Computers and Chemical Engineering 117 (2018) 209–220

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Chemical Engineering

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

A meta-optimized hybrid global and local algorithm for well

placement optimization
Hongwei Chen a, Qihong Feng a,∗, Xianmin Zhang a, Sen Wang a, Zhiyu Ma a,
Wensheng Zhou b, Chen Liu b
a
School of Petroleum Engineering, China University of Petroleum (East China), Qingdao, Shandong 266580, China
b
CNOOC Research Institute, Beijing 100027, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Well placement optimization is a complex and time-consuming task. An efficient and robust algorithm
Received 16 January 2018 can improve the optimization efficiency. In this work, we propose a meta-optimized hybrid cat swarm
Revised 17 April 2018
mesh adaptive direct search (O-CSMADS) algorithm for well placement optimization. By coupling Cat
Accepted 17 June 2018
Swarm Optimization (CSO) algorithm, Mesh Adaptive Direct Search (MADS) algorithm, and Particle Swarm
Available online 24 June 2018
Optimization (PSO) meta-optimization approach, O-CSMADS has global search ability and local search
Keywords: ability. We perform detailed comparisons of optimization performances between O-CSMADS, hybrid cat
Well placement swarm mesh adaptive direct search (CSMADS) algorithm, CSO, and MADS in three different examples. Re-
Optimization efficiency sults show that O-CSMADS algorithm outperforms stand-alone CSO, MADS, and CSMADS. Besides, optimal
Hybrid optimization algorithm controlling parameters are not same for different problems, which indicates that the optimization of al-
Meta-optimization approach gorithmic parameters is necessary. The proposed method also shows great potential for other petroleum
Cat swarm optimization algorithm
engineering optimization problems, such as well type optimization and joint optimization of well place-
Mesh Adaptive Direct Search
ment and control.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In order to maximize the oil recovery, many methods involving
water flooding, steam flooding and fracturing have been applied
(Wang et al., 2016; Chen and Reynolds, 2018; Feng et al., 2013; Guo
et al., 2017; Rui et al., 2018). For oilfield development, determin-
ing optimal well placement is the essential approach to realize the
maximum oil production. Optimal well placement is influenced by
reservoir heterogeneity, fluid property, economic parameters, and
other factors (Gildin et al., 2006; Bouzarkouna et al., 2012; Tavallali
et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2017; Feng et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2018).
Optimization algorithms provide a tool to find the optimal well
placement effectively and automatically. Due to the nature of non-
linear, discrete, constrained, and multi-modal, well placement opti-
mization problem is a complex and challenging task (Dossary and
Nasrabai, 2016). It is necessary to find an efficient, reliable
and robust algorithm to deal with well placement optimization
problem.
Because the optimization surface is rough with multiple lo-
cal optimum, well placement optimization problem is usually
solved by coupling derivative-free algorithm with reservoir numer-
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: fengqihong.upc@gmail.com, wangsena1@126.com (Q. Feng).
ical simulator (Siavashi et al., 2016; Isebor et al., 2014; Bouzark-
ouna et al., 2012; Yeten et al., 2002). Reservoir numerical sim-
ulator, which serves as a black box, calculates development per-
formance under specific well locations by finite difference and
finite element solution technology (Singh and Srinivasan, 2013,
2014). The derivative-free algorithm is used to find the optimal
solution for well placement optimization problem. For derivative-
free algorithms, the gradient computation is not involved
during the optimization process. Derivative-free optimization
algorithms show good performance when gradients of the opti-
mization problem are not available, difficult to obtain or ill-defined
(Isebor et al., 2014). Search strategies of derivative-free algorithms
contain global search strategy and local search procedure. Ge-
netic Algorithm (GA) (Güyagüler and Horne, 2004; Emerick et al.,
2009; Lyons and Nasrabadi, 2013; Sampaio et al., 2015a,b), Parti-
cle Swarm Optimization (PSO) (Humphries and Haynes, 2015; On-
wunalu and Durlofsky, 2010), Covariance Matrix Adaptation Evolu-
tion Strategy (CMA-ES) (Bouzarkouna et al., 2012; Feng et al., 2016)
and Differential Evolution (DE) (Nwankwor et al., 2013; Awotunde,
2014; Atashnezhad et al., 2017) conduct global optimization strat-
egy. Algorithms with local search strategy include Generalized Pat-
tern Search (GPS) (Humphries et al., 2014) and Hooke-Jeeves Di-
rected Search (HJDS) (Aliyev, 2011). By using stochastic parameters
in the optimization process to escape from local optimum, global

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2018.06.013
0098-1354/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
210 H. Chen et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 117 (2018) 209–220

