IPTC-20208-MS

Comparative Analysis Between Different Artificial Based Models for

Predicting Static Poisson’s Ratio of Sandstone Formations

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20IPTC/3-20IPTC/D032S220R002/1189031/iptc-20208-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 16 June 2021

Ahmed Gowida, Salaheldin Elkatatny, and Tamer Moussa, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals

Copyright 2020, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 13 – 15 January 2020.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The
material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial
purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of
not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented.
Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435.

Abstract
The mechanical behavior of the rocks can greatly assist in optimizing the drilling operation and well
completion design. This behavior can be expressed in terms of Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio.
Reliable Poisson’s ratio values can be estimated experimentally from core measurements however this
method consumes time and economically ineffective.
This study involved the development of two models using neural networks (ANN) and fuzzy logic to
estimate static Poisson’s ratio (PRstatic) of sandstone rocks based on the conventional well-log data including
bulk density and sonic log data. The models are developed using 692 of actual data core data and the
corresponding logging data. The models are optimized after several runs of the different combinations of
the available tuning parameters.
The results showed that the neural network model outperformed the model developed using the fuzzy
logic tool and yielded a great match with correlation coefficient (R) of 0.98 and AAPE of 1.5% between
the predicted and measured PRstatic values. The developed ANN-based model is then validated using unseen
data from another well within the field to estimate PRstatic over a certain interval. The validation process
results showed a significant agreement with correlation coefficient (R) of 0.95 between the predicted PRstatic
values and the actual measured ones. The results demonstrated the ability of the developed model to provide
a continuous profile of static Poisson’s ratio (PRstatic) whenever the petrophysical logging data are available.

Introduction
Poisson's ratio is a geomechanical property for the material and it is defined as the ratio of the lateral
increment to the longitudinal decrement under compression (Tutuncu and Sharma, 1992). Hence, negative
of the ratio of lateral or transverse strain to axial or longitudinal strain represents the static Poisson's ratio
measurement and that strain should be resulted from uniaxial force only (Kumar, 1976). Geo-mechanical
earth models are one of the tools used to represent the in-situ state of rock. The development of such models
depends on the in-situ stresses encountered within a formation, which can be estimated using the values
of its elastic parameters, Poisson’s ratio, and Young’s modulus. These parameters are very important in
describing the elastic behavior of rock. The materials that show a linear elastic behavior, found to have
2 IPTC-20208-MS

Poisson's ratio values range from -1 to 0.5 (Truesdell, 1984). However, for typical rocks, found that the
value of Poisson's ratio ranges from 0.1 to 0.4 as the lower values for the soft formations and the higher
values for the hard rocks (Gercek, 2007).
Several factors have an impact on the Poisson's ratio as rock lithology, density, porosity and pore
structure, consolidation, fluid saturation, and formation temperature (Kumar, 1976; Phani, 2008; Ameen
et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2009; Al-Anazi and Gates, 2010). The rock petrophysical and geomechanical
parameters are so critical for designing the well drilling and completion programs, and geomechanical earth

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20IPTC/3-20IPTC/D032S220R002/1189031/iptc-20208-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 16 June 2021

modeling (Nes et al., 2012; Chang el at., 2006; Khaksar et al., 2009). Consequently, these values need to
be determined carefully and accurately. The accuracy to determine these properties has impact on the well
stability during drilling (Cadwallader et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2015), and the production and exploration
economics (Anifowose et al., 2017; Helmy et al. 2017). Otherwise, determining the rock elastic parameters
inaccurately may cause technical problems and economical losses (Ameen et al. 2009; Spain et al. 2015;
Tariq et al. 2017a).
There are common industrial approaches to get Poisson's ratio values either by laboratory measurements
or using the developed correlations. For laboratory measurements, there are two values for the Poisson's
ratio, static Poisson's ratio (PRstatic) and dynamic Poisson's ratio (PRdynamic) ones. PRstatic can be determined
using the triaxial testing as per the standards for American society for testing and materials (ASTM)
international, while the dynamic Poisson's ratio can be acquired using the ultrasonic pulse velocities as
per the standards for ASTM international. Equation (1) shows how the value PRdynamic is determined from
sonic logs using the compressional-wave velocity VP, and the shear-wave velocity Vs. Kumar et al. (2003)
provided a predictive correlation for the static poison's ratio using the VP and Vs as shown in Equation (2).

