four-layer network.

Data Processing and Input Selection

In ANN, machine learning, or deep learning, historical data must be used in the model’s training process. One of the main challenges
for the training model is the overfitting phenomenon in which both noise or abnormal data in the training set are selected and learned to
tune the model rules. These rules will negatively affect the overall model’s accuracy when applied to the new data sets with other types
of noise data. A model is considered fit if both the training and test errors are low. It is necessary to avoid overfitting through techniques
to obtain a good model:
1. Validation is a technique taken from the training data set to a separated subset and performs model evaluation on this subset. The
extensive data can be divided into data sets for training and testing (D~ung et al. 2019).
2. Regularization and data smoothing are the techniques that reduce the complexity and computation time of the model, thereby
avoiding overfitting and increasing the accuracy (Giuliani et al. 2020).
In this paper, the authors used real-time surface input parameters of two wells from the same reservoir, such as choke valve opening,
tubinghead pressure, upstream choke temperature, downstream choke pressure and temperature, test separator pressure and temperature,
and the inlet pressure of the gas processing system to predict the gas and condensate production of each well. A flow chart for the

2021 SPE Journal 5

ID: jaganm Time: 18:12 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/210131/Comp/APPFile/SA-SPE-J###210131

 DOI: 10.2118/206741-PA Date: 14-September-21 Stage: Page: 6 Total Pages: 15

detailed ANFIS algorithm to predict gas condensate production flow rate in this study is shown in Fig. 5. A total of 20,000 historical
data sets for the past 6 months with 5 minutes of the sampling rate of two wells from the same reservoir were collected from the distrib-
uted control system historian system to train the ANFIS model.

Fig. 5—Flow chart for ANFIS algorithm to predict gas condensate production flow rate (MathWorks 2020b).

The data set will first randomly shuffle into the bootstrapped data set (training) and out-of-bag data set (testing) like the random
forest algorithm. According to the work of Jalali-Heravi and Kyani (2007), shuffling is a powerful data-splitting technique for a
nonlinear system.
Second, the k-fold cross-validation method was used for accurate performance assessment because it has been found superior to
other methods (e.g., holdout, bootstrap, and leave-one-out cross-validation methods) in determining the generalization error in model
selection problems (Kolus et al. 2015). Indeed, a k-fold cross-validation procedure is provided in Fig. 6. The first step is to partition
data into k randomly chosen folds (partitions) of a roughly equal size such that at each partition, onefold is used to validate the model
trained using the remaining folds. Each data set split ratio is 75% for training and 25% for testing.
For each partition, an initial fuzzy model using the training set will then be developed, and its performance (i.e., RMSE) will be
assessed using the validation set. This process is then repeated k times such that each fold is used exactly once for validation. The
average error across all k partitions is averaged. This is one of the most popular techniques for cross-validation but can take a long time
to execute because the model needs to be trained repeatedly. In this study, the authors proposed a tenfold cross-validation technique to
assess the overall performance of 10 partitions.

6 2021 SPE Journal

ID: jaganm Time: 18:12 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/210131/Comp/APPFile/SA-SPE-J###210131

 DOI: 10.2118/206741-PA Date: 14-September-21 Stage: Page: 7 Total Pages: 15

Fig. 6—Schematic of k-fold cross-validation procedure (example with k 5 5).

The data smoothing technique was applied to reduce model complexity by using preprocessing data methods (normalize, local
regression smooth, moving average, and 1D median filter). In addition, by using the data smoothing techniques, the noise in input data
sets was eliminated. All data sets are normalized to simplify the computational procedure using Eq. 13:
X  Xmin
X¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð13Þ
Xmax  Xmin
where X and x are the measured and normalized data, respectively, and xmin and xmax are the minimum and maximum data of
x, respectively.
Moving average filtering can be derived from Eq. 14:
1
xmoving average ðiÞ ¼ ðyði þ N Þ þ yði þ N  1Þ þ … þ yði  N ÞÞ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð14Þ
2N þ 1
where xmoving average ðiÞ is the smoothed value for the ith data point, N is the number of neighboring data on either side of xmoving average ðiÞ,
and 2N þ 1 is the span.
Local regression smoothing methods are as follows (MathWorks 2020a):
1. loess: Local regression using weighted linear least squares and a second-degree polynomial model.
2. rloess: A robust version of loess that assigns a lower weight to outliers in the regression.
The tricube function in Eq. 15 forms regression weights for each data point in the span:
  !3
x  xi 3
wi ¼ 1     ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð15Þ
d ðxÞ 

where x is the predicted value with the response value to be smoothed; xi indicates the closest neighbors of x as defined by the span, and
dðxÞ is the distance of x to the most distant predictor value within the span.
The bi-square function (Eq. 16) gives robust weights for each data point in the span:
8 2
<
1  ðri =6MADÞ2 if ri < 6MAD
wi ¼
:
0 if ri > 6MAD;                                                        ð16Þ

where ri is the residual of the ith data point, which is calculated by the regression smoothing procedure. MAD is the median absolute
deviation of the residual.