2017). MADS algorithm is a local optimization algorithm based

Nomenclature on polling. Due to its excellent local search ability, it has been
combined with Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm to
b annual discount rate construct hybrid PSO-MADS procedure (Isebor et al., 2014; Aliyev
c acceleration constant and Durlofsky, 2015; Humphries and Raynes, 2015) and Dif-
c1 controlling parameter in PSO ferential Evolution (DE) algorithm to build DE-MADS algorithm
c2 controlling parameter in PSO (Yang et al., 2017). By applying MADS algorithm to conduct
Cdyn constant in dynamic penalization method the local search, these hybrid algorithms outperform the stand-
Cinj water production costs, USD/m3 alone algorithms in average objective function and standard
Coil oil price, USD/m3 deviation. Controlling parameters have a significant influence on
Cwater water production costs, USD/m3 optimization efficiency. Meta-optimization approach is a powerful
Cwell cost to drill well, USD/well and effective method to find the reasonable controlling parame-
CDC count of dimension to change ters for optimization algorithm (Parsopoulos and Vrahatis, 2002;
eval objective function with penalization method Meissner et al., 2006). Meta-optimization approach applies an op-
fcon constraint violation measures timization algorithm to find the good behavior parameters for an-
i ith well other optimization algorithm. It has been applied to find the opti-
iter iteration step mal controlling parameters for GA, PSO, DE, Ant Colony Optimiza-
j jth well tion (ACO), and hybrid PSO–HJDS (Birattari et al., 2002; Meissner
l well length et al., 2006; Pedersen and Chipperfield, 2010; Aliyev, 2011). The
max maximum controlling parameters yielded by meta-optimization approach can
min minimum effectively improve the optimization performance. In order to avoid
MR mixture ratio trapping into local optimum and find the global optimum effec-
Ncon total number of constraints tively, the algorithm should have both global search ability and lo-
Ninj total number of injectors cal search ability. Therefore, we apply CSO and MADS algorithm to
Nprod total number of producers construct the hybrid algorithm. Because the controlling parameters
NPV net present value have a significant influence on optimization efficiency, PSO meta-
Qinj water injection rate, m3 /d optimized algorithm is coupled in optimization process of the
Qoil oil production rate, m3 /d hybrid algorithm to find the optimal controlling parameters, in-
Qwater water production rate, m3 /d cluding parameters in CSO algorithm and the conversion time from
SMP seeking memory pool CSO to MADS. It is guaranteed to use the optimal controlling pa-
SPC self-position considering rameters for each specific optimization problem. Our established
SRD seeking range of the selected dimension algorithm is a meta-optimized hybrid cat swarm mesh adaptive di-
t production time, s rect search algorithm, denoted by “O-CSMADS”.
T total production time, s This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the formula-
w inertia weight tion of well placement optimization problem is presented and con-
x coordinate in x direction for vertical well straint handling method is investigated. In Section 3, we present
xh heel coordinate in x direction. the O-CSMADS algorithm approach. In Section 4, we present op-
X optimization variables timization results for three different well placement optimization
y coordinate in y direction for vertical well cases. In Section 5, we provide some concluding remarks.
yh heel coordinate in y direction.
2. Well placement optimization problem formulation
zh heel coordinates in z direction
α dyn constant in dynamic penalization method
For general oil field development, well placement optimization
β dyn constant in dynamic penalization method
is to maximize the economic value or oil production (Yeten, 2003;
ϕ azimuth angle
Isebor et al., 2014; Humphries et al., 2014). In this work, we opti-
mize the well placement to seek the maximum Net Present Value
algorithms can converge to global optimum with high probability. (NPV). NPV reflects the economic effect caused by well placements
However, the local search ability is poor. When the optimization and it is computed based on the fluid production data generated
problem is nonlinear, nonsmooth and noncontinuous, the global by reservoir numerical simulator. Taking the oil sale prices, water
optimization algorithm has the probability of premature conver- production and injection costs, and drilling cost into account, NPV
gence leading to potential solutions being trapped in local opti- for a two-phase (oil and water) flow reservoir model can be for-
mum (Nwankwor et al., 2013). Local algorithms show excellent lo- mulated as:
 N
cal search performance. However, qualities of solutions found by 
T 
prod N prod

1 (time ) (time )
local algorithms are dependent on the initial guess (Aliyev, 2011). NPV = · Coil Qoil p
− Cwater Qwater p
In order to solve well placement optimization problem ef- time=1 (1 + b ) time
p=1 p=1
ficiently, we propose a meta-optimized hybrid global and lo- Nin j
 N prod +Nin j
 
