MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937159031 · doi:10.2118/195334-ms

Estimating Downhole Vibration via Machine Learning Techniques Using Only Surface Drilling Parameters

2019· article· en· W2937159031 on OpenAlexaff
Prince Okoli, Juan Cruz Vega, Roman Shor

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Western Regional Meeting · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrillingVibrationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceLinear discriminant analysisNaive Bayes classifierMachine learningDecision treeSupport vector machineEngineeringMechanical engineeringAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Drillstring vibration can be divided into three types: axial, lateral and torsional. All three can cause significant wear and tear in drilling equipment, which leads to increased failures, non-productive time, and poor drilling performance. It also causes wasted mechanical energy and wellbore instabilities. Access to real-time, high-frequency downhole vibration data while drilling remains prohibitively expensive; however, it may be estimated via machine learning (ML) techniques using only surface drilling parameters. The task of predicting the severity of downhole vibration using surface parameters was approached as a supervised classification ML problem. Five basic, traditional techniques were investigated: the nearest neighbour, logistic regression, naïve Bayes, discriminant analysis, and decision trees. Drilling data was obtained from multiple bottom hole assemblies (BHAs) from several wells in North America. The learning tasks were separated into inter-BHA runs (where the learner is trained on data from one BHA and tested with data from a different BHA) and intra-BHA runs (where the learner is trained and tested with data from the same BHA). Severity of vibration was assessed primarily through the time-weighted average of root mean square amplitude and then classed into severity levels. Performance of the classification results was assessed using the predictive accuracy and weighted macro-average of precision obtained using cross validation and presented as confusion matrices for specific iterations of the cross validation. The classification ML for the intra-BHA runs produced overall predictive accuracies that averaged between 50% and 85%. Of particular concern is the misprediction of certain vibration levels as either lower or higher levels, even when overall predictive accuracy is high. The results show that these simple ML techniques can achieve considerable accuracy in the prediction of vibration levels for intra-BHA runs. For inter-BHA runs, predictive performance was reduced. This demonstration of the viability of ML in predicting bottom hole vibration motivates the application of more advance ML techniques, including deep learning estimators, and it signals the potential benefits that can be reaped.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations24
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Western Regional MeetingSame topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207