MAD ¼ medianðr Þ

The 1D median filter with n filter order is based on Eqs. 17 and 18:
 
k  ðn  1Þ k þ ðn  1Þ
If n is odd; then yðkÞ ¼ median of x : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð17Þ
2 2
 
kn kþn
If n is even; then yðkÞ ¼ median of x : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð18Þ
2 2

Evaluation Metrics
Five of the most common evaluation metrics (MSE and RMSE, linear regression, error mean, standard deviation of error, and variance
account) are all calculated to assess the accuracy and efficiency of this natural gas VFM model.
MSE and RMSE:

1X T
MSE ¼ ðZðtÞ  XðtÞÞ2 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð19Þ
T t¼1

2021 SPE Journal 7

ID: jaganm Time: 18:12 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/210131/Comp/APPFile/SA-SPE-J###210131

 DOI: 10.2118/206741-PA Date: 14-September-21 Stage: Page: 8 Total Pages: 15

Linear regression:
2 3 2 3
z1 1 x1
6 z2 7 6 1 x2 7
6 7 6 7 b0
6 .. 7 ¼ 6 .. .. 7 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð20Þ
4 . 5 4 . . 5 b1
zT 1 xT
Z ðtÞ ¼ b0 þ b1 XðtÞ: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ð21Þ

Error mean:

1X T
Z ðtÞ ¼ ½ZðtÞ  XðtÞ: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð22Þ
T t¼1

Standard deviation of error:

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u T h i2
u 1 X
S¼t Z ðtÞ  ZðtÞ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð23Þ
T  1 t¼1

Variance account:
var½Z ðtÞ  XðtÞ
VA ¼ 1 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð24Þ
var½ZðtÞ
For a random variable vector Z made up of T data points, Z ðtÞ is an actual data set, and XðtÞ is the predicted outputs from
ANFIS model.

Results and Discussions

Visualization and Evaluation Metric Setup. As previously mentioned, this study facilitates the ANFIS prediction model for virtual
flowmeter purpose based on the actual historical surface parameters such as choke valve opening, surface pressure, temperature, the
inlet pressure of the gas processing system, etc. The outputs from the proposed ANFIS model and the training error and step size vs.
epochs were plotted during the processing time to detect the model’s convergence. The Takagi-Sugeno method is applied as FIS
because of its high accuracy and good computational effectiveness in developing a systematic approach for constructing fuzzy rules
from the input-output data set. More ANFIS settings implemented based on the subtractive and FCM clustering are listed in Table 1.

Characteristic and Value

Specification Subtractive Clustering FCM Clustering
Data set 20,000 data sets for nine surface inputs 20,000 data sets for nine surface inputs
MF type Gaussian input and linear output Gaussian input and linear output
Fuzzy type Takagi-Sugeno Takagi-Sugeno
Influence radius Vary NAa
Custom cluster centers User centers NA
Number of clusters NA Vary
Partition matrix exponent NA 2
Maximum number of iterations NA 2,000
Minimum improvement NA 1105
Maximum number of epochs NA 2,000
Error goal NA 1105
Initial step size NA 0.9
Step size increase rate NA 1.1

a
NA ¼ not applicable.

Table 1—Main parameters of subtractive and FCM clustering ANFIS models.

The linear regression check between the actual and output from the ANFIS model also helps detect the overfitting phenomenon
when training data set error is deficient; the actual and output values of the training data set are matched. The five standard evaluation
metrics were also calculated to demonstrate the reliability and accuracy of the proposed ANFIS model. Theoretically, the perfect pre-
diction model is expected to have RMSE ¼ 0, coefficient of determination R2 ¼ 1, whereas the error mean and error standard deviation
equal zero. A small value of the RMSE, mean average percentage error, error mean, error standard deviation, and greater values of the
coefficient of determination R2 indicate a good prediction accuracy of the model. Because of the computational volume of the proposed
model, a workstation using an IntelV R 10th Generation Core i7 CPU with six cores (2.60 Ghz and 32 Gb RAM) was used.