cal algorithm. CSO algorithm is a global derivative-free (stochas- − Cin j Qin(t jin
)
− Cwell (1)
tic) algorithm that mimics the behavior of cats (Chu et al., in=1 wel l =1
2006). It has been used to solve many engineering problems
shown flexibility, fast convergence and producing highly con- where Qoil means oil production rate, m3 /d; Qwater and Qinj respec-
sistent results abilities. CSO algorithm shows better global op- tively represent water production and injection rate, m3 /d; Coil is
timization performance than GA, PSO, SA and DE in conver- oil sale price, USD/m3 ; Cwater and Cinj respectively denote water
gence speed and residual mean square error (Guo et al., 2016; production and injection costs, USD/m3 ; t is the production time,
Panda et al., 2011; Pradhan and Panda, 2012). In our previous s; T represents the total production time, s; b is the annual dis-
work, we have validated that CSO algorithm outperforms DE al- count rate; Ninj is the total number of injectors; Nprod denotes the
gorithm for well placement optimization problem (Chen et al., total number of producers; Cwell is the drilling cost, USD per well.
 H. Chen et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 117 (2018) 209–220
In order to guarantee that optimized well placements are
applicable, reservoir boundary constraints, minimum inter-well
distance constraints and well length constraints are taken into
account. If the optimized well location is out of the range of
reservoir, the simulation is not performed (Yeten, 2003). Inter-well
distance should be longer than the minimum inter-well distance to
avoid well interference and the detailed calculation method can be
found in many researches (Jesmani et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2017).
Well length also should be in a reasonable range to satisfy the fea-
sible drilling technique.
Many methods are used to handle constraints for well
placement optimization problem, such as rejection method
(Michalewicz, 1995), repair method (Jesmani et al., 2016), penaliza-
tion method (Bouzarkouna et al., 2012), filter method (Isebor et al.,
2014) and decoder method (Jesmani et al., 2016). In this work, we
apply dynamic penalization method to deal with constraints. For
dynamic penalization method, dynamic penalization factor is used
to construct penalization function. It is related to the generation
number and increases with the optimization iteration. This method
can provide higher pressure on unfeasible solutions by penalizing
the objective function when the optimization process towards the
end (Michalewicz, 1995). The objective function combined dynamic
penalization method can be written as:
 αdyn 
Ncon
β are set randomly. Based on the inputted controlling parameter MR,
eval (X ) = NPV(X ) − Cdyn × iter fcondyn (X )
con=1
where eval is the objective function with penalization method; X
represents the optimization variables; Cdyn , α dyn and β dyn are the
constants; Ncon is the total number of constraints; fcon is constraint
violation measure; iter is the iteration step.
3. Optimization approach
In this section, we establish O-CSMADS algorithm by combining
CSO, MADS, and PSO meta-optimization method.
CSO algorithm is a heuristic and population-based stochastic al-
gorithm which describes and models the behavior of cats. It is in-
troduced by Chu et al. (2006). Cats are divided into two modes by
mixture ratio (MR) in the hunting process. One is seeking mode
and the other is tracing mode (Pradhan and Panda, 2012). In seek-
ing mode, cats stay in alert and move their positions slowly. In
the tracing mode, cats chase the objective very quickly based on
their own velocities. Five parameters control the optimization pro-
cess of CSO. Seeking memory pool (SMP) represents the number
of candidate positions, which is also the size of seeking memory
of each cat. Seeking range of the selected dimension (SRD) reflects
the change ratio for the selected dimension. Count of dimension
to change (CDC) denotes the number of dimensions to be varied.
Self-position considering (SPC) is a Boolean variable and it deter-
mines whether the present position will be the candidate posi-
tion. c denotes the acceleration constant which controls the trac-
ing mode. When these controlling parameters are set properly, CSO
shows good global search ability in convergence speed and robust-
ness (Guo et al., 2016; Panda and Pradhan, 2012).
MADS is a local derivative-free optimization algorithm (Audet
and Dennis, 2006; Isebor et al., 2014). It explores the local opti-
mum which provides a better objective function value than other
solutions in its neighborhood. The local optimum is searched using
polling centered at the current polling stencil (Isebor et al., 2014).
At each iteration, the objective function is calculated at stencil end
point. If the objective function is improved at one trail poll point,
the poll stencil center is shifted to this better point and the polling
step size is increased. If the objective function can not be improved
at any stencil end point, the polling step size is decreased. When
the poll stencil is reduced to the minimum threshold or the num-
211
Table 1
Controlling parameters for PSO meta-
optimization algorithm.
Dimension w c1 c2
5 −0.2 −0.5 2.5
ber of function evaluations reaches the maximum, MADS algorithm
stops and the optimal solutions are outputted.
The meta-optimized global and local algorithm for well place-
ment optimization combines the strengths of CSO and MADS. The
optimization efficiency depends upon the controlling parameters.
In order to improve the algorithm efficiency, we also couple PSO
meta-optimization approach in the optimization process to estab-
lish meta-optimized hybrid cat swarm mesh adaptive direct search
(O-CSMADS) algorithm. Superswarm and subswarm are included
in PSO meta-optimized approach. Firstly, we initialize the super-
swarm, which contains the controlling parameters of CSO and
switch time of CSO algorithm to MADS algorithm. Then these con-
trolling parameters are transmitted to subswarm. With these con-
trolling parameters, the subswarm conducts the optimization by
hybrid cat swarm mesh adaptive direct search (CSMADS) algo-
rithm. For subswarm, the initial positions and velocities of cats
(2)
these cats are randomly distributed into seeking mode and tracing
mode. Then the position and velocity of each cat are updated ac-
cording to the controlling parameters SMP, SRD, CDC, and c, which
are generated in superswarm. Optimal solutions found by CSO are
outputted if the end condition is reached, which is controlled by
the switch time. Beginning with these solutions, MADS is applied
to conduct the local search. MADS updates the poll stencil center
and step size according to the objective function. When the max-
imum simulation number is reached, optimal solutions and opti-
mal objective function value are sent back to superswarm. Dur-
ing the meta-optimization procedure, all subswarms complete one
entire optimization procedure in each iteration of superswarm.
The controlling parameters are updated in superswarm and then
re-inputted into subswarm. When the stop condition is satisfied,
final optimal solutions are found with the optimal controlling pa-
rameters. Based on the whole optimization process, optimal solu-
tions can be found after both global searching and local searching
with the optimal controlling parameters. Fig. 1 illustrates the op-
timization flowchart of O-CSMADS algorithm. The differences be-
tween the methodology for well placement optimization proposed
in this work and previous studies are as follows. (1) The compo-
nent global algorithm used in this work is CSO. In our previous
work, we have validated that CSO algorithm outperforms DE algo-
rithm for well placement optimization problem. Due to the great
potential of CSO for well placement optimization, we apply CSO al-
gorithm to construct the hybrid algorithm. (2) The controlling pa-
rameters for the proposed hybrid algorithm are optimized for each
specific well placement optimization problem.
In CSO algorithm, SMP is the number of candidate positions.
SMP can reflect the objective function evaluation number when
the total iteration step is known. That is, SMP controls the switch
time of CSO algorithm to MADS algorithm. Therefore, optimiza-
tion parameters in superswarm of O-CSMADS algorithm are SMP,
SRD, CDC, MR, and c. The dimension of PSO meta-optimization ap-
proach is 5. For this scale optimization problem, parameters in-
cluding controlling parameter c1 , c2 and inertia weight w for PSO
meta-optimization approach are set based on previous researches
(Pedersen and Chipperfield, 2010; Atashnezhad et al., 2014). And
they are shown in Table 1. Optimization dimension of the sub-
swarm depends on the number of variables in the well placement
optimization problem.
212 H. Chen et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 117 (2018) 209–220

Fig. 1. Flowchart of the proposed O-CSMADS algorithm.

4. Case studies
CSO, MADS, CSMADS and O-CSMADS algorithms are applied to
solve three well placement optimization problems in this section.
The optimization problem in the first case is to find the optimal
well locations of six vertical wells and well types (producers or in-
jectors) of four wells in a two-dimensional reservoir. In the second
case, well locations for three horizontal wells and three vertical
wells in a three-dimensional reservoir are optimized. In the third
case, the joint optimization of locations and control of 12 wells in
a channelized reservoir are solved. The total number of optimiza-
tion variables for three cases is respectively 16, 21 and 60. A reser-
voir numerical simulator, ECLIPSE (GeoQuest, 2010), is applied to
calculate the production data with specific well placements. Opti-
mized well placements are generated by optimization algorithm in
MATLAB software (MATLAB, 2013). Through coupling ECLIPSE with
MATLAB in the optimization process, the optimal well placement
can be obtained.
 H. Chen et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 117 (2018) 209–220 213

Fig. 2. The log-permeability and porosity distribution for Case 1.

Table 2 Table 3
Economic parameters for NPV used in Case 1. Controlling parameters of stand-
alone CSO and CSMADS algorithms
Parameters Value for Case 1.
3
Oil price Coil , USD/m 400
MR SMP SRD CDC c
Water production cost Cwater , USD/m3 20
Water injection cost Cinj , USD/m3 40 0.5 9 0.1 0.2 2
Annual discount rate b 0
Cost of drilling well Cwell , USD/well 20 million
Table 4
Upper and lower value constraints of control-
ling parameters in O-CSMADS algorithm for
Case 1.

