MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157192194 · doi:10.1145/1878537.1878755

The effect of weight on bit on the contact behavior of drillstring and wellbore

2010· article· en· W2157192194 on OpenAlexaff
A. Ghasemloonia, Geoff Rideout, Stephen Butt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrillingVibrationDrill bitNonlinear systemEngineeringDrillBond graphStructural engineeringMechanicsMechanical engineeringAcousticsMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The contact behavior of drillstring and wellbore is of great concern to drilling companies in the oil and mineral exploration industries. Due to the nonlinear, random motion of the drillstring in contact with the wellbore, it is difficult to predict the response of the drillstring. Successive contacts of wellbore and drillstring will result in fatigue failure and inhibit vibration-assisted rotary drilling mechanisms. Transverse vibration of a drillstring under a range of axial loads is studied in this paper. The impact of drill collars with the wellbore is modeled using Hertzian contact theory. The drillstring is treated as a simply supported Euler-Bernoulli beam under axial load, or "weight-on-bit" (WOB). Natural frequencies were generated analytically using the assumed modes method and a bond graph model was generated. Extracting the motion of the contact point on the drill collar, which is at a known axial location, is easily done with modal bond graphs. The effect of WOB on the behavior of drill collar motion near the wellbore is studied, and the expected random, nonlinear behavior of the drillstring at the contact point is demonstrated and discussed. This work illustrates the advantages of the bond graph method to the drilling community, in which bond graphs are currently an underutilized technique.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.002
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.171 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207