(1)

(2)

Zhang and Bentley (2005) showed that the difference between the two values for the static and dynamic
Poisson's ratio resulted from the variation of strain values for the two methods of measurements. The lab
measurements required core extraction from the well and measuring the parameters in conditions as same
as the reservoir and therefore it is so expensive and time consuming (Abdulraheem A., 2019). Alternatively,
correlations are established to get the static Poisson's ratio from the well logs (Gatens et al., 1990; Kumar
et al., 2003; Shalabi et al., 2007; Phani, 2008; Tariq et al., 2016; Elkatatny et al., 2018). However, such
correlations have many limitations that should be considered when using them. (Abdulraheem et al., 2009;
Ameen et al., 2009; Badrouchi et al., 2019). Artificial intelligence has been presented as an alternative way
for developing models which have the ability of dealing with problems with high degree of complexity
(Nagy, K. and Hajrizi, 2018; Agwu et al., 2018). From recent literature, several studies were performed
to predict Poisson's ratio using AI techniques (Tariq et al., 2019; Abdulraheem, 2019; Badrouchi et al.,
2019; Elkatatny et al., 2019). However, most of them are related to carbonate rocks. Gowida et al. (2019)
predicted the static Poisson’s ratio for sandstone rocks using well-log data such as bulk density and sonic
log using ANN and showed that the PRstatic can be estimated with high accuracy using well-log data as
inputs. Therefore the objective of this work is to present a comparative analysis between using ANN and
ANFIS for building predictive models for PRstatic and compare their performance based on the accuracy of
the results obtained.

Artificial Neural Network (ANN)

ANN is considered one of the most efficient and applicable AI techniques especially in the applications of
petroleum engineering (Rable, 2017; Alkinani et al., 2019). It follows the same concept of the biological
neural systems in processing the data to get the output (Angelini and Ludovici, 2009). ANN is based on
IPTC-20208-MS 3

fundamental units called neurons for processing the data (Niculescu, 2003; Razi and Naderi, 2009). These
neurons are connected within the systems using connections to imitate the biological structure of the human
neural system. Each connection is assigned with weights and biases defined during the training process
(Rao and Ramamurti, 1993). ANN is basically trained using different algorithms to analyze the system and
optimize the weights and biases (Nakamoto, 2017). Among these algorithms, back-propagation algorithm
was suggested as an outperforming learning technique (Hinton et al., 2006; Yagiz et al., 2012). A typical
structure of ANN model involves three main types of layers namely; input, hidden, and output layers. Input

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20IPTC/3-20IPTC/D032S220R002/1189031/iptc-20208-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 16 June 2021

data are primarily received by the input layer then transferred into hidden layer(s) containing the selected
number of neurons for processing these data using suitable transfer functions with typical mathematical.
Finally, the processed data are sent to output layer which contains the target to be predicted (Lippman,
1987). To avoid inaccurate predictions due to over/under fitting and the memorization issue, the number of
neurons within the network should be optimized (Rao and Ramamurti, 1993).

Adaptive network-based fuzzy interference systems (ANFIS)

ANFIS is a supervised learning algorithm depending on fuzzy inference system for processing the data
(Jang, 1995). It is considered an integrated system which combines both fuzzy logic concepts and neural
networks (Walia et al., 2015). It was first introduced by Jang (1993). It uses Takagi-Sugeno inference system
which applied conventional Boolean logic i.e. zeros and ones (Tahmasebi and Hezarkhani, 2012). This
framework uses a set of fuzzy rules, IF-THEN rules, to analyze the system and mimic non-linear relations
(Jang, 1995). It starts with defining the inputs and the required output then specifying fuzzy sets and rules
thereafter training the network to be optimized (Tahmasebi and Hezarkhani, 2012; Walia et al., 2015).
Optimization of the number of the fuzzy rules is very critical for highly accurate predictions to avoid crucial
problems such as memorization and overproduction (Jang, 1996).