Range MR SMP SRD CDC c

Lower 0.1 2 0.1 0.1 0.2

4.1. Case 1: Placement and type of six vertical wells Upper 0.9 9 0.8 0.8 2

4.1.1. Model description

For the first case, we use a two-dimensional reservoir
model with 60 × 60 × 1 grid blocks and the block size is
20 m × 20 m × 20 m. Permeability and porosity fields (Fig. 2) are
taken from SPE 10 benchmark model (Christie and Blunt, 2001).
The SPE 10 model is a comparative solution project proposed by
the Society of Petroleum Engineers. This reservoir model or the
part of this model has been used as the benchmark model to study
the waterflooding project in order to compare the performance of
different simulators (Siavashi et al., 2014; Siavashi et al., 2016), dif-
ferent well placement and control strategies (Jesmani et al., 2016;
Wang et al., 2016). We assume there is a two-phase oil-water with-
out capillary pressure.
There are six vertical wells. Optimal locations for all six wells
are optimized. For this case, the well location of each well is rep-
resented by (x, y). The number of location variables is equal to
6 × 2 = 12. Besides, the well type, injector or producer, is also opti-
mized. There is one injector and one producer at least. Well types
for other four wells need to be optimized. Therefore, the optimiza-
tion dimension is equal to 6 × 2 + 4 = 16. The liquid production rate
of each producer is equal to 100 m3 /d and the water injection rate
of each injector is 400 m3 /d. Total production time is 10 years. Dur-
ing the optimization process, boundary constraint and minimum
inter-well distance constraint are considered. Locations of these six
vertical wells should be in the area of this model. The inter-well
distance between any two wells should be larger than 40 m. The
objective function is to seek the maximum NPV and related eco-
nomic parameters are listed in Table 2.
4.1.2. Results and discussions
CSO, MADS, CSMADS and O-CSMADS algorithms are applied to
find the optimal types and locations for these six wells. The num-
ber of objective function calculations is 10 0 0 for CSO, MADS, CS-
MADS. The number of simulations in one iteration of PSO meta-
optimization approach is 10 0 0. We assume SPC for CSO algorithm
is equal to 1.
In stand-alone CSO optimization process, there are 5 control-
ling parameters: SMP, SRD, CDC, MR, and c. Values of these pa-
rameters are set according to related researches (Guo et al., 2016)
and they are listed in Table 3. For CSMADS algorithm, the behav-
ioral parameters of CSO are same with stand-alone CSO algorithm
(listed in Table 3). The switch objective function evaluation num-
ber of CSO algorithm to MADS algorithm is 500. For O-CSMADS
algorithm, PSO meta-optimization approach is applied to optimize
the controlling parameters. Parameters for PSO meta-optimization
approach are listed in Table 1. In order to reduce the optimiza-
tion time, the number of subswarm calculations is equal to 15. The
ranges of controlling parameters for O-CSMADS algorithm are se-
lected according to conclusions of Guo et al. (2016). The upper and
lower value constraints for SMP, SRD, CDC, MR, and c are shown in
Table 4.
Dynamic penalization method is applied to handle the mini-
mum inter-well distance constraint in the optimization process. As
shown in Eq. (2), parameters used in dynamic penalization method
are set to be Cdyn = 5, α dyn = β dyn = 2. Because there are random
parameters involved in the optimization processes of CSO, MADS,
214 H. Chen et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 117 (2018) 209–220
Fig. 3. Average convergence curves of stand-alone CSO, MADS, CSMADS and O-CSMADS algorithms for Case 1.
Table 5
Optimal controlling parameters of O-
CSMADS algorithm for Case 1.
MR SMP SRD CDC c higher objective function and lower standard deviation.
0.47 7.0 0.21 0.73 0.55
CSMADS, and O-CSMADS algorithms (Guo et al., 2016; Isebor et al.,
2014; Humphries and Haynes, 2015), the optimization performance
is different for each trial. In order to overcome the stochastic prop-
erty of the algorithm, each algorithm is performed 10 times to ob-
tain average performance.
Fig. 3 presents the average NPV versus the number of simula-
tions and boxplots of the final NPVs for 10 runs. The best, worst
and average NPV over 10 runs for three algorithms, together with
the standard deviation are provided in the Supplementary mate-
rial. According to the convergence curves plotted in Fig. 3, we can
see that MADS shows gradual convergence at the early stage of the
optimization process and CSO converges faster than MADS. CSO is
a global algorithm and it can avoid poor local optimum with high
robustness. In contrast, MADS is a local algorithm. Due to the local
search nature, MADS may find a relatively high NPV or a poor lo-
cal optimum which highly depends on the initial solution. As a re-
sult, the standard deviation of MADS (standard deviation is 0.620)
is higher than that of CSO (standard deviation is 0.292). The best
NPV of MADS algorithm (2.074 × 108 USD) is higher than the best
NPV of CSO algorithm (2.059 × 108 USD). However, according to the
average NPV and the standard deviation, the search performance of
CSO is better than that of MADS.
CSMADS algorithm, which combines the advantages of CSO
and MADS, shows better search ability than stand-alone CSO and
MADS. Fig. 3 also show that although the search ability of CSMADS
is improved by combining CSO and MADS algorithms, the improve-
ment degree is not significant. The roughness of solution surface
and the values of controlling parameters have significant influ-
ences on the optimization performance. For O-CSMADS algorithm,
the controlling parameters are optimized by PSO meta-optimized
approach. The optimal controlling parameters for O-CSMADS are
listed in Table 5.
With the optimized controlling parameters, the robustness of
O-CSMADS is significantly improved. The standard diversion of
O-CSMADS is 0.085, while the standard deviation of CSMADS is
0.266. Besides, with these optimal controlling parameters, the ex-
ploration ability of O-CSMADS at the early stage is improved.
The worst NPV found by O-CSMADS is higher than the average
NPV of CSMADS. Therefore, the controlling parameters can influ-
ence the optimization performance. In comparison with CSMADS,
O-CSMADS algorithm performs better optimization ability with
O-CSMADS has the advantages of global search ability, local
search ability, and optimal controlling parameters. Compared with
stand-alone CSO and MADS, the standard deviation of O-CSMADS
obtains a 70.89% and 86.29% decrease respectively. The worst NPV
found by O-CSMADS is close to the best NPV of CSO and MADS.
The average NPV of O-CSMADS is 33.03% higher than the average
NPV of CSO and 65.73% higher than the average NPV of MADS. It
demonstrates the validity of our proposed O-CSMADS algorithm.
The remaining oil saturation distribution is shown Fig. 4. For
this optimization problem, the highest NPV is found by O-CSMADS
algorithm with NPV of 2.278 × 108 USD. This reservoir can achieve
good development performance with one injector and five produc-
ers, which is found by these four algorithms. According to the opti-
mal well configurations shown in Fig. 4, injector placed in low per-
meability region can achieve a larger sweep area for this reservoir
model. It also can be seen that placing a producer in high perme-
ability region can produce more oil from the reservoir.
4.2. Case 2: Placement of six wells in 3-D heterogeneous model
4.2.1. Model description
In this case, we optimize the locations of six wells in a three-
dimensional reservoir model with 60 × 60 × 3 grid. The block size
we set is 20 m × 20 m × 10 m. The permeability and porosity field,
shown in Fig. 5, is a cut-off of SPE 10 model (Christie and
Blunt, 2001) from the third to the fifth layers. The simulation
model involves a two-phase oil-water flow. We assume there is no
capillary pressure.
There are two horizontal producers and one horizontal injector.
We assume that the horizontal well is placed in one layer. Five pa-
rameters are used to describe the location of horizontal well: heel
coordinates xh , yh , zh , well length l, and azimuth angle ϕ . The
variable number for horizontal well is equal to 15. Besides, one
vertical injector and two producers are drilled in this reservoir. Lo-
cation of the vertical well is determined by two parameters x, y.
Therefore, the total number of optimization variables is 21. The in-
jector is controlled with constant water injection rate 600 m3 /d
and the producer is controlled with constant liquid production rate
300 m3 /d. The system is simulated for 10 years.
Boundary constraint, well length constraint, and minimum
inter-well distance constraint are considered during the optimiza-
 H. Chen et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 117 (2018) 209–220 215

