Influence of Drilling Along Pilot Holes on Drilling Performance and Effective Rock Strength
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the intricate relationship between bit rock interactions and drilling parameters for multiple-diameter hole drilling scenarios. Two sets of experiments were conducted in the Drilling Technology Laboratory at Memorial University of Newfoundland (DTL-MUN) using a fully instrumented Large-scale laboratory Drilling Simulator (LDS). The study contained two critical stages. Pre-coring operations using various diameter coring bits were completed to ensure thorough analysis. Next, drilling using a 5-cutter Polycrystalline Diamond Compact (PDC) bit with a larger diameter than all pre-cored holes, at constant Weight on Bit (WOB) and Revolution per Minute (RPM), was performed. The type of rock used in the experiments is a high-strength gabbro formation. Results indicate that pre-cored holes exhibited higher Rates of Penetration (ROP) than un-pre-cored holes, reflecting improved drilling performance and higher torque due to reduced bit–rock interaction area. A distinct relationship was observed between bit–rock interactions, torque, ROP, Mechanical Specific Energy (MSE), and applied WOB in multi-diameter drilling. ROP decreased as the pilot hole diameter decreased due to increased bit–rock interaction. The recorded data of WOB and the torque responses showed a decrease in amplitude as the bit–rock interface area increased, suggesting a positive interaction between drilling efficiency and downhole conditions. The modified Maurer model found a correlation between increased pilot hole diameter and decreased effective rock strength. These results highlight the significance of conducting a thorough drilling parameter analysis and the need for additional study to clarify the underlying mechanisms influencing drilling performance in multi-diameter hole drilling scenarios.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".