Data Description
In this study, both laboratory measurements (core data) and wireline-logged data from drilled wells were
used for training the models developed by different AI tools (ANN, ANFIS).

Log Data Description and Analysis

The selected log dataset represents sandstone rocks for the same sections from which the core samples
were also retrieved for experimental measurements. The log dataset included (RHOB, ∆tcomp and ∆tshear)
measurements. The obtained data were found to represent a wide range of sandstone rocks and that is highly
recommended for boosting the accuracy of the AI models. Data ranges are as follows: RHOB from 2.24
to 2.98 g/cm3, ∆tcomp from 44.34 to 80.49 μs/ft, and ∆tshear from 73.19 to 145.6 μs/ft. Table 1 lists different
statistical parameters for describing the core and well log data used for building the AI models.

Table 1—Statistical parameters of the obtained core data and well-log data.

Parameter RHOB, g/cm3 ∆tcomp, μs/ft. ∆tshear, μs/ft. PRstatic

Minimum 2.24 44.34 73.19 0.20

Maximum 2.98 80.49 145.60 0.46
Range 0.74 36.15 72.42 0.26
Standard
0.13 7.59 11.80 0.05
Deviation
Variance 0.02 57.63 139.35 0.00
Kurtosis 0.55 1.98 2.08 1.65
Skewness − 0.24 1.51 1.23 − 1.15
4 IPTC-20208-MS

Quality Check and Data Filtration

The higher the quality of the raining data are, the better accuracy of AI models can be achieved (Hemphill
et al. 2007). Thus the obtained dataset should be fully checked using both statistical and technical tools.
Unrealistic values (like negative values) and zero values have been removed using MATLAB. Then outliers
(values showing significant deviation from the normal trend values) were eliminated using a box and
whisker plot method (Chandrasegar et al. 2017). Thereafter the data quality of P-wave and S-wave velocities
have been checked by calculating υdynamic using Equation (1). The values of Poisson’s ratio normally

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20IPTC/3-20IPTC/D032S220R002/1189031/iptc-20208-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 16 June 2021

are positive for typical rocks. Therefore, data points yielding any negative value of PRdynamic, are removed
(Gercek 2007).

Generating Core Data

First core samples representing sandstone sections from the drilled wells have been retrieved then triaxial
compressional tests have been conducted on these samples to get their static mechanical properties (Estatic
and PRstatic). The experimental tests were performed at room temperature and increasing confining pressure
from 500 psi gradually in steps up to 1500 psi. The conducted triaxial compression test followed the standard
procedure recommended by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM D 2664-86; ASTM D
3148-93).

Checking for Depth Shifting Between Wireline-logged and Core Data

The depth of the wireline-logged data are usually measured depending on the length of the wireline used
during the logging operation while the recorded depths of core data are based on the length of the drill string.
Therefore, it is common to have some mismatch between core and log data. This is may be due to drill
pipe stretch, cable stretch, tidal changes, incomplete core recovery, core expansion, etc. (Vesterstrom and
Thomsen 2004). This shift should be eliminated to correlate the wireline-logged and core data. To identify
this shift, density-log data are plotted in the same plot with density-data obtained from the core obtained
from the same interval (Qin 2009). Then both data are correlated by taking the shift-correction value into
account using Equation (2).
(2)

Studying the Inputs / Output relative significance

The prediction performance of AI tools is affected significantly by the relative importance between the
selected inputs and the targeted output. In this study, correlation coefficient (R) has been selected to study
the effect of each input parameter on the output variable. R has a range of values varying between 1 and -1.
For R between two variables equals to 1, this refers to a strong direct relationship between these variables
On the contrary, when R equals to -1, a negative relation is existing between them. For R of zero value, it
shows that no linear relationship can be captured between these two variables (Benesty et al. 2009). Fig.
1 shows a graphical representation of the relative importance of the input parameters (RHOB, ∆tcomp and
∆tshear) and the output (PRstatic). It is found that PRstatic has high R of 0.32, − 0.57, − 0.21 with RHOB, ∆tcomp
and ∆tshear respectively.
IPTC-20208-MS 5

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20IPTC/3-20IPTC/D032S220R002/1189031/iptc-20208-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 16 June 2021

Figure 1—Relative importance of the input variables and the target, PRstatic.