Fig. 4. Oil saturation distribution under the optimal well locations for Case 1.

Table 6 Table 7
Controlling parameters of CSO algo- Upper and lower value constraints of control-
rithms for Case 2. ling parameters in O-CSMADS algorithm for
Case 2.
MR SMP SRD CDC c
Range MR SMP SRD CDC c
0.5 10 0.1 0.2 0.8
Lower 0.1 2 0.1 0.1 0.2
Upper 0.9 15 0.8 0.8 2

tion process. For this case, the length of a horizontal well ranges
from 200 m to 10 0 0 m. The inter-well distance should be larger Table 8
Optimal controlling parameters of O-
than 40 m. Case 1 deal with the cost of drilling well as a constant. CSMADS algorithm for Case 2.
We now treat the cost of drilling well as a function of well length.
MR SMP SRD CDC c
The basic drilling cost is equal to 18 million USD per well and the
drilling cost per meter is 5 × 104 USD. Other related economic pa- 0.76 12.0 0.14 0.71 0.64
rameters are listed in Table 2.

4.2.2. Results and discussions
CSO, MADS, and O-CSMADS algorithms are respectively applied
to deal with this optimization problem. The maximum number of
objective function evaluation is equal to 20 0 0. Parameters for PSO
meta-optimization approach are listed in Table 1. Parameters for
CSO are presented in Table 6. For O-CSMADS algorithm, the con-
straints for SMP, SRD, CDC, MR, and c are shown in Table 7. In or-
der to handle constraints, dynamic penalization method is applied
and values of parameters are shown in Case 1. We analyze the op-
timization performance based on 10 runs of each algorithm.
The optimization results of controlling parameters for O-
CSMADS algorithm are shown in Table 8. According to the opti-
mal controlling parameters of O-CSMADS algorithm in two cases,
it demonstrates that the optimal control parameters for different
optimization problems are different. They should be set appropri-
ately based on the specific optimization problem to improve the
optimization efficiency. PSO meta-optimization approach can find
the optimal controlling parameters for algorithms. For O-CSMADS
algorithm, CSO algorithm can conduct 60%–70% of the total num-
ber of objective function evaluations and then the solutions found
by CSO are input as the initial populations of MADS.
Fig. 6 displays the average convergence curves and boxplot
comparisons between CSO, MADS, and O-CSMADS. The data set
is presented in the Supplementary material. It again shows that
the O-CSMADS algorithm outperforms its component algorithms in
term of average NPV, best NPV, and robustness. The average NPV
216 H. Chen et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 117 (2018) 209–220

Fig. 5. The log-permeability and porosity distribution for Case 2.

Fig. 6. Average convergence curves of stand-alone CSO, MADS and O-CSMADS algorithms for Case 2.

of O-CSMADS is 17.12% higher than the average NPV of CSO and
24.27% higher than the average NPV of MADS. The worst NPV ob-
tained by O-CSMADS is higher than the average NPV found by CSO
and MADS. Of the 10 runs for each algorithm, the standard devia-
tion of O-CSMADS is only 0.143, while the standard deviations of
CSO and MADS are 0.309 and 0.501, respectively.
From Fig. 6(a) we can see that the convergence curve of O-
CSMADS with the optimized controlling parameters is higher than
that of CSO algorithm at early iteration stage of the optimization
process. It illustrates that controlling parameters affect the opti-
mization process. With the optimized controlling parameters, the
search ability is improved. According to the boxplots in Fig. 6(b),
it can be seen that the standard deviation of stand-alone MADS
algorithm is the highest and the worst NPV of the MADS is the
lowest. It reflects that there are many local optimum solutions in
this case and stand-alone MADS algorithm easily gets stuck in lo-
cal optimum. MADS also shows an excellent local search ability to
obtain a relatively high NPV, which is higher than the best NPV
found by stand-alone CSO. The optimization performance of MADS
highly depends on the initial solution. Therefore, in our proposed
method, the optimal solutions found by CSO are inputted as the
initial solutions of MADS. Therefore, O-CSMADS takes use of the
positive features of CSO, MADS, and PSO meta-optimization ap-
proach. In comparison with stand-alone CSO and MADS algorithms,
O-CSMADS shows the best search ability and robustness.
The best well configurations for CSO, MADS, and O-CSMADS
algorithms are presented in Fig. 7(a)–(c). The distributions of re-
maining oil saturation are shown in Fig. 7(d)–(f). It can be seen
that the horizontal injector is placed in the middle layer which
is found by this three algorithms. Besides, a horizontal producer
should be placed in the middle layer to obtain the highest NPV,
which is found by O-CSMADS.
4.3. Case 3: Joint optimization of well placement and control in
channelized model
4.3.1. Model description
A three-dimensional channelized reservoir model is used in this
case. The model is the Egg model, which has high-permeability
channels in the low-permeable background to represent the typical
meandering river patterns (Jansen et al., 2015). There are 101 per-
meability realizations in standard Egg model. Egg model has been
 H. Chen et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 117 (2018) 209–220 217

Fig. 7. Optimized well locations and remaining oil saturation distribution for Case 2.