8 2021 SPE Journal

ID: jaganm Time: 18:12 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/210131/Comp/APPFile/SA-SPE-J###210131

 DOI: 10.2118/206741-PA Date: 14-September-21 Stage: Page: 9 Total Pages: 15

Data Smoothing Techniques. Data smoothing techniques can help to reduce the computation time while maintaining the required
accuracy of the time series prediction model (Purwanto and Eswaran 2018). In the present study, four data smoothing techniques
(moving average for window length ¼ 5; 1D median with 3-filter order; local regression loess for span ¼ 4; and robust local regression
rloess for span ¼ 4) were chosen for the FCM model with 80 clusters and the subtractive model with an influence range of 0.2.
Figs. 7 and 8 show all the data evaluation metrics of FCM and subtractive models with four different smoothing methods. The
results show that local regression loess gives both clustering algorithms the best results for different data preprocessing techniques
(highest value of R and lowest value of MSE, error mean, and error standard deviation). In addition, moving average with window
length ¼ 5 and robust local regression rloess for span ¼ 4 have low correlation results when applying subtractive clustering
(R ¼ 0:0:43984 and 0.61239, respectively). For more clarification, the local regression loess method reduced nearly one-third of the
processing time for both clustering models when compared with nonsmooth processing.

Fig. 7—Evaluation metrics for FCM model with 80 clusters and 4 different smoothing methods. Std. 5 standard.

Fig. 8—Evaluation metrics for subtractive model with influence radius 5 0.2 and four different smoothing methods. Std. 5 stand-
ard; Sub. 5 subtractive.

2021 SPE Journal 9

ID: jaganm Time: 18:12 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/210131/Comp/APPFile/SA-SPE-J###210131

 DOI: 10.2118/206741-PA Date: 14-September-21 Stage: Page: 10 Total Pages: 15

Clustering Techniques. Clustering techniques are essential to the ANFIS model. Decreasing the radius (influence range) for subtrac-
tive clustering or increasing the number of clusters in the ANFIS FCM model helps to identify a large data set’s natural groupings,
reduce the total variation within each cluster, and construct a more concise representation of a system’s behavior.
According to the evaluation metrics in Fig. 9, it was observed that with an influence range of 0.2, the Subtractive ANFIS model pro-
vided the smallest value of MSE (Fig. 9a), error means (Fig. 9c), error standard deviation (Fig. 9d), and highest value of the coefficient
of determination (Fig. 9b). However, the smaller influence radius increased the number of clusters and significantly increased the proc-
essing time of the model.

Fig. 9—Evaluation metrics for subtractive model with influence radius of 0.3, 0.2, or 0.1. (a) MSE. (b) R. (c) Error mean. (d) Error
standard deviation. Std. 5 standard; Subt. 5 subtractive.

It can be seen from Fig. 10 that increasing the number of clusters for the FCM model improved the accuracy of the training data set
(smaller value of MSE, error mean, error standard deviation, and higher value of R) but reduced the performance of the testing data set
(higher value of MSE, error mean, error standard deviation, and smaller value of R). As a result, the authors proposed the FCM model
with 40 clusters to maintain the practical process time.

k-Fold Cross-Validation. By using the linear regression technique, it was observed that the overfitting phenomenon occurs when
using the subtractive clustering ANFIS model with shuffling and no k-fold techniques (Fig. 11). The coefficients of determination (R)
for the train data and test data were 0.97113 and 0.40555. These results indicated the overfitting phenomena because the model cannot
align the testing data, even though it studied and explained the training data accurately. This happens because the model is trying too
hard to capture the noise in the training data set that does not represent the true properties of the testing data, even though the data set
was shuffled.
The comparison results using the same subtractive clustering ANFIS model with shuffling and tenfold techniques are displayed in
Fig. 12. The coefficient of determination (R) for training, testing, and all data were 0.97252, 0.88392, and 0.94846, respectively, and
greater than without applying tenfold technique. Therefore, the overfitting phenomena was eliminated using the subtractive clustering
ANFIS model with shuffling and tenfold techniques.
Recently, Shaban et al. (2021) developed three fuzzy-metaheuristic ensembles based on ANFIS with an FCM clustering approach to
forecasting the compressive strength of brick aggregate concrete. A k-fold cross-validation method has been applied and pointed out
that the ANFIS with a PSO model provided better prediction when compared with hybrid GA and firefly algorithm. In addition, accord-
ing to the work of Kolus et al. (2015), the k-fold cross-validation technique also has been applied in the subtractive clustering ANFIS
model to predict energy expenditure based on heart rate. The two studies demonstrated the model performance with the k-fold cross-
validation method that helps to eliminate overfitting and show a better result. However, there is no comparison for the results of the
models with and without the k-fold data split. Figs. 13 and 14 show the MSE, R, error mean, and error standard deviation for both FCM
and subtractive clustering with and without the k-fold cross-validation method. With the ANFIS FCM clustering model, the k-fold
cross-validation did not provide superior results when compared with no k-fold (Fig. 13). However, for the ANFIS subtractive cluster-
ing model, k-fold cross-validation provided better results in terms of lower values of MSE (Fig. 14a), error mean (Fig. 14c), and error
standard deviation (Fig. 14d) and a higher value of the coefficient of determination (Fig. 14b).

