Baseline Development of Rock Anisotropy Investigation Utilizing Empirical Relationships Between Oriented Physical and Mechanical Measurements and Drilling Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes a baseline investigation to confirm the isotropy of rocks material through physical and mechanical measurements followed by oriented drilling. This baseline is intended to evaluate drilling experiments in anisotropic rock materials to determine the significance of the anisotropy on drilling performance. The conducted tests include oriented measurements of compressional and shear wave velocities (Vp and Vs, respectively), density, Elastic Moduli, Point Load Strength Index (PLI), Indirect Tensile (IT) strength, and Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS). The oriented laboratory drilling experiments were conducted under various pump flow rates and several weights on bit (WOB). In this work, an isotropic rock like material (RLM) was developed using Portland cement and fine-grained aggregate. The tested RLM specimens were of medium strength of ∼50 MPa. The RLM samples were cored in different orientations and then, tested and drilled according to these orientations. (e.g. 0°, 45° and 90°, representing horizontal, diagonal and vertical directions, respectively). Two main sets of lab tests were performed including pre-drilling and drilling tests. For the pre-drilling lab experiments, two main sets of tests were conducted to determine the physical and mechanical properties of samples (as outlined above) including PLI, IT, UCS, Vp, Vs, density and corresponding isotropic Dynamic Elastic Moduli. For the drilling tests, a vertical lab scale drilling rig was used with a 35 mm dual-cutter Polycrystalline Diamond Compact “PDC” bit. The drilling parameters involved were flow rates, nominal rotary speed of 300 rpm, and various WOB under atmospheric pressure. The relationships between the drilling data were analyzed including drilling rate of penetration (ROP), depth of cut (DOC), and corresponding effective WOB. The results of all mechanical, physical and drilling measurements and tests show consistent values indicating the isotropy of the tested rock material. This consistency verifies that the drilling tests are free of bias associated with drilling orientation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".