Table 9
Economic parameters for NPV used in Case 3.

Parameters Value

Oil price Coil , USD/m3 450

Water production cost Cwater , USD/m3 60
Water injection cost Cinj , USD/m3 50
Annual discount rate b 0

Table 10
Controlling parameters of CSO algo-
rithm for Case 3.

MR SMP SRD CDC c

0.5 12 0.1 0.2 0.8

neously. Therefore, the total number of optimization variables is

Fig. 8. The permeability distribution for Case 3.
applied in many researches related to optimization under geologi-
cal uncertainty (Shirangi and Durlofsky, 2016; Fonseca et al., 2017),
well placement optimization (Wang et al., 2016; Zandvliet et al.,
2008), and well control optimization (Zandvliet et al., 2007; Feng
et al., 2016). There are 60 × 60 × 7 = 25,200 grid cells. For initial
model, there are 18,533 active cells. In our work, we modify the
model to make all cells active. The grid size is 8 m × 8 m × 4 m and
the porosity is 0.2. The permeability distribution we used in this
case is shown in Fig. 8. The total production time is 3240 days.
There are 12 vertical wells containing 8 injectors and 4 pro-
ducers. Each well is controlled by constant water injection rate
or liquid production rate. The control interval is 1080 days and
each well has 3 control parameters. Location of the vertical well
is represented by two variables x, y. For this case, the optimiza-
tion problem is to find the optimal well location. Besides, the
well control strategies of these well are also optimized simulta-
12 × 2 + 12 × 3 = 60.
During the optimization process, all wells should be located in
the area of the model and the inter-well distance should be larger
than 32 m. The water injection rate or liquid production rate of ev-
ery well is from 40 m3 /d to 120 m3 /d. The total injection rate or
production rate is from 320 m3 /d to 480 m3 /d. Besides, the to-
tal water injection rate is equal to the whole liquid production
rate. The related economic parameters to calculate NPV are listed
in Table 9.
4.3.2. Results and discussion
This optimization problem is respectively optimized by CSO,
MADS and O-CSMADS algorithms. Given the complexity of this op-
timization problem, the total number of simulation runs is 50 0 0.
Behavior parameters of stand-alone CSO are listed in Table 10. For
O-CSMADS algorithm, the controlling parameters are optimized by
PSO meta-optimized approach. Parameters for PSO meta-optimized
approach are shown in Table 1 and constraints for controlling pa-
rameter are given in Table 11. Dynamic penalization method is
used to deal with the optimization constraints which has been
218 H. Chen et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 117 (2018) 209–220

Fig. 9. Average convergence curves of stand-alone CSO, MADS and O-CSMADS algorithms for Case 3.

Fig. 10. Optimized well locations and control strategies for Case 3.

Table 11 Table 12
Upper and lower value constraints of control- Optimal controlling parameters of O-
ling parameters in O-CSMADS algorithm for CSMADS algorithm for Case 3.
Case 3.
MR SMP SRD CDC c
Range MR SMP SRD CDC c
0.66 10.0 0.31 0.53 0.84
Lower 0.1 2 0.1 0.1 0.2
Upper 0.9 20 0.8 0.8 2