PRstatic Model Development Using Different AI tools

In this study, both laboratory measurements (core data) and wireline-logged data from drilled wells were
used for training the models developed by different AI tools (ANN and ANFIS). Field measurements
involved 692 data points including actual core-data and the corresponding well-log data (RHOB, ∆tcomp and
∆tshear) for sandstone formations, are used for building the proposed models. The dataset is divided into two
partitions: 90 % of the total data (631 data points) are used for training the model while 10 % of the dataset
(61 data points) is used for testing the models.
The aforementioned AI techniques (ANN and ANFIS) are used to build the models for predicting PRstatic.
Thereafter, the results obtained from each model are compared to select the outperforming model which
would have the lowest AAPE and the highest R between the predicted and the measured values of PRstatic.
For ANN, two types of neural networks are tested, which are radial basis function network (RBF) and
feed-forward neural network (FFNN). For ANFIS, both genfis-1 (grid partitioning) and genfis-2 (subtractive
clustering) are tested for optimizing the model. The optimization process showed that FFNN and genfis-2
yields the highest R and the lowest AAPE between the predicted and actual PRstatic. For optimizing the ANN-
based model, several ANN parameters are tuned through several runs including; number of hidden layers,
number of neurons, transfer functions, learning rate, and the training algorithms. Similarly, several runs are
executed to perform sensitivity analysis for the cluster radius of genfis-2 to reach the optimal choice.
The results of the optimization process showed that the selection of only one hidden layer of 20 neurons,
tan-sigmoidal (tansig) transfer function between the input and hidden layer, linear transfer function between
the hidden and the output layer, learning rate of 0.12, and training algorithm of Levenberg-Marquardt
backpropagation (trainlm), is the optimal choice resulting in the highest R and the lowest AAPE between
the predicted and the measured values of PRstatic. The ranges for the optimizing parameters tested during
tuning process and the selected options are summarized in Table. 2. For ANFIS, the optimized cluster radius
for genfis-2 type is found to be 0.1 yielding the highest R and the lowest AAPE.
6 IPTC-20208-MS

Table 2—The tested options of the tuning parameters for ANN and ANFIS.

AI Technique Parameter Options/Ranges Optimized Parameter

Number of
1-4 1
Hidden layers

Number of Neurons
1-30 20
in Each Layer

tansig logsig

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20IPTC/3-20IPTC/D032S220R002/1189031/iptc-20208-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 16 June 2021

elliotsig radbas Levenberg-Marquardt
Training Algorithms backpropagation
ANN tribas Pure-Linear (trainlm)
hardlim satlin

trainlm trainr
Tansig (Tans-
Transfer Function trainbr trainc
Sigmoidal)
traingd traingda

Learning Rate 0.01-0.9 0.12

Type Genfis-1 or Genfis-2 Genfis-2

ANFIS
Cluster Radius 0.1 – 0.9 0.1

The developed models are then compared to select the model with the best performance in terms of R
and AAPE. Based on the obtained results, the ANN-based model outperformed the ANFIS-based model
as it yielded the highest R of 0.97 and the lowest AAPE of 1.6 % as shown in Figs. 2a and 2b. Figs. 3
and 4 show cross-plots between the predicted and measured PRstatic values for training and testing processes
using the ANN-based and ANFIS-based models. The results of the training and testing for both methods
are summarized in Table. 3.

Figure 2a—Comaprison between the predicted and actual PRstatic for the testing data using the ANFIS-based model.

Figure 2b—Comaprison between the predicted and actual PRstatic for the testing data using the ANFIS-based model.
IPTC-20208-MS 7

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20IPTC/3-20IPTC/D032S220R002/1189031/iptc-20208-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 16 June 2021

Figure 3—Cross-plots between the actual and predicted PRstatic using
the ANN-based model for (a) training and (b) testing processes.

