applied

sciences
Article
Intelligent Prediction of Stuck Pipe Using Combined
Data-Driven and Knowledge-Driven Model Aznil Arif Digitally signed by
Aznil Arif Rahman

Rahman Date: 2023.06.20

08:52:57 +07'00'

Shuo Zhu 1 , Xianzhi Song 2,3, *, Zhaopeng Zhu 2 , Xuezhe Yao 2 and Muchen Liu 2

1 Jianghan Machinery Research Institute Limited Company of CNPC, Wuhan 430000, China;
2019211810@student.cup.edu.cn
2 School of Petroleum Engineering, China University of Petroleum, Beijing 102249, China;
zhuzp@cup.edu.cn (Z.Z.); 2019211811@student.cup.edu.cn (X.Y.); 2018010309@student.cup.edu.cn (M.L.)
3 State Key Laboratory of Petroleum Resources and Prospecting, Beijing 102249, China
* Correspondence: songxz@cup.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-010-8973-2176

Abstract: Stuck pipe phenomena can have disastrous effects on drilling performance, with outcomes
that can range from time delays to loss of expensive machinery. In this work, we provide three
methods for the prediction of stuck pipe. The first method targets the detection of friction coefficient
which can represent the trend of stuck pipe. The second method targets the prediction of probability
for stuck pipe using ANN (artificial neural network). The last model establishes a comprehensive
indicator based on the first and the second method using fuzzy mathematics which can give more
accurate probability for stuck pipe. The results show that the best model is the last one which
can predict stuck pipe events with a F1 of 0.98 and a FAR (false alarm rate) of 1%. Preliminary
experimental results on the available dataset indicate that the use of the proposed model and can
help mitigate the stuck pipe issue.

Keywords: stuck pipe; drag coefficient; neural network; fuzzy mathematics

Citation: Zhu, S.; Song, X.; Zhu, Z.;

Yao, X.; Liu, M. Intelligent Prediction
of Stuck Pipe Using Combined 1. Introduction
Data-Driven and Knowledge-Driven
Drilling is a key process to oil and gas exploration and development which is full
Model. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5282.
of randomness, uncertainty and concealment. It is necessary to place several thousand
https://doi.org/10.3390/app
meters of drill pipe in a narrow space with a diameter of only 200–500 mm. Unreasonable
12105282
design of engineering parameters and unclear understanding of the formation often lead to
Academic Editor: José A.F.O. Correia complex downhole accidents (lost circulation, well collapse, stuck pipe, etc.), among which
Received: 27 April 2022
stuck pipe is one of the most common accidents.
Accepted: 16 May 2022
According to the statistics of complex accidents in the South China Sea during
Published: 23 May 2022
2009–2018, about 45% of them were stuck pipe [1]. Mudlog data from Tarim Oilfield
in China shows that it takes about 3 months to deal with a serious stuck pipe accident
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
which increases non-productive times and seriously affects drilling efficiency. Therefore,
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
the timely prediction of stuck pipe events is considered a primary necessity to assist the
published maps and institutional affil-
drilling team in the decision-making process, so that appropriate countermeasures can be
iations.
put in effect before the situation slips out of hand.
Mudlog data shows that the stuck pipe accidents occur in the process of tripping and
drilling with varying degrees of severity. For example, in some highly deviated wells and
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
horizontal wells, the stuck pipe accident is often accompanied in the process of tripping,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. but it is usually not serious. On the contrary, more attention is paid to the stuck pipe during
This article is an open access article drilling. Once the drill string is completely stuck, it can only be lifted by explosion and a
distributed under the terms and new side drilling scheme need to be redesigned, which seriously restricts the safety and
conditions of the Creative Commons efficiency of drilling. Therefore, we focus on the real-time prediction of stuck pipe in the
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// process of drilling.
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5282. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12105282 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5282 2 of 16

Many approaches have been developed to predict and reduce the risk of stuck pipe.
In summary, the analysis and prediction of stuck pipe accidents can be divided into two
parts: data-driven and knowledge-driven.
For the knowledge-driven model, cuttings, wellbore tortuosity and other factors will
eventually lead to the increase of torque and drag which can lead to the occurrence of stuck
pipe accident. Therefore, researchers use the torque and drag model to invert the friction
coefficient to realize the qualitative analysis of stuck pipe trend in the view of mechanics.
However, this method is mainly used to analyze and deal with the stuck pipe after drilling
considering that the WOB (weight on bit) and TOB (torque on bit) cannot be transmitted in
real time.
For the data-driven model, researchers applied support vector machine, random
forest, neural network and other algorithms to the prediction of stuck pipe. However, the
generalization ability and reliability of the intelligent model need to be further improved
due to the quantity and quality of samples and the differences between blocks.
Based on previous research, we establish a comprehensive indicators based on the
knowledge-driven and data-driven model using fuzzy mathematics, which is expected to
realize accurate prediction of stuck pipe and ensure the safety and efficiency of drilling
The remaining of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 discusses the literature
review of the prediction methods of stuck pipe. Section 3 introduces our proposed method.
Section 4 explains the experimental results and discusses the main findings and finally
Section 5 concludes this research and provides some plans for future work.