used in Case 1 and Case 2. We analysis the optimization perfor-
mance of each algorithm after 10 runs.
Optimal controlling parameters found by PSO meta-
optimization approach for O-CSMADS are shown in Table 12.
It can be seen that the optimal controlling parameters of this
case are not same with that of Case 1 and Case 2. Therefore, the
controlling parameters should be set differently for the different
optimization problem, which is also concluded in Case 2.
Plots of the average NPV of CSO, MADS, and O-CSMADS al-
gorithms versus the number of simulations and the boxplots are
shown in Fig. 9. Detailed results about the best, worst, average and
standard deviation of NPV for each algorithm is collected in Sup-
 H. Chen et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 117 (2018) 209–220
plementary material. Even though the best NPV found by MADS is
higher than the best NPV found by CSO, the average performance
of CSO outperforms the average performance of MADS, which is
consistent with the observation in Case 1 and Case 2. The reason
for this phenomenon is that MADS easily gets stuck in local optima
with the randomly initialized solutions and the local search ability
of MADS is excellent. CSO is a global optimization algorithm and it
easily gets out of local optimum.
The performance of O-CSMADS algorithm is the best. It obtains
the average NPV of 1.746 × 108 USD, which is 9.75% higher than
the average NPV of CSO algorithm and 12.35% higher than the av-
erage NPV of MADS algorithm. The worst NPV found by O-CSMADS
is 1.677 × 108 USD, which is higher than the best NPV of MADS
(1.657 × 108 USD) and close to the best NPV of CSO (1.680 × 108
USD).
For O-CSMADS algorithm, the optimization process is conducted
by CSO algorithm with the optimized controlling parameters at
the early optimization stage. In comparison with the convergence
curve of stand-alone CSO algorithm, the convergence curve of O-
CSMADS is higher. By using the initial solution provided by CSO
algorithm, MADS conducts optimization process at the later stage.
According to the optimization results, we can see that the ro-
bustness of MADS is significantly improved in O-CSMADS algo-
rithm. With the standard deviation of 0.046, the standard devia-
tion of O-CSMADS represents a 33.33% decrease in the standard
deviation of CSO and a 48.89% decrease in the standard deviation
of MADS.
The best well configuration and well control strategy found
by each algorithm are shown in Fig. 10. Fig. 10(a)–(c) shows the
pore-volume-weighted remaining oil saturation distribution for the
7 layers of the channelize reservoir and the optimal well loca-
tions. Fig. 10(d)–(f) shows the best well control strategy. Optimal
well configuration and control strategy obtained by O-CSMADS can
achieve the highest NPV. It can be seen that the optimal well loca-
tions found by CSO are similar to the optimal well locations found
by MADS. While there is a big difference between the optimal
well locations found by O-CSMADS and that of CSO and MADS.
The reason for this phenomenon is possible that CSO and MADS
algorithms trap into the local optimum. By using O-CSMADS, the
solutions get out of local optimum to convergence the global op-
timum. According to the remaining oil saturation distribution, it
can be seen that the well locations and control strategies found by
O-CSMADS obtains the least remaining oil saturation and achieves
the best production performance.
5. Conclusions
In this work, we propose an efficient algorithm for well place-
ment optimization problem. By coupling CSO algorithm, MADS
algorithm, and PSO meta-optimization approach, we construct a
meta-optimized hybrid cat swarm mesh adaptive direct search
(O-CSMADS) algorithm. We apply CSO, MADS, CSMADS, and O-
CSMADS algorithms in three different optimization problems. We
validate the optimization efficiency of the proposed algorithm in
vertical well placement optimization, horizontal well placement
optimization, well type optimization, and joint optimization of well
placement and control. Results demonstrate that O-CSMADS algo-
rithm has excellent global search ability and local search ability. O-
CSMADS shows better performance than CSO, MADS, and CSMADS
algorithms in terms of optimization efficiency and robustness. PSO
meta-optimization approach can effectively determine the opti-
mal controlling parameters for O-CSMADS algorithm. With opti-
mized controlling parameters, O-CSMADS algorithm outperforms
CSMADS. Besides, the optimal controlling parameters of O-CSMADS
algorithm are different for three examples. Therefore, it is neces-
sary to apply the appropriate controlling parameters for the spe-
219
cific optimization problem. Our proposed algorithm O-CSMADS can
effectively solve the well placement optimization problem. Besides,
this algorithm also shows great potential in dealing with well type
optimization problem and joint optimization of well placement
and control problem.
Acknowledgments
This research is supported by the National Science and Tech-
nology Major Project of China (Grant No. 2016ZX05025001-
006), National Natural Science Foundation of China (51704312,
51474233, U1762213), National Postdoctoral Program for Innova-
tive Talents (BX201600153), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation
(2016M600571), and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
Universities (18CX07006A).
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be
found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2018.
06.013.
References
Aliyev, E., 2011. Use of Hybrid Approaches and Metaoptimization for Well Placement
Problems. Thesis. Stanford University.
Aliyev, E., Durlofsky, L., 2015. Multilevel field-development optimization using a se-
quence of upscaled models. In: SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium. 23–25
February 2015, USA.
Atashnezhad, A., Cedola, A., Hareland, G., 2017. An empirical model to estimate a
critical stimulation design parameter using drilling data. In: SPE Western Re-
gional Meeting, 23–27 April 2017. California, USA.
Atashnezhad, A., Wood, D., Fereidounpour, A., Khosravanian, R., 2014. Designing
and optimizing deviated wellbore trajectories using novel particle swarm algo-
rithms. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 21, 1184–1204.
Audet, C., Dennis, J., 2006. Mesh adaptive direct search algorithms for constrained
optimization. SIAM J. Optim. 17 (1), 188–217.
Awotunde, A., 2014. On the joint optimization of well placement and control. In:
SPE Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium and Exhibition. 21–24 April
2014, Saudi Arabia.
Birattari, M., Stützle, T., Paquete, L., Varrentrapp, K., 2002. A racing algorithm for
configuring metaheuristics. In: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary
Computation Conference (GECCO), pp. 11–18.
Bouzarkouna, Z., Ding, D., Auger, A., 2012. Well placement optimization with the
covariance matrix adaptation evolution strategy and meta-models. Comput.
Geosci. 16, 75–92.
Chen, B., Reynolds, A., 2018. CO2 water-alternating-gas injection for enhanced oil
recovery: optimal well controls and half-cycle lengths. Comput. Chem. Eng. 113,
44–56.
Chen, H., Feng, Q., Zhang, X., Wang, S., Zhou, W., Geng, Y., 2017. Well placement op-
timization using an analytical formula-based objective function and cat swarm
optimization algorithm. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 157, 1067–1083.
Chen, H., Feng, Q., Zhang, X., Zhou, W., Geng, Y., 2018. A prediction formula for ratio
of injection–production control area in triangle well pattern. J. Pet. Explor. Prod.
Technol. 8 (1), 195–203.
Christie, M., Blunt, M., 2001. Tenth SPE comparative solution project: a comparison
of upscaling techniques. SPE Reservoir Eval. Eng. 4 (4), 308–317.