10 2021 SPE Journal

ID: jaganm Time: 18:12 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/210131/Comp/APPFile/SA-SPE-J###210131

 DOI: 10.2118/206741-PA Date: 14-September-21 Stage: Page: 11 Total Pages: 15

Fig. 10—Evaluation metrics for FCM model with number of clusters 5 30, 40, or 50. (a) MSE. (b) R. (c) Error mean. (d) Error standard
deviation. Std. 5 standard

Fig. 11—Overfitting while applying subtractive clustering ANFIS model with shuffling and no k-fold techniques using linear regres-
sion function in MATLAB (2021).

Fig. 12—Overfitting phenomena was eliminated using subtractive clustering ANFIS model with shuffling and tenfold techniques
using linear regression function.

2021 SPE Journal 11

ID: jaganm Time: 18:12 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/210131/Comp/APPFile/SA-SPE-J###210131

 DOI: 10.2118/206741-PA Date: 14-September-21 Stage: Page: 12 Total Pages: 15

Fig. 13—FCM clustering results with and without k-fold cross-validation. (a) MSE. (b) R. (c) Error mean. (d) Error standard devia-
tion. Std 5 standard.

Fig. 14—Subtractive clustering results with and without k-fold cross-validation. (a) MSE. (b) R. (c) Error mean. (d) Error standard
deviation. Std 5 standard; Subt. 5 subtractive.

12 2021 SPE Journal

ID: jaganm Time: 18:12 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/210131/Comp/APPFile/SA-SPE-J###210131

 DOI: 10.2118/206741-PA Date: 14-September-21 Stage: Page: 13 Total Pages: 15

The best results in the present study using both subtractive and FCM clustering were then compared with improved PSO-ANFIS and
GA-ANFIS from a previous work by Elbaz et al. (2019). The proposed model in this study demonstrates better prediction accuracy than
previous FCM and improved PSO-ANFIS from Elbaz et al. (2019). Fig. 15 shows the best prediction results that were obtained from
this study’s FCM model with smallest RMSE of 0.0645 and 0.0733 for training and testing data, respectively; highest R2 of 0.9482 and
0.9337 for training and testing data, respectively; and highest variance account of 0.9482 and 0.9334 for training and testing data,
respectively. The amount of data in the prediction model of Elbaz et al. (2019) (200 data sets) is modest compared to the data set of this
study (20,000 raw data sets of historical value).

Fig. 15—Evaluation metrics when compared with previous work from Elbaz et al. (2020) for ANFIS FCM, improved PSO-ANFIS.
(a) MSE. (b) R 2 . (c) Variance account (VA). Subt. 5 subtractive.

The average processing time of the proposed ANFIS models based on FCM clustering was approximately 30 minutes and was also
the same with improved ANFIS on previous work by Elbaz et al. (2020), even though the data set in the present study is much higher.
In practical applications, the workstation can generate the ANFIS structure based on the historian data every hour. Then the proposed
model is expected to formulate the flow rate estimation based on the real-time surface parameters. The virtual flowmeter program sup-
ports reservoir engineering management and analysis by providing the well deliverability, supporting allocation calculation, understand-
ing of the status of wellbore conditions, and inflow profile along the well.