Figure 4—Cross-plots between the actual and predicted PRstatic using

the ANFIS-based model for (a) training and (b) testing processes.

Table 3—Summary of the results of ANN-based and ANFIS-based models

AI Technique Parameter Training Process Testing Process

R 0.97 0.98
ANN
AAPE (%) 1.67 1.54

R 0.92 0.94
ANFIS
AAPE (%) 2.72 3.35

Model Validation
The developed ANN-based model is then validated using validation data form another well within the area
(These data are not included in the model development process). The validation data involved conventional
well log data (RHOB, ∆tcomp and ∆tshear) and five data points of core measurements within an interval of 550
ft. of sandstone formation. The obtained well-log data are used to feed the network to get a continuous profile
of the PRstatic then the results would be compared with the actual core measurements to check the competency
of the prediction performance of the developed ANN-based model. Fig. 5 shows that the predicted results
of the ANN-based model significantly match with the core measurements (R = 0.95, AAPE = 3.5%)
8 IPTC-20208-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20IPTC/3-20IPTC/D032S220R002/1189031/iptc-20208-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 16 June 2021

Figure 5—Comparison of the predicted and core measured PRstatic values along 550 ft-interval.

Conclusions
Comparative analysis has been performed to evaluate the prediction performance of static Poisson’s ratio
using two artificial intelligence tools namely; neural networks and fuzzy logic, leading to the following
findings:
1. The developed ANN-based model showed outperformance over the ANFIS-based model in predicting
PRstatic using the well-log data as inputs.
2. The developed ANN-based model can provide a continuous profile of PRstatic whenever the well-log-
data are available, with R of 0.98 and AAPE of 1.54 % between the predicted and measured PRstatic
values.
3. The validation process of the developed ANN-based model using unseen data from another well in
the same area demonstrated its great prediction performance of PRstatic with R of 0.95 between the
predicted and measured PRstatic values.
4. The developed ANN-based model is considered a timely effective tool to estimate PRstatic values of
sandstone rocks, especially when core data are not available.

Nomenclature
AI Artificial Intelligence
AAPE Average absolute percentage error
ANN Artificial neural network
Tansig Hyperbolic tangent sigmoid transfer function
Hardlim Hard-limit transfer function
Logsig Log-sigmoid transfer function
Pure-linear Linear transfer function
Elliotsig Elliot symmetric sigmoid transfer function
Tribas Triangular basis transfer function
Satlin Saturating linear transfer function
Radbas Radial basis transfer function
Trainlm Levenberg-Marquardt backpropagation
Trainr Random order incremental training with learning functions
Traingda Gradient descent with adaptive learning rule backpropagation
Trainc Cyclical order incremental update
Trainbr Bayesian Regularization backpropagation
Traingd Gradient descent backpropagation
IPTC-20208-MS 9

References
1. Abdulraheem, A. 2019, March 22. Prediction of Poisson’s Ratio for Carbonate Rocks Using
ANN and Fuzzy Logic Type-2 Approaches. Paper presented at the International Petroleum
Technology Conference, Beijing, China, 26-28 March. IPTC-19365-MS. https://doi.org/10.2523/
IPTC-19365-MS
2. Abdulraheem, A., M. Ahmed, A. Vantala, and T. Parvez. 2009. Prediction of rock mechanical
parameters for hydrocarbon reservoirs using different artificial intelligence techniques. Paper

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20IPTC/3-20IPTC/D032S220R002/1189031/iptc-20208-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 16 June 2021

