Advertisement

Earth Science Informatics

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 319–339 | Cite as

A machine learning approach to predict drilling rate using petrophysical and mud logging data

  • Mohammad SabahEmail author
  • Mohsen Talebkeikhah
  • David A. Wood
  • Rasool Khosravanian
  • Mohammad Anemangely
  • Alireza Younesi
Research Article

Abstract

Predicting the drilling rate of penetration (ROP) is one approach to optimizing drilling performance. However, as ROP behavior is unique to specific geological conditions its application is not straightforward. Moreover, ROP is typically affected by various operational factors (e.g. bit type, weight-on-bit, rotation rate, etc.) as well as the geological characteristics of the rocks being penetrated. This makes ROP prediction an intricate and multi-faceted problem. Here we compare data mining methods with several machine learning algorithms to evaluate their accuracy and effectiveness in predicting ROP. The algorithms considered are: artificial neural networks (ANN) applying a multi-layer perceptron (MLP); ANN applying a radial basis function (RBF); support vector regression (SVR), and an hybrid MLP trained using a particle swarm optimization algorithm (MLP-PSO). Data preparation prior to executing the algorithms involves applying a Savitzky–Golay (SG) smoothing filter to remove noise from petrophysical well-logs and drilling data from the mud-logs. A genetic algorithm is applied to tune the machine learning algorithms by identifying and ranking the most influential input variables on ROP. This tuning routine identified and selected eight input variables which have the greatest impact on ROP. These are: weight on bit, bit rotational speed, pump flow rate, pump pressure, pore pressure, gamma ray, density log and sonic wave velocity. Results showed that the machine learning algorithms evaluated all predicted ROP accurately. Their performance was improved when applied to filtered data rather than raw well-log data. The MLP-PSO model as a hybrid ANN demonstrated superior accuracy and effectiveness compared to the other ROP-prediction algorithms evaluated, but its performance is rivalled by the SVR model.

Keywords

Rate of penetration Data mining Machine-learning predictions ROP variables Feature selection ranking Data filtering 

Nomenclature

WOB

Weight on bit

BRS

Bit rotation speed

BFR

Bit flow rate

PP

Pump pressure

MW

Mud weight

GR

Gamma ray

Ts

Sonic shear velocity

Tp

Sonic compressional velocity

Pp

Pore pressure

NP

Neutron porosity

DT

Decision tree

RF

Random forest

MLP

Multi-layer perception

RBF

Radial- basis function

SVR

Support vector regression

PSO

Particle swarm optimization

x

Input variable value

W

Weight matrix

b

Bias vector

N

Number of clusters

M

Number of input and output variables

δ

Slack variable

ε

Error- monitoring parameter

a

Lagrange multiplier

K

Kernel function

ci

Center of RBF unit i

RMSE

Root mean square error

PI

Performance index

VAF

Variance account for

Notes

Supplementary material

12145_2019_381_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (110 kb)
ESM 1(XLSX 110 kb)