Conclusions
In HT-MT field, well-testing programs can only be done using test separator for a single well at a time because of the limitation of
vessel sizing, whereas the remaining wells are routed to the central gas processing plant. To record all the pressure transient data, opera-
tors need to change different choke sizes for each step, and it is challenging to complete all the required well-testing measurements
because of the high demand for gas production. In addition, operating parameters at the surface system can significantly affect the well-
testing results, and the large opening of a well will affect the flowing test of another well on the same reservoir. Therefore, the authors
present the gas and condensate production prediction method based on the ANFIS and the Takagi-Sugeno FIS with multiple real-time
surface inputs. The nonlinearity and structured knowledge representation of the ANFIS model show prominent results. Major conclu-
sions were obtained as follows:
• The ANFIS prediction model can self-optimize based on many inputs, allowing learning within time series of nonlinear relationship
data. Four standard evaluation metrics were also evaluated to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed model.
• Data smoothing techniques reduced the computation time (one-third of the processing time) while maintaining the required accuracy of
the time series prediction model. The evaluation metrics show that local regression loess gives both clustering algorithms the best results
for different data preprocessing techniques (highest value of R and lowest value of MSE, error mean, and error standard deviation).
• The k-fold cross-validation method was used for accurate performance assessment. With the ANFIS FCM clustering model, the
k-fold cross-validation did not provide superior results compared with no k-fold. However, for the ANFIS subtractive clustering
model, k-fold cross-validation provided better results in term of lower values of MSE, error mean, and error standard deviation and
higher value of the coefficient of determination. In addition, the k-fold cross-validation techniques demonstrated the capability to
avoid the overfitting phenomenon and enhance prediction accuracy.
• The proposed model in this study demonstrates better prediction accuracy than previous FCM and improved PSO-ANFIS from Elbaz
et al. (2020). Compared with previous work from Elbaz et al. (2020), the FCM model can predict the gas condensate production with
the smallest RMSE of 0.0645 and 0.0733 for training and testing data, respectively; the highest R2 of 0.9482 and 0.9337 for training
and testing data, respectively; and also the highest variance account of 0.9482 and 0.9334 for training and testing data, respectively.
• The proposed methodology can be used for designing well test validation workflow, completing pressure measurements that were
partially recorded because of the high production demand, detecting the incorrect flow measurements caused by the malfunction of
instrumentation, and detect abnormal well deliverability.
Applied at the HT-MT field, the accurate forecasting of virtual flowmeter using ANFIS supports the well-testing validation work-
flow, enhancing the predictability of the allocation plan without the need for a comprehensive well-testing program. The AI application
has opened up a positive research direction in intelligent management and optimization of oil and gas exploitation and production activ-
ities at HT-MT field, offshore Vietnam.

Nomenclature
Cd ¼ discharge coefficient
d ¼ diameter of orifice under working conditions
qm ¼ mass flow rate
b ¼ diameter ratio of flow orifice
Dp ¼ differential pressure across the orifice
e ¼ expansibility factor
q1 ¼ working density at upstream of orifice

2021 SPE Journal 13

ID: jaganm Time: 18:12 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/210131/Comp/APPFile/SA-SPE-J###210131

 DOI: 10.2118/206741-PA Date: 14-September-21 Stage: Page: 14 Total Pages: 15

Acknowledgment
- KHCN, Order 196/QD-BCT of the Vietnam
The research work described herein was part of Research Project 077.2021.CNKK.QG/HD
Ministry of Industry and Trade.