presented in the SPE Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium, Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia, 9-11
May. SPE-126094-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/126094-MS
3. Al-Anazi, A., Gates, I.D., 2010. A support vector machine algorithm to classify lithofacies and
model permeability in heterogeneous reservoirs. Eng. Geol. 114(3-4): 267–277. https://doi.org/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2010.05.005.
4. Alkinani, H. H., Al-Hameedi, A. T. T., Dunn-Norman, S., Flori, R. E., Alsaba, M. T., & Amer,
A. S. (2019, March 15). Applications of Artificial Neural Networks in the Petroleum Industry: A
Review. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/195072-MS
5. Ameen, M.S., Smart, B.G.D., Somerville, J.M., Hammilton, S., Naji, N.A., 2009. Predicting
rock mechanical properties of carbonates from wireline logs (A case study: Arab-D reservoir,
Ghawar field, Saudi Arabia). Mar. Pet. Geol. 26(4): 430–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.marpetgeo.2009.01.017
6. Angelini E, Ludovici A (2009) CDS Evaluation model with neural networks. J Serv Sci Manag
02:15–28. https://doi.org/10.4236/jssm.2009.21003
7. Anifowose, F., Adeniye, S., Abdulraheem, A. and Al-Shuhail, A., 2016. Integrating seismic and
log data for improved petroleum reservoir properties estimation using non-linear feature-selection
based hybrid computational intelligence models. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering,
145: 230-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2016.05.019.
8. Anifowose, F., Labadin, J. and Abdulraheem, A., 2015. Improving the prediction of petroleum
reservoir characterization with a stacked generalization ensemble model of support vector
machines. Applied Soft Computing, 26: 483-496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.10.017.
9. Anifowose, F.A., Labadin, J. and Abdulraheem, A., 2017. Ensemble machine learning: An
untapped modeling paradigm for petroleum reservoir characterization. Journal of Petroleum
Science and Engineering, 151: 480-487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2017.01.024.
10. ASTM Committee D-2845-00 on Soil and Rock, 2008. Standard test method for laboratory
determination of pulse velocities and ultrasonic elastic constants of rock. ASTM International.
11. ASTM D-04 (2005) Standard test method for triaxial compressive strength of undrained rock
core specimens without pore pressure measurements.
12. Badrouchi, F., Badrouchi, N., Rabiei, M. et al. 2019. Estimation of Elastic Properties of
Bakken Formation Using an Artificial Neural Network Model. Paper presented in the 53rd
US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, New York City, New York, 23-26 June.
ARMA-2019-0243.
13. Benesty, J., Chen, J., Huang, Y. and Cohen, I. Pearson correlation coefficient. In Noise reduction
in speech processing, 2009, (pp. 1-4). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
14. Cadwallader, S., Wampler, J., Sun, T. et al 2015. An Integrated Dataset Centered Around
Distributed Fiber Optic Monitoring - Key to the Successful Implementation of a Geo-
Engineered Completion Optimization Program in the Eagle Ford Shale. Paper presented in
the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, San Antonio, Texas, 20-22 July 2015.
URTEC-2171506-MS. https://doi.org/10.15530/URTEC-2015-2171506.
10 IPTC-20208-MS

15. Chandrasegar, T.; Vignesh, M.; Balaji, R. Data Analysis Using Box and Whisker Plot for Lung
Cancer. In Proceedings of the Innovations in Power and Advanced Computing Technologies (i-
PACT) Conference, Vellore, India, 21–22 April 2017.
16. Chang, C., Zoback, M.D. and Khaksar, A., 2006. Empirical relations between rock strength and
physical properties in sedimentary rocks. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 51(3-4):
223-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2006.01.003.
17. Dawson, R. How Significant Is A Boxplot Outlier? J. Stat. Educ. 2011, 19. [CrossRef]

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20IPTC/3-20IPTC/D032S220R002/1189031/iptc-20208-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 16 June 2021