References

  1. Ab Wahab MN, Nefti-Meziani S, Atyabi A (2015) A comprehensive review of swarm optimization algorithms. PLoS One 10(5):e0122827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbas AK, Rushdi S, Alsaba M (2018) Modeling rate of penetration for deviated Wells using artificial neural Network. Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference, Society of Petroleum EngineersCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abtahi A (2011) Bit wear analysis and optimization for vibration assisted rotary drilling (VARD) using impregnated diamond bits. Memorial University of NewfoundlandGoogle Scholar
  4. Akgun F (2007) Drilling rate at the technical limit. Int J Pet Sci Technol 1:99–118Google Scholar
  5. Anemangely M, Ramezanzadeh A, Tokhmechi B (2017) Shear wave travel time estimation from petrophysical logs using ANFIS-PSO algorithm: a case study from Ab-Teymour Oilfield. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 38:373–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anemangely M, Ramezanzadeh A, Tokhmechi B, Molaghab A, Mohammadian A (2018) Drilling rate prediction from petrophysical logs and mud logging data using an optimized multilayer perceptron neural network. J Geophys Eng 15(4):1146–1159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anemangely M, Ramezanzadeh A, Amiri H, Hoseinpour S-A (2019) Machine learning technique for the prediction of shear wave velocity using petrophysical logs. J Pet Sci Eng 174:306–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Armaghani DJ, Mohamad ET, Narayanasamy MS, Narita N, Yagiz S (2017) Development of hybrid intelligent models for predicting TBM penetration rate in hard rock condition. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 63:29–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Asoodeh M, Bagheripour P (2013) Fuzzy classifier based support vector regression framework for Poisson ratio determination. J Appl Geophys 96:7–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Atashnezhad A, Wood DA, Fereidounpour A, Khosravanian R (2014) Designing and optimizing deviated wellbore trajectories using novel particle swarm algorithms. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 21:1184–1204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Basarir H, Tutluoglu L, Karpuz C (2014) Penetration rate prediction for diamond bit drilling by adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system and multiple regressions. Eng Geol 173:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bezminabadi SN, Ramezanzadeh A, Jalali S-ME, Tokhmechi B, Roustaei A (2017) Effect of rock properties on ROP modeling using statistical and intelligent methods: a case study of an oil well in southwest of Iran. Arch Min Sci 62(1):131–144Google Scholar
  13. Bingham G (1965) A new approach to interpreting rock drillability. Technical Manual Reprint, Oil and Gas Journal (OGC) 1965:93 PGoogle Scholar
  14. Bodaghi A, Ansari HR, Gholami M (2015) Optimized support vector regression for drilling rate of penetration estimation. Central European Journal of Geoscience (CEJG) 7(1)Google Scholar
  15. Boyacioglu MA, Avci D (2010) An adaptive network-based fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) for the prediction of stock market return: the case of the Istanbul stock exchange. Expert Syst Appl 37(12):7908–7912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45(1):5–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Breiman L (2017) Classification and regression trees. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Broomhead DS, Lowe D (1988) Radial basis functions, multi-variable functional interpolation and adaptive networks. Royal Signals and Radar Establishment Malvern (United Kingdom)Google Scholar
  19. Ceryan N, Okkan U, Kesimal A (2013) Prediction of unconfined compressive strength of carbonate rocks using artificial neural networks. Environ Earth Sci 68(3):807–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chandrashekar G, Sahin F (2014) A survey on feature selection methods. Comput Electr Eng 40(1):16–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cortes C, Vapnik V (1995) Support-vector networks. Mach Learn 20(3):273–297Google Scholar
  22. Darbor M, Faramarzi L, Sharifzadeh M (2017) Performance assessment of rotary drilling using non-linear multiple regression analysis and multilayer perceptron neural network. Bull Eng Geol Environ:1–13Google Scholar
  23. Davoudi E, Vaferi B (2018) Applying artificial neural networks for systematic estimation of degree of fouling in heat exchangers. Chem Eng Res Des 130:138–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Demuth H, Beale M, Hagan M (2009) MATLAB version 7.14.0.739; neural Network toolbox for use with Matlab. The MathworksGoogle Scholar
  25. Deosarkar MP, Sathe VS (2012) Predicting effective viscosity of magnetite ore slurries by using artificial neural network. Powder Technol 219:264–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Douglas RK, Nawar S, Alamar MC, Mouazen A, Coulon F (2018) Rapid prediction of total petroleum hydrocarbons concentration in contaminated soil using vis-NIR spectroscopy and regression techniques. Sci Total Environ 616:147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Duda RO, Hart PE, Stork DG (2012) Pattern classification. Sons, John Wiley &Google Scholar
