MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DEM Simulation of Enhancing Drilling Penetration using Vibration and Experimental Validation

2016· article· en· W2567289679 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jinghan Zhong, Jianming Yang, Stephen Butt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrillingRate of penetrationMeasurement while drillingVibrationPenetration ratePenetration depthDrill bitDrilling fluidPenetration (warfare)Petroleum engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineeringAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper details a study of Discrete Element Method (DEM) simulation of drilling penetration and is part of a broader investigation of the influence of bit vibration and rock-cutter compliance on enhancing drilling performance. It has been shown from laboratory experiments and field drilling trials that axial bit vibration (induced by modulated bit-rock compliance) can play a positive role in improving drilling rate of penetration (ROP), and the Drilling Technology Laboratory (DTL) at Memorial University of Newfoundland has incorporated this into passive Vibration Assisted Rotational Drilling (pVARD) technology and drilling tools. This paper focuses on DEM simulation of polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC) bit penetration and experimental validation of drilling with and without the pVARD technology, all other factors being equal, as a means of both evaluating the pVARD technology and understanding the basis of enhancing drilling performance. Simulated axial vibration properties such as amplitude and frequency were adjusted with different settings of spring compliance and dampening layers, simulating the physical configuration of the pVARD tool used for laboratory experiments. Analysis of Mechanic Specific Energy (MSE), Material Removal Rate (MRR) and Depth of Cut (DOC) are calculated to evaluate drilling performance and efficiency, and are used to compare the pVARD and non pVARD drilling results. In general, the DEM simulations agree with the experimental drilling results, and both indicate improved drilling performance using the pVARD technology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207