18. Elkatatny, S., Mahmoud, M., Mohamed, I. et al. 2018. Development of a new correlation to
determine the static Young’s modulus. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production
Technology, 8(1): 17-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-017-0316-4.
19. Elkatatny, S., Tariq, Z., Mahmoud, M. et al. 2019. An integrated approach for estimating static
Young’s modulus using artificial intelligence tools. Neural Computing and Applications, 31(8):
4123–4135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-018-3344-1.
20. Gatens, J. M., Harrison, C. W., Lancaster, D. E. et al. 1990. In-Situ Stress Tests and Acoustic
Logs Determine Mechanical Propertries and Stress Profiles in the Devonian Shales. SPE
formation evaluation, 5(03): 248-254. SPE-18523-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/18523-PA.
21. Gercek, H. Poisson's ratio values for rocks. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences 2007, 44(1), pp.1-13.
22. Gercek, H., 2007. Poisson's ratio values for rocks. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 44(1): 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2006.04.011.
23. Gowida, A., Moussa, T., Elkatatny, S. et al. 2019. A Hybrid Artificial Intelligence Model
to Predict the Elastic Behavior of Sandstone Rocks. Sustainability, 11(19):5283. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su11195283
24. Helmy, T., Hossain, M.I., Adbulraheem, A. et al 2017. Prediction of non-hydrocarbon gas
components in separator by using Hybrid Computational Intelligence models. Neural Computing
and Applications, 28(4):635-649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-015-2088-4.
25. Hemphill, T.; Bern, P.; Rojas, J.; Ravi, K. Field validation of drillpipe rotation e_ects on
equivalent circulating density. In Proceedings of the SPE annual technical conference and
exhibition, Anaheim, CA, USA, 11–14 November 2007.
26. Hinton GE, Osindero S, Teh Y-W. 2006. A fast learning algorithm for deep belief nets. Neural
Comput 18:1527–1554. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.2006.18.7.1527.
27. J. Vesterstrom and R. Thomsen, 2004. A comparative study of differential evolution, particle
swarm optimization, and evolutionary algorithms on numerical benchmark problems, Proc. 2004
Congr. Evol. Comput., Portland.
28. Jang J-SR (1993) ANFIS: adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference system. IEEE Trans Syst Man
Cybern 23:665–685. https://doi.org/10.1109/21.256541
29. Jang J-SR (1996) Input selection for ANFIS learning. In: Proceedings of IEEE 5th international
fuzzy systems. IEEE, pp 1493–1499
30. Jang J-SR, Sun Chuen-Tsai (1995) Neuro-fuzzy modeling and control. Proc IEEE 83:378–406.
https://doi.org/10.1109/5.364486
31. Khaksar, A., Taylor, P.G., Fang, Z., Kayes, T.J., Salazar, A. and Rahman, K. 2009. Rock strength
from core and logs, where we stand and ways to go. Paper presented in the EUROPEC/EAGE
Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 8-11 June. SPE-121972-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/121972-MS.
32. Kumar, J. 1976. The Effect of Poisson's Ratio on Rock Properties. Paper presented in the SPE
Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 3-6 October.
SPE-6094-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/6094-MS
IPTC-20208-MS 11

33. Lippman RP. 1987. An introduction to computing with neural nets. IEEE ASSP Magazine 4:
pages 4-22. https://doi.org/10.1109/massp.1987.1165576.
34. Nakamoto P. Neural networks and deep learning: deep learning explained to your granny a visual
introduction for beginners who want to make their own deep learning neural network (machine
learning), 2017, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
35. Nes, O., Fjær, E., Tronvoll, J., Kristiansen, T. G., and Horsrud, P. 2012. Drilling Time Reduction
Through an Integrated Rock Mechanics Analysis." ASME. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 134(3)

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20IPTC/3-20IPTC/D032S220R002/1189031/iptc-20208-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 16 June 2021

