Rock heterogeneity numerical simulation as a factor of drill bit instability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heterogeneity is an important factor controlling fracture initiation, accumulation, and propagation within rock destruction. Traditionally, rock reaction instability within rock destruction is associated with rock non-homogeneity or considered self-excited, but no clear relations between rock structure options and reaction force oscillation were proposes. This work hypothesizes the idea rock structure options are one of the factors of drill bit whirling. The authors innovated the Wojtanowicz and Kuru's force static balance model to numerically simulate 3-cutter movement in a rock space, assuming a crack propagates by rock grains getting around. Instability of deviation between directions of cutting force and crack propagation causes rock reaction instability. Novelty of this work is to consider the mutual influence of rock granulomentric composition options (sizes, shape and distribution of grains) and drill bit design options (cutter diameter, distance between adjacent cutters, etc.) on rock reaction force oscillation. The follow tendencies were observed: rock grain dimension increasing and grain concentration increasing were accompanied with rock reaction force magnitude decreasing; random grain placing and/or grain random dimensions caused increasing of rock reaction force scattering; random grain sizes are more essential for rock reaction forces (and their projections) scattering than random grain distribution.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".