  28. Elsharkawy AM (1998) Modeling the properties of crude oil and gas systems using RBF network. SPE Asia Pacific oil and gas conference and exhibition, Society of Petroleum EngineersCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Eskandarian S, Bahrami P, Kazemi P (2017) A comprehensive data mining approach to estimate the rate of penetration: application of neural network, rule based models and feature ranking. J Pet Sci Eng 156:605–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fattahi H, Gholami A, Amiribakhtiar MS, Moradi S (2015) Estimation of asphaltene precipitation from titration data: a hybrid support vector regression with harmony search. Neural Comput & Applic 26(4):789–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fausett LV (1994) Fundamentals of neural networks: architectures, algorithms, and applications. Prentice-Hall Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  32. Garcia LP, de Carvalho AC, Lorena AC (2015) Effect of label noise in the complexity of classification problems. Neurocomputing 160:108–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gholami E, Vaferi B, Ariana MA (2018) Prediction of viscosity of several alumina-based nanofluids using various artificial intelligence paradigms-comparison with experimental data and empirical correlations. Powder Technol 323:495–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ghoreishi S, Heidari E (2013) Extraction of epigallocatechin-3-gallate from green tea via supercritical fluid technology: neural network modeling and response surface optimization. J Supercrit Fluids 74:128–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hamrick TR (2011) Optimization of operating parameters for minimum mechanical specific energy in drilling. West Virginia UniversityGoogle Scholar
  36. Hareland G, Rampersad P (1994) Drag-bit model including wear. SPE Latin America/Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Society of Petroleum EngineersCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Haykin S, Network N (2004) A comprehensive foundation. Neural Netw 2(2004):41Google Scholar
  38. Hegde C, Wallace S, Gray K (2015) Using trees, bagging, and random forests to predict rate of penetration during drilling. SPE Middle East Intelligent Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum EngineersCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hegde C, Daigle H, Millwater H, Gray K (2017) Analysis of rate of penetration (ROP) prediction in drilling using physics-based and data-driven models. J Pet Sci Eng 159:295–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hemmati-Sarapardeh A, Ghazanfari MH, Ayatollahi S, Masihi M (2016) Accurate determination of the CO2-crude oil minimum miscibility pressure of pure and impure CO2 streams: a robust modelling approach. Can J Chem Eng 95:253–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Huang G-B, Wang DH, Lan Y (2011) Extreme learning machines: a survey. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 2(2):107–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. James G, Witten D, Hastie T, Tibshirani R (2013) An introduction to statistical learning. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  43. Jiang W, Samuel R (2016) Optimization of rate of penetration in a convoluted drilling framework using ant Colony optimization. IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum EngineersCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jiang R, Tang W, Wu X, Fu W (2009) A random forest approach to the detection of epistatic interactions in case-control studies. BMC bioinformatics 10(1):S65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kahraman S (2016) Estimating the penetration rate in diamond Drilling in Laboratory Works Using the regression and artificial neural Network analysis. Neural Process Lett 43(2):523–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Khandelwal M, Armaghani DJ (2016) Prediction of drillability of rocks with strength properties using a hybrid GA-ANN technique. Geotech Geol Eng 34(2):605–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lashkarbolooki, M., A. Z. Hezave and S. Ayatollahi (2012). "Artificial neural network as an applicable tool to predict the binary heat capacity of mixtures containing ionic liquids. Fluid Phase Equilib 324(0): 102–107Google Scholar
  48. Lashkenari MS, Taghizadeh M, Mehdizadeh B (2013) Viscosity prediction in selected Iranian light oil reservoirs: artificial neural network versus empirical correlations. Pet Sci 10(1):126–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Law MH, Figueiredo MA, Jain AK (2004) Simultaneous feature selection and clustering using mixture models. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 26(9):1154–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lee Y, Oh S-H, Kim MW (1991) The effect of initial weights on premature saturation in back-propagation learning. IJCNN-91-Seattle international joint conference on neural networks, 1991., IEEEGoogle Scholar
  51. Lorena AC, de Carvalho AC (2004) Evaluation of noise reduction techniques in the splice junction recognition problem. Genet Mol Biol 27(4):665–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Maucec M, Singh AP, Bhattacharya S, Yarus JM, Fulton DD, Orth JM (2015) Multivariate analysis and data Mining of Well-Stimulation Data by use of classification-and-regression tree with enhanced interpretation and prediction capabilities. Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) Economics & Management 7(02):60–71Google Scholar
  53. Mendes JRP, Fonseca TC, Serapião A (2007) Applying a genetic neuro-model reference adaptive controller in drilling optimization. World oil:29–36Google Scholar
  54. Moghadassi A, Hosseini SM, Parvizian F, Al-Hajri I, Talebbeigi M (2011) Predicting the supercritical carbon dioxide extraction of oregano bract essential oil. Songklanakarin Journal of Science & Technology (SJST) 33(5)Google Scholar
  55. Moradi H, Bahari MH, Naghibi Sistani MB, Bahari A (2010) Drilling rate prediction using an innovative soft computing approach. Sci Res Essays 5Google Scholar