References
Adeyemi, B. J. and Sulaimon, A. A. 2012. Predicting Wax Formation Using Artificial Neural Network. Paper presented at the Nigeria Annual Interna-
tional Conference and Exhibition, Lagos, Nigeria, 6–8 August. SPE-163026-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/163026-MS.
Aggarwal, A. and Agarwal, S. 2014. ANN Powered Virtual Well Testing. Paper presented at the Offshore Technology Conference-Asia, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, 25–28 March. OTC-24981-MS. https://doi.org/10.4043/24981-MS.
Ahmed, S. A., Elkatatny, S., Ali, A. Z. et al. 2019. Artificial Neural Network ANN Approach To Predict Fracture Pressure. Paper presented at the SPE
Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, Manama, Bahrain, 18–21 March. SPE-194852-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/194852-MS.
Alakbari, F. S., Elkatatny, S., and Baarimah, S. O. 2016. Prediction of Bubble Point Pressure Using Artificial Intelligence AI Techniques. Paper pre-
sented at the SPE Middle East Artificial Lift Conference and Exhibition, Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain, 30 November–1 December. SPE-184208-
MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/184208-MS.
Arango, A. and Velásquez, J. 2014. Forecasting the Colombian Exchange Market Index (IGBC) Using Neural Networks. Lat Am Trans IEEE 12 (4):
718–724. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLA.2014.6868875.
BDPOC. 2011. BienDong 1 Process and Utilities Design Basis Report. BienDong 1 Process and Utilities Design Basis Report.
Bezdek, J. 1981. Objective Function Clustering. In Pattern Recognition with Fuzzy Objective Function Algorithms, 43–93. New York, New York, USA:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bruyelle, J. and Guérillot, D. 2019. Optimization of Waterflooding Strategy Using Artificial Neural Networks. Paper presented at the SPE Reservoir Char-
acterisation and Simulation Conference and Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 17–19 September. SPE-196643-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/196643-MS.
Cao, R., Liang, X., and Ni, Z. 2012. Stock Price Forecasting with Support Vector Machines Based on Web Financial Information Sentiment Analysis.
Paper presented at the International Conference on Advanced Data Mining and Applications, Nanjing, China, 15–18 December. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-642-35527-1_44.
Cherkassky, V. 1998. Fuzzy Inference Systems: A Critical Review. Berlin: Springer.
Chiu, S. 1994. Fuzzy Model Identification Based on Cluster Estimation. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 2 (3): 267–278. https://doi.org/10.3233/IFS-1994-2306.
Cuddy, S. 1997. The Application of the Mathematics of Fuzzy Logic to Petrophysics. Paper presented at the SPWLA 38th Annual Logging Symposium,
Houston, Texas, USA, 15–18 June. SPWLA-1997-S.
Dakshindas, S. S., Ertekin, T., and Grader, A. S. 1999. Virtual Well Testing. Paper presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Charleston, West Vir-
ginia, USA, 21–22 October. SPE-57452-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/57452-MS.
Danilko, A., Senkov, A., and Andreev, A. 2019. Virtual Flowmetering for Intelligent Wells. Paper presented at the SPE Russian Petroleum Technology
Conference, Moscow, Russia, 22–24 October. SPE-196856-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/196856-MS.
Denoo, S. A., Hammar, R. F., and Maxwell, J. B. 1981. Utilizing Log-Derived Permeability to Predict Rates of Gas Production. J Can Pet Technol 20
(2): 51–54. PETSOC-81-02-02. https://doi.org/10.2118/81-02-02.
D~ung, T. Q., Hà, L. T., and Khang, P. D. 2019.
7 Trang 18–27.
Elbaz, K., Shen, S., Sun, W. et al. 2020. Prediction Model of Shield Performance during Tunneling via Incorporating Improved Particle Swarm Optimi-