2. Related Research
This section introduces the related research on the analysis and prediction of stuck
pipe, including knowledge-driven and data-driven model.
For the knowledge-driven model, in [2], the paper shows how to estimate two friction
coefficients on a foot-by-foot basis at the wellsite with both measurement-while-drilling
(MWD) and surface values of weight on bit (WOB) and torque. A log of the coefficients
with depth can be used to diagnose drilling problems in directional wells. Field examples
are given that show how the technique detects incipient stuck pipe. Since downhole data
cannot be transmitted in real time, this method is mainly used after drilling. In [3], they
present the results of the application of torque and drag model to directional wells drilled
worldwide which was effectively used in these cases to aid in planning the directional
program before spudding, to monitor the wells during drilling, and to analyze particular
drilling problems after completion. In [4], the paper describes investigation of the friction
between the pipe and the mud cake. It was found that the apparent coefficient of friction,
or the “stuck pipe” coefficient, was not a constant; instead, it increased with increased
time of contact between plate and mud cake. They think that the friction factor and mud
cake quality are the factors that cannot be ignored. In [5], mud logging and daily reports
of 75 wells in one of Iranian Southwest oil fields were studied. Mud weight, yield point,
plastic viscosity and so on, a total of seven parameters were employed to introduce a new
parameter called Reducing Stuck Index (RSI). For this field, the comparison of RSI of the
current well with those of drilled wells predicted the probability of occurrence of stuck
pipe very well. In [6], Dunbar conducted a theoretical study on the bit stuck pipe caused by
borehole deformation. It is found that this phenomenon is related largely to the magnitude
of the lateral earth stresses, formation mechanical properties, and drilling-tool geometry.
For the data-driven models, Kingsborough [7] used the multivariate discriminant
analysis method to study stuck pipe for the first time. This method can be used to distin-
guish mechanical stuck, differential pressure stuck and non-stuck. Murillol [8] introduced
mathematical methods such as fuzzy comprehensive discrimination and neural networks
to predict stuck pipe, and proposed new methods for early warning and risk assessment of
stuck pipe. Multivariate statistical regression and a discrimination analysis were developed
for an Iranian field and presented by Shoraka [9] to predict and reduce the risks of stuck
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5282 3 of 16

pipe. Biegler and Kuhn [10] used multivariate analysis to quantify the impact of design
variables on the overall stuck pipe.
Artificial Neural Network (ANN) has been extensively used in literature to solve
stuck pipe related issues. Some studies used ANN to predict a stuck pipe [11–13], using
different input parameters and data sizes, which were collected from several fields. They
concluded that ANN was capable of predicting stuck pipe events with varying model
accuracy. In [13], Siruvuri suggested coupling the ANN model output with a drilling log
viewer for monitoring. In [14], Elahi Naraghi applied several methods including ANN to
predict stuck pipe events. Their study showed that both ANN and adaptive neuro-fuzzy
inference systems are capable of predicting stuck pipe events with the same accuracy and
suggested using ANN for simplicity. In [15], Albaiyat used ANN along with the support
vector machine to predict stuck pipe events. In [16], Fuzzy logic and active learning were
used for stuck pipe prediction. In [17], Automated real-time modeling and data analysis
used to predict the risk of stuck pipe events were addressed by Salminen. In [18], Shahbazi
and Shahri developed a stuck pipe risk analysis prediction model by introducing a stuck
pipe index parameter. In [19], Zhigang Shan divided the drilling conditions into three
situations and use ANN to realize the prediction of stuck-pipe. In [20], Runqiao Yu selected
nine parameters and used the method of system dynamic cluster analysis to divide the
stuck pipe accidents into three categories: mechanical stuck pipe, differential pressure
stuck pipe and circulation stuck pipe. In [21], Jianming Liu have obtained the downhole
engineering parameters according to the downhole measuring tools and established an
intelligent model using stochastic forest algorithm. In [22], Brankovic have developed three
indicators based on mudlog data, which aim to detect three different physical phenomena
associated with the insurgence of stuck pipe. A statistical model that relates these features to
documented stuck-pipe events was then developed using advanced machine learning tools.
Through the analysis of the above related research, it is found that the stuck pipe
analysis method based on knowledge-driven model is mainly used for monitoring and
qualitative analysis of stuck pipe, but it is difficult to achieve prediction and quantitative
analysis. Meanwhile, the accuracy and reliability of data-driven stuck pipe analysis method
need to be further improved due to the number and quality of stuck pipe samples.
Therefore, on the basis of previous studies, we put forward a comprehensive evalu-
ation method which combines the knowledge-driven model with the data-driven model
through fuzzy mathematics theory.

3. Proposed Methodology
We provide three methods for the prediction of stuck pipe. The first method targets
the detection of friction coefficient which can represent the trend of stuck pipe. The second
method targets the prediction of probability for stuck pipe using ANN. The last model
establishes a comprehensive indicator based on the first and the second method using
fuzzy mathematics. Finally, we compare these three methods with the data from a well in
Tarim Oilfield, China.