  56. Motahhari HR, Hareland G, James J (2010) Improved drilling efficiency technique using integrated PDM and PDC bit parameters. J Can Pet Technol 49(10):45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Najafi-Marghmaleki A, Barati-Harooni A, Tatar A, Mohebbi A, Mohammadi AH (2017) On the prediction of Watson characterization factor of hydrocarbons. J Mol Liq 231:419–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ornek M, Laman M, Demir A, Yildiz A (2012) Prediction of bearing capacity of circular footings on soft clay stabilized with granular soil. Soils Found 52(1):69–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Orr K (1998) Data quality and systems theory. Commun ACM 41(2):66–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Park J, Sandberg IW (1991) Universal approximation using radial-basis-function networks. Neural Comput 3(2):246–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Raji WO, Gao Y, Harris JM (2017) Wavefield analysis of crosswell seismic data. Arab J Geosci 10(9):217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Redman TC (1998) The impact of poor data quality on the typical enterprise. Commun ACM 41(2):79–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rokach L, Maimon OZ (2008) Data mining with decision trees: theory and applications. World scientificGoogle Scholar
  64. Saffarzadeh S, Shadizadeh SR (2012) Reservoir rock permeability prediction using support vector regression in an Iranian oil field. J Geophys Eng 9(3):336–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Savitzky A, Golay MJ (1964) Smoothing and differentiation of data by simplified least squares procedures. Anal Chem 36(8):1627–1639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Shi X, Liu G, Gong X, Zhang J, Wang J, Zhang H (2016) An efficient approach for real-time prediction of rate of penetration in offshore drilling. Math Probl Eng 2016:1–13Google Scholar
  67. Singh A (2015) Root-cause identification and production diagnostic for gas Wells with plunger lift. SPE Reservoir Characterisation and Simulation Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum EngineersCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Singh A (2017) Application of data Mining for Quick Root-Cause Identification and Automated Production Diagnostic of gas Wells with plunger lift. SPE Prod Oper 32:279–293Google Scholar
  69. Sultan MA, Al-Kaabi AU (2002) Application of neural network to the determination of well-test interpretation model for horizontal wells. SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum EngineersCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Szlek J, Mendyk A (2015) Package ‘fscaret’Google Scholar
  71. Vafaie H, Imam IF (1994). Feature selection methods: genetic algorithms vs. greedy-like search. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy and Intelligent Control SystemsGoogle Scholar
  72. Vapnik V (2013) The nature of statistical learning theory. Springer science & business mediaGoogle Scholar
  73. Venkatesan P, Anitha S (2006) Application of a radial basis function neural network for diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. Curr Sci 91(9):1195–1199Google Scholar
  74. Wang X, Tang Z, Tamura H, Ishii M, Sun W (2004) An improved backpropagation algorithm to avoid the local minima problem. Neurocomputing 56:455–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Warren T (1987) Penetration rate performance of roller cone bits. SPE Drill Eng 2(01):9–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Winters W, Warren T, Onyia E (1987) Roller bit model with rock ductility and cone offset. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum EngineersCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wu Y, Wang H, Zhang B, K-L Du (2012) Using radial basis function networks for function approximation and classification. ISRN Applied Mathematics 2012Google Scholar
  78. Yavari H, Sabah M, Khosravanian R, Wood D (2018) Application of an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system and mathematical rate of penetration models to predicting drilling rate. Iranian Journal of Oil & Gas Science and Technology (IJOGST) 7(3):73–100Google Scholar
  79. Yetilmezsoy K, Ozkaya B, Cakmakci M (2011) Artificial intelligence-based prediction models for environmental engineering. Neural Network World 21(3):193–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Yilmaz I, Kaynar O (2011) Multiple regression, ANN (RBF, MLP) and ANFIS models for prediction of swell potential of clayey soils. Expert Syst Appl 38(5):5958–5966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Yılmaz I, Yuksek A (2008) An example of artificial neural network (ANN) application for indirect estimation of rock parameters. Rock Mech Rock Eng 41(5):781–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Youssef AM, Pourghasemi HR, Pourtaghi ZS, Al-Katheeri MM (2016) Landslide susceptibility mapping using random forest, boosted regression tree, classification and regression tree, and general linear models and comparison of their performance at Wadi Tayyah Basin, Asir region, Saudi Arabia. Landslides 13(5):839–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammad Sabah
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mohsen Talebkeikhah
    • 1
  • David A. Wood
    • 2
  • Rasool Khosravanian
    • 1
  • Mohammad Anemangely
    • 3
  • Alireza Younesi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Petroleum EngineeringAmirkabir University of Technology (Tehran polytechnic)TehranIran
  2. 2.DWA Energy LimitedLincolnUK
  3. 3.Faculty of mining, Petroleum and Geophysics EngineeringShahrood University of TechnologyShahroodIran

Personalised recommendations