Chu, S., Tsai, P., Pan, J., 2006. Cat Swarm Optimization. In: Lecture Notes Computer
Science, vol. 6, pp. 854–858.
Dossary, M., Nasrabadi, H., 2016. Well placement optimization using imperialist
competitive algorithm. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 147, 237–248.
Emerick, A., Silva, E., Messer, B., Almeida, L., Szwarcman, D., Pacheco, M., Vel-
lasco, M., 2009. Well placement optimization using a genetic algorithm with
nonlinear constraints. In: SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium. 2–4 February
2009, Texas, USA.
Feng, Q., Chen, H., Wang, X., Wang, S., Wang, Z., Yang, Y., Bing, S., 2016. Well control
optimization considering formation damage caused by suspended particles in
injected water. J. Nat. Gas. Sci. Eng. 35, 21–32.
Feng, Q., Wang, S., Zhang, W., Song, Y., Song, S., 2013. Characterization of high-
-permeability streak in mature waterflooding reservoirs using pressure transient
analysis. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 110, 55–65.
Feng, Q., Zhang, J., Wang, S., Wang, X., Cui, R., Wang, D., Bing, S., Rui, Z., 2017. Uni-
fied relative permeability model and waterflooding type curves under different
levels of water cut. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 154, 204–216.
Fonseca, R., Chen, B., Jansen, J., Reynolds, A., 2017. A stochastic simplex approximate
gradient (StoSAG) for optimization under uncertainty. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng.
109 (13), 1756–1776.
GeoQuest, S., 2010. ECLIPSE reference manual 2010.1. Schlumberger.
220 H. Chen et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 117 (2018) 209–220
Gildin, A., Klie, H., Rodriguez, A., Wheeler, M., Bishop, R., 2006. Development of
low-order controllers for high-order reservoir models and smart wells. In: SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 24–27 September 2006, Texas,
USA.
Guo, L., Meng, Z., Sun, Y., Wang, L., 2016. Parameter identification and sensitivity
analysis of solar cell models with cat swarm optimization algorithm. Energy
Convers. Manage. 108, 520–528.
Guo, T., Li, Y., Ding, Y., Qu, Z., Gai, N., Rui, Z., 2017. Evaluation of acid fracturing
treatments in shale formation. Energ. Fuel 31 (10), 10479–10489.
Güyagüler, B., Horne, R., 2004. Uncertainty assessment of well placement optimiza-
tion. SPE J. 7 (1), 24–32.
Humphries, T., Haynes, R., 2015. Joint optimization of well placement and control
for nonconventional well types. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 126, 242–253.
Humphries, T., Haynes, R., James, L., 2014. Simultaneous and sequential approaches
to joint optimization of well placement and control. Comput. Geosci. 18,
433–448.
Isebor, O., Durlofsky, L., Ciaurri, D., 2014. A derivative-free methodology with local
and global search for the constrained joint optimization of well locations and
controls. Comput. Geosci. 18 (3-4), 463–482.
Jansen, J., Fonseca, R., Kahrobaei, S., Siraj, M., Van Essen, G., Van den Holf, P., 2015.
The egg model-a geological ensemble for reservoir simulation. Geosci. Data J. 1
(2), 192–195.
Jesmani, M., Bellout, M., Hanea, R., Foss, B., 2016. Well placement optimization
subject to realistic field development constraints. Comput. Geosci. 20 (6),
1185–1209.
Lyons, J., Nasrabadi, H., 2013. Well placement optimization under time-dependent
uncertainty using an ensemble Kalman filter and a genetic algorithm. J. Pet. Sci.
Eng. 109, 70–79.
MATLAB R, 2013. Version 8.1. 0.604 (R2013a). The MathWorks Inc, Natick.
Meissner, M., Schmuker, M., Schneider, G., 2006. Optimized Particle Swarm Opti-
mization (OPSO) and its application to artificial neural network training. BMC
Bioinf. 7 (1), 125.
Michalewicz, Z., 1995. A survey of constraint handling techniques in evolutionary
computation methods. Evol. Program. 4, 135–155.
Nwankwor, E., Nagar, A., Reid, D., 2013. Hybrid differential evolution and particle
swarm optimization for optimal well placement. Comput. Geosci. 17, 1–20.
Onwunalu, J., Durlofsky, L., 2010. Application of a particle swarm optimization al-
gorithm for determining optimum well location and type. Comput. Geosci. 14,
183–198.
Panda, G., Pradhan, P., Majhi, B., 2011. IIR system identification using cat swarm op-
timization. Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (10), 12671–12683.
Parsopoulos, K., Vrahatis, M., 2002. Recent approaches to global optimization prob-
lems through particle swarm optimization. Nat. Comput. 1 (2-3), 235–306.
Pedersen, M., Chipperfield, A., 2010. Simplifying particle swarm optimization. Appl.
Soft Comput. 10 (2), 618–628.
Pradhan, P., Panda, G., 2012. Solving multiobjective problems using cat swarm opti-
mization. Expert. Syst. Appl. 39 (3), 2956–2964.
Rui, Z., Wang, X., Zhang, Z., Lu, J., Chen, G., Zhou, X., Patil, S., 2018. A realistic and in-
tegrated model for evaluating oil sands development with steam assisted grav-
ity drainage technology in Canada. Appl. Energ. 213, 76–91.
Sampaio, M., Barreto, C., Schiozer, D., 2015a. Assisted optimization method for com-
parison between conventional and intelligent producers considering uncertain-
ties. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 133, 268–279.
Sampaio, M., Gildin, E., Schiozer, D., 2015b. Short-term and long-term optimizations
for reservoir management with intelligent wells. In: SPE Latin American and
Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference. 18-20 November 2015, Buenos
Aires, Argentina.
Shirangi, M., Durlofsky, L., 2016. A general method to select representative models
for decision making and optimization under uncertainty. Comput. Geosci. 96,
109–123.
Siavashi, M., Blunt, M., Raisee, M., Pourafshary, P., 2014. Three-dimensional stream-
line-based simulation of non-isothermal two-phase flow in heterogeneous
porous media. Comput. Fluids 103, 116–131.
Siavashi, M., Tehrani, M., Nakhaee, A., 2016. Efficient particle swarm optimization of
well placement to enhance oil recovery using a novel streamline-based objec-
tive function. J. Energy Resour. 138 (5), 77–78.
Singh, H., Srinivasan, S., 2013. Uncertainty analysis by model selection technique
and its application in economic valuation of a large field. In: SEP North Africa
Technical Conference and Exhibition, 15–17 April 2013, Cairo, Egypt.
Singh, H., Srinivasan, S., 2014. Scale up of reactive processes in heterogeneous me-
dia-numerical experiments and semi-analytical modeling. In: SPE SPE Improved
Oil Recovery Symposium, 12–16 April 2014, Oklahoma, USA.
Tavallali, M., Karimi, I., Teo, K., Baxendale, D., Ayatollahi, S., 2013. Optimal producer
well placement and production planning in an oil reservoir. Comput. Chem. Eng.
55, 109–125.
Wang, X., Haynes, R., Feng, Q., 2016. A multilevel coordinate search algorithm for
well placement, control and joint optimization. Comput. Chem. Eng. 95, 75–96.
Yang, H., Kim, J., Choe, J., 2017. Field development optimization in mature oil reser-
voirs using a hybrid algorithm. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 156, 41–50.
Yeten, B., 2003. Optimum Deployment of Unconventional Wells. Ph.D. thesis. Stan-
ford University.
Yeten, B., Durlofsky, L., Aziz, K., 2002. Optimization of nonconventional well type,
location and trajectory. SPE 77565.
Zandvliet, M., Bosgra, O., Jansen, J., Van den Hof, P., Kraaijevanger, J., 2007.
Bang-bang control and singular arcs in reservoir flooding. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 58,
186–200.
Zandvliet, M., Handels, M., Van Essen, G., Brouwer, R., Jansen, J., 2008. Adjoin-
t-based well-placement optimization under production constraints. SPE J. 13 (4),
392–399.
Zhang, Y., Lu, R., Forouzanfar, F., Reynolds, A., 2017. Well placement and control opti-
mization for WAG/SAG processes using ensemble-based method. Comput. Chem.
Eng. 101, 193–209.