Modelling rate of penetration in drilling operations using RBF, MLP, LSSVM, and DT models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract One of the most important problems that the drilling industry faces is drilling cost. Many factors affect the cost of drilling. Increasing drilling time has a significant role in increasing drilling costs. One of the solutions to reduce drilling time is to optimize the drilling rate. Drilling wells at the optimum time will reduce the time and thus reduce the cost of drilling. The drilling rate depends on different factors, some of which are controllable and some are uncontrollable. In this study, several smart models and a correlation were proposed to predict the rate of penetration (ROP) which is very important for planning a drilling operation. 5040 real data points from a field in the South of Iran have been used. The ROP was modelled using Radial Basis Function, Decision Tree (DT), Least Square Vector Machine (LSSVM), and Multilayer Perceptron (MLP). Bayesian Regularization Algorithm (BRA), Scaled Conjugate Gradient Algorithm and Levenberg–Marquardt Algorithm were employed to train MLP and Gradient Boosting (GB) was used for DT. To evaluate the accuracy of the developed models, both graphical and statistical techniques were used. The results showed that DT-GB model with an R 2 of 0.977, has the best performance, followed by LSSVM and MLP-BRA with R 2 of 0.971 and 0.969, respectively. Aside from that, the proposed empirical correlation has an acceptable accuracy in spite of simplicity. Moreover, sensitivity analysis illustrated that depth and pump pressure have the highest effects on ROP. In addition, the leverage approach approved that the developed DT-GB model is valid statistically and about 1% of the data are suspected or out of the applicability domain of the model.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".