Torque and Drag Calculations in Multilateral Wells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Multilateral drilling technology has advanced to the point that it is now feasible to explore and extract resources from previously unprofitable reservoirs. It may also help to enhance field development management by allowing for more efficient fluid flow from the formation. Despite its various benefits, a multilateral well has some drawbacks and requires a significant amount of technical work to optimize drilling parameters and depth and well trajectory rise. The most critical issues occur for a fish-bone lateral when the turns are formed for each lateral. The measurements of WOB are complex and may be inaccurate, leading to torque and drag values that are miscalculated or misread. Currently, the soft-string model and the intermittent contact due to drillstring stiffness are used in torque and drag models. But they also have some limitations, such as the neglection of dimensional changes in the string components when assuming clearance of contact and the inability to fully model the irregularity of the actual well path when assuming complete contact throughout the wellbore. The suggested model is unique in its capacity to estimate precisely anticipate drillstring-wellbore contact forces and solve torque and drag parameters from surface to total depth using a conditional alternating use of the assumption that there is continuous contact of the wellbore wall and the drill string while turning to each lateral and clearance between the drill string and wellbore-wall when drilling through straight sections. The model shows how well path design calculation is done for multilateral wells. A non-constant curvature trajectory is built into the model. The unique procedure for calculating torque and drag in multi-lateral wells is explained with several actual field data tests.
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 | 0.000 | 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".