zation into ANFIS. IEEE Access 8: 39659–39671. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2974058.
Elbaz, K., Shen, S.-L., Zhou, A. et al. 2019. Optimization of EPB Shield Performance with Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System and Genetic Algo-
rithm. Appl Sci 9 (4): 780. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9040780.
Elbaz, K., Shen, S.-L., Zhou, A. et al. 2021. Prediction of Disc Cutter Life during Shield Tunneling with AI via the Incorporation of a Genetic Algorithm
into a GMDH-Type Neural Network. Engineering 7 (2): 238–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2020.02.016.
Giuliani, M., Cadei, L., Montini, M. et al. 2020. Hybrid Artificial Intelligence Techniques for Automatic Simulation Models Matching with Field Data
and Constrained Production Optimization. Paper presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Abu Dhabi International Petro-
leum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 13–15 January. IPTC-19621-Abstract. https://doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-19621-Abstract.
Hamdi, Z., Haldavnekar, A., Momeni, M. et al. 2020. Improving Drilling Rate of Penetration Modelling Performance Using Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy
Inference Systems. Paper presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 9–12 November. SPE-
203427-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/203427-MS.
Ifejika, E., De Cumont, B., and Kashani, N. 2017. Optimum Production Metrics to Predict Unconventional Well’s Long-Term Performance. Paper pre-
sented at the SP E Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 24–26 January. SPE-184817-MS.
https://doi.org/10.2118/184817-MS.
Jalali-Heravi, M. and Kyani, A. 2007. Comparison of Shuffling-Adaptive Neuro Fuzzy Inference System (Shuffling-ANFIS) with Conventional ANFIS
as Feature Selection Methods for Nonlinear Systems. QSAR Comb Sci 26 (10): 1046–1059. https://doi.org/10.1002/qsar.200630156.
Jang, J. S. R. 1992. Self-Learning Fuzzy Controllers Based on Temporal Backpropagation. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 3 (5): 714–723. https://doi.org/
10.1109/72.159060.
Jang, J. R. 1993. ANFIS: Adaptive-Network-Based Fuzzy Inference System. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 23 (3): 665–685. https://doi.org/10.1109/
21.256541.
Jang, J. R. and Chuen-Tsai, S. 1995. Neuro-Fuzzy Modeling and Control. Proc IEEE 83 (3): 378–406. https://doi.org/10.1109/5.364486.
Kanj, M. Y. and Abousleiman, Y. 1999. Realistic Sanding Predictions: A Neural Approach. Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 3–6 October. SPE-56631-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/56631-MS.
Kianinejad, A., Kansao, R., Maqui, A. et al. 2019. Artificial-Intelligence-Based, Automated Decline Curve Analysis for Reservoir Performance Manage-
ment: A Giant Sandstone Reservoir Case Study. Paper presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Confernece, Abu Dhabi,
UAE, 11–14 November. SPE-197142-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/197142-MS.
Kolus, A., Imbeau, D., Dubé, P.-A. et al. 2015. Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference Systems with k-Fold Cross-Validation for Energy Expenditure Predic-
tions Based on Heart Rate. Appl Ergon 50: 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.03.001.
Liao, Y., Zeng, X., Song, T. et al. 2013. Stock Price Forecast Using Tree Augmented Naı̈ve (TAN) Bayes. In Proceedings of the 8th International Confer-
ence on Bio-Inspired Computing: Theories and Applications, 1013–1019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37502-6_118.
Lin, C.-T. and Lee, C. S. G. 1996. Neural Fuzzy Systems: A Neuro-Fuzzy Synergism to Intelligent Systems. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.