2802:1–2802:7. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4006866.
36. Niculescu S. Artificial neural networks and genetic algorithms in QSAR. J Mol Struct 2003,
622:71–83.
37. Phani, K.K., 2008. Correlation between ultrasonic shear wave velocity and Poisson's
ratio for isotropic porous materials. J. Mater. Sci. 43(1):316–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10853-007-2055-2
38. Qin, A.K., Huang, V.L. and Suganthan, P.N. Differential evolution algorithm with strategy
adaptation for global numerical optimization. IEEE transactions on Evolutionary Computation
2009, 13(2), pp.398-417.
39. Rable, B. The future is here: 3 ways AI roots itself in O&G in the surge Magazine., 2017. http://
thesurge.com/stories/future-artificial-intelligence-roots-oil-gas-industry.
40. Rao S, Ramamurti V. A hybrid technique to enhance the performance of recurrent neural
networks for time series prediction. In: IEEE international conference on neural networks, 1993,
IEEE, pp 52–57.
41. Razi M, Arz A, Naderi A 2013. Annular pressure loss while drilling prediction with artificial
neural network modeling. Eur J Sci Res 2013, 95, pp. 272–288.
42. Shalabi, F.I., Cording, E.J. and Al-Hattamleh, O.H., 2007. Estimation of rock engineering
properties using hardness tests. Engineering Geology, 90(3-4):138-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enggeo.2006.12.006
43. Spain, D. R., Gil, I. R., Sebastian, H. M. et al. 2015. Geo-Engineered Completion Optimization:
An Integrated, Multi-Disciplinary Approach to Improve Stimulation Efficiency in
Unconventional Shale Reservoirs. Paper presented in the SPE Middle East Unconventional
Resources Conference and Exhibition, Muscat, Oman, 26-28 January. SPE-172921-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/172921-MS.
44. Tahmasebi P, Hezarkhani A (2012) A hybrid neural networks fuzzy logic-genetic algorithm for
grade estimation. Comput Geosci 42:18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2012.02.004
45. Tariq, Z., Elkatatny, S. M., Mahmoud, M. A. et al. 2017a. Estimation of Rock Mechanical
Parameters Using Artificial Intelligence Tools. Paper presented in the 51st U.S. Rock Mechanics/
Geomechanics Symposium, San Francisco, California, USA, 25-28 June. ARMA-2017-0301.
46. Tariq, Z., Elkatatny, S., Mahmoud, M. et al. 2017b. A New Technique to Develop Rock Strength
Correlation Using Artificial Tools. Paper presented in the SPE Reservoir Characterisation and
Simulation Conference and Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 8–10 May. SPE-186062-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/186062-MS
47. Tariq, Z., Elkatatny, S., Mahmoud, M., and Abdulraheem, A. 2016. A Holistic Approach to
Develop New Rigorous Empirical Correlation for Static Young’s Modulus. Paper presented
in Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 7-10
November. SPE-183545-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/183545-MS.
48. Tariq, Z., Mahmoud, M. and Abdulraheem, A. 2019. Core log integration: a hybrid intelligent
data-driven solution to improve elastic parameter prediction. Neural Computing and
Applications, pp.1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-019-04101-3.
12 IPTC-20208-MS

49. Truesdell, C., 1984. Timoshenko's History of Strength of Materials (1953), in: An Idiot's
Fugitive Essays on Science. Springer New York, New York, NY, pp. 251–253. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-8185-3_30
50. Tutuncu, A.N., Sharma, M.M. 1992. Relating Static and Ultrasonic Laboratory Measurements
to Acoustic Log Measurements in Tight Gas Sands. Paper presented in the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, D.C., 4-7 October. SPE-24689-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/24689-MS.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20IPTC/3-20IPTC/D032S220R002/1189031/iptc-20208-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 16 June 2021

51. Walia N, Singh H, Sharma A (2015) ANFIS: adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system—a survey.
Int J Comput Appl 123:32–38.https://doi.org/10.5120/ijca2015905635
52. Wang, C., Wu, Y.-S., Xiong, Y., Winterfeld, P. H., and Huang, Z. 2015. Geomechanics Coupling
Simulation of Fracture Closure and Its Influence on Gas Production in Shale Gas Reservoirs.
Paper presented in the SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, Texas, USA, 23-25
February. SPE-173222-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/173222-MS.
53. Wang, Q., Ji, S., Sun, S., Marcotte, D. 2009. Correlations between compressional and shear
wave velocities and corresponding Poisson's ratios for some common rocks and sulfide ores.
Tectonophysics 469(1-4): 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2009.01.025.
54. Yagiz S, Sezer EA, Gokceoglu C (2012) Artificial neural networks and nonlinear regression
techniques to assess the influence of slake durability cycles on the prediction of uniaxial
compressive strength and modulus of elasticity for carbonate rocks. Int J Numer Anal Methods
Geomech 36:1636–1650. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.1066
55. Yılmaz, I. and Yuksek, A.G. An example of artificial neural network (ANN) application for
indirect estimation of rock parameters. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 2008, 41(5),
pp.781-795.