14 2021 SPE Journal

ID: jaganm Time: 18:13 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/210131/Comp/APPFile/SA-SPE-J###210131

 DOI: 10.2118/206741-PA Date: 14-September-21 Stage: Page: 15 Total Pages: 15

Lin, S.-S., Shen, S.-L., Zhou, A. et al. 2021. Risk Assessment and Management of Excavation System Based on Fuzzy Set Theory and Machine Learning
Methods. Autom Constr 122: 103490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103490.
Lind, Y. B. and Kabirova, A. R. 2014. Artificial Neural Networks in Drilling Troubles Prediction. Paper presented at the SPE Russian Oil and Gas Explo-
ration and Production Technical Conference and Exhibition, Moscow, Russia, 14–16 October. SPE-171274-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/171274-MS.
Lu, J. 2013. A Neural Fuzzy Inference System. J Electron (China) 30 (4): 401–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11767-013-2161-z.
Mathew, E. S., Tembely, M., AlAmeri, W. et al. 2020. Physics Driven AI Coreflooding Simulator for SCAL Data Analysis. Paper presented at the Abu
Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 9–12 November. SPE-202700-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/202700-MS.
MathWorks. 2020a. Filtering and Smoothing Data. https://www.mathworks.com/help/curvefit/smoothing-data.html (accessed 11 June 2021).
MathWorks. 2020b. Generate Fuzzy Inference System Object from Data. https://www.mathworks.com/help/fuzzy/genfis.html.
MATLAB. 2021. Linear Regression. https://au.mathworks.com/help/matlab/data_analysis/linear-regression.html.
Moreno, G. A., Garriz, A., Fernandez Badessich, M. A. et al. 2014. Production Data Integration for Virtual Flow Metering. Paper presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27–29 October. SPE-170838-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/170838-MS.
Mursaliyev, A. 2018. Implementation of Virtual Flow Metering Concept in Kashagan Field. Paper presented at the SPE Annual Caspian Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition, Astana, Kazakhstan, 31 October–2 November. SPE-192592-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/192592-MS.
Neta, R. D A., Ebecken, N., Caloba, L. P. et al. 2002. Artificial Neural Network Use on Simulation of Geological Processes. Paper presented at the 17th
World Petroleum Congress, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1–5 September.
Okon, A. and Appah, D. 2016. Neural Network Models for Predicting Wellhead Pressure-Flow Rate Relationship for Niger Delta Oil Wells. J Sci Res
Rep 12 (1): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.9734/JSRR/2016/28715.
Olabisi, O. T., Atubokiki, A. J., and Babawale, O. 2019. Artificial Neural Network for Prediction of Hydrate Formation Temperature. Paper presented at
the SPE Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition, Lagos, Nigeria, 5–7 August. SPE-198811-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/198811-MS.
Olominu, O. and Sulaimon, A. A. 2014. Application of Time Series Analysis To Predict Reservoir Production Performance. Paper presented at the SPE
Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition, Lagos, Nigeria, 5–7 August. SPE-172395-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/172395-MS.
Popa, A. S. 2013. Identification of Horizontal Well Placement Using Fuzzy Logic. Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
tion, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 30 September–2 October. SPE-166313-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/166313-MS.
Purwanto, P. and Eswaran, C. 2018. Enhanced Hybrid Prediction Models for Time Series Prediction. Int Arab J Inf Technol 15: 866–874.
Rammay, M. H. and Abdulraheem, A. 2014. Automated History Matching Using Combination of Adaptive Neuro Fuzzy System (ANFIS) and Differen-
tial Evolution Algorithm. Paper presented at the SPE Large Scale Computing and Big Data Challenges in Reservoir Simulation Conference and Exhi-
bition, Istanbul, Turkey, 15–17 September. SPE-172992-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/172992-MS.
Ranjan, A., Verma, S., and Singh, Y. 2015. Gas Lift Optimization Using Artificial Neural Network. Paper presented at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas
Show and Conference, Manama, Bahrain, 8–11 March. SPE-172610-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/172610-MS.
Reader-Harris, M. 2013. Standards ISO 5167-2:2003 Measurement of Fluid Flow by Means of Pressure Differential Devices Inserted in Circular
Cross-Section Conduits Running Full: Part 2. Orifice Plates. In Orifice Plates and Venturi Tubes, 377–388. Cham, Switzerland: Springer
International Publishing.
Rivera, V. P. 1994. Fuzzy Logic Controls Pressure in Fracturing Fluid Characterization Facility. Paper presented at the Petroleum Computer Conference,
Dallas, Texas, USA, 31 July–3 August. SPE-28239-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/28239-MS.
Rutkowski, L., Cpałka, K., Nowicki, R. et al. 2012. Neuro-Fuzzy SystemsNeuro-Fuzzy Systems (NFS). In Computational Complexity: Theory, Tech-
niques, and Applications, ed. R. A. Meyers, 2069–2081. New York, New York, USA: Springer.
Salleh, M., Talpur, N., and Hussain, K. 2017. Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System: Overview, Strengths, Limitations, and Solutions. Paper presented
at the International Conference on Data Mining and Big Data, Fukuoka, Japan, 27 July–1 August. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61845-6_52.
Shaban, W. M., Yang, J., Elbaz, K. et al. 2021. Fuzzy-Metaheuristic Ensembles for Predicting the Compressive Strength of Brick Aggregate Concrete.
Resour Conserv Recycl 169: 105443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105443.
Shahriar, K. and Owladeghaffari, H. 2007. Analysis of Permeability Using BPF, ANFIS and SOM. Paper presented at the 1st Canada—U.S. Rock
Mechanics Symposium, Vancouver, Canada, 27–31 May. ARMA-07-037.
Sugeno, M. and Kang, G. T. 1988. Structure Identification of Fuzzy Model. Fuzzy Sets Syst 28 (1): 15–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(88)90113-3.
Takagi, T. and Sugeno, M. 1985. Fuzzy Identification of Systems and Its Applications to Modeling and Control. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern SMC-15
(1): 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1985.6313399.
Tiwari, R., Kankar, P., and Gupta, V. 2014. Fault Diagnosis of Ball Bearings Using Support Vector Machine and Adaptive Neuro Fuzzy Classifier. In
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Soft Computing for Problem Solving (SocProS 2012), December 28–30, eds. B. Babu et al.,
Vol. 236, 1477–1482. New Delhi, India: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-1602-5_148.
Tsoukalas, L. H., Uhrig, R. E., and Zadeh, L. A. 1997. Fuzzy and Neural Approaches in Engineering. Hoboken, New Jersey, USA: Wiley.
Zadeh, L. A. 1965. Fuzzy Sets. Fuzzy Sets Inf Control 8 (3): 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X.
Zhang, N., Shen, S.-L., Zhou, A. et al. 2021. Application of LSTM Approach for Modelling Stress–Strain Behaviour of Soil. Appl Soft Comput 100:
106959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106959.

2021 SPE Journal 15

ID: jaganm Time: 18:13 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/210131/Comp/APPFile/SA-SPE-J###210131