3.1. Real-Time Analysis of Stuck Pipe Trend Based on Inversion of Friction Coefficient
The friction coefficient during drilling is a comprehensive resistance coefficient, which
includes not only the friction between string and wellbore, but also the additional resistance
caused by keyway, cuttings bed, mud viscous resistance and other factors. These factors
are closely related to stuck pipe phenomenon, so the friction coefficient of string can
characterize the stuck condition to a certain extent.
Four basic parameters are needed to realize the real-time inversion of friction coeffi-
cient, including hook tension, torque, WOB and TOB. The hook tension and torque can be
measured in real time. WOB and TOB can be measured by downhole measurement tools
which is usually stored in downhole tools and read after tripping out. So it is difficult to
realize the real-time transmission of WOB and TOB under the existing technical conditions,
which leads to the failure of real-time inversion of friction coefficient during drilling. There-
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5282 4 of 16

fore, the neural network technology is used to realize the real-time calculation of WOB and
TOB [23].

3.1.1. Real-Time Intelligent Calculation of WOB and TOB

Mudlog Data Preprocessing
1 Feature selection
The WOB and TOB are related to many factors during drilling. Through the analysis
of physical problems, the following parameters are selected as input parameters. Among
them, the time sequence parameters are: WOB, TOB, depth, inclination, azimuth, torque,
rpm, stand pipe pressure, outlet flow, inlet density, outlet density, total pool volume, hook
tension, mud density, mud viscosity, mud plastic viscosity. Non-sequential parameters
include: mud system, BHA (bottom hole assembly) and bit type.
2 Normalization
For sequential parameters, considering that mudlog parameters rarely have extreme
maximum and minimum values and are restricted by drilling equipment capabilities,
the maximum and minimum parameters can be set in advance or obtained by statistical
analysis, so the minimax normalization method is used to normalize the time series data.
For non-sequential parameters, the mud system is divided into water-based, oil-based
and gas-based; Bit types are divided into PDC and cone; BHA is divided into pendulum,
eyeful and tower. The above parameters are digitized by one hot method.

Neural Network Optimization and Structure Design

According to the characteristics of mudlog data in sequence and non-sequence, the
adaptive neural networks, namely BP [24] and LSTM [25] networks, are selected.
The formula of BP neural network is as follows,

ht = f (wh xt + bh ) (1)

xt is the current input; wh is the weight matrix of hidden layer; bh is the offset vector of the
hidden layer; f is the activation function; ht is the current output.
The BP neural network with the unidirectional communication is a static network.
Although it can approximate arbitrarily complex functions, it cannot infer the subsequent
information based on the previous information which does not have the memory ability.
LSTM network with self-feedback can transfer the information of hidden layer neurons
to the next hidden layer neurons. It has certain memory ability and obvious advantages in
dealing with sequential problems.
The formula of LSTM neural network is as follows.
Forget gate:
f t = σ (Wf · [ht−1 , xt ] + bf ) (2)
Input gate:
it = σ (Wi · [ht−1 , xt ] + bi ) (3)
Output gate:
Ot = σ (Wo · [ht−1 , xt ] + bo ) (4)
xt is the current input; ht−1 is the output at the previous moment; W f is the weight matrix
of the forget gate neuron in LSTM; bf is the bias vector of the forget gate neuron in LSTM;
f t is the forget gate neuron in LSTM The output of the cell; W i is the weight matrix of the
input gate neuron in LSTM; bi is the bias vector of the input gate neuron in LSTM; it is the
output of the input gate neuron in LSTM; W o is the weight of the output gate neuron in
LSTM Matrix; bo is the bias vector of the output gate neuron in LSTM; Ot is the output of
the output gate neuron in LSTM; σ is the sigmoid activation function.
 input gate neuron in LSTM; bi is the bias vector of the input gate neuron in LSTM;
output of the input gate neuron in LSTM; Wo is the weight of the output gate ne
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5282
LSTM Matrix; bo is the bias vector of the output gate neuron in LSTM;5 O t is the ou
of 16
the output gate neuron in LSTM; 𝜎 is the sigmoid activation function.
The BP neural network in Figure 1 is used to input non-sequential data wh
digitized
The BPby one-hot
neural andinhave
network a 1dimension
Figure of 8.non-sequential
is used to input An input sample of theare
data which BP netw
digitized by one-hot vector.
one-dimensional and have a dimension of 8. An input sample of the BP network is a
one-dimensional vector.

Figure 1. BP-LSTM dual input network structure.

Figure 1. BP-LSTM dual input network structure.
The LSTM network in Figure 1 is used to input sequential data. The historical time
step isThe LSTM
selected as 5,network
and a datain Figure
sample 1 istoused
input to input
the LSTM sequential
network is a 5 × 16data.
matrix.The historic
step is selected as 5, and a data sample input to the LSTM network is a 5 × 16 mat
Training, Testing and Optimization of BP-LSTM
The data from 74 wells in the same block of Tarim Oilfield is used to test and optimize
Training, Testing
the BP-LSTM model. and Optimization
The data ofused
of 52 wells are BP-LSTM
for training and the rest for testing.
Thenumber
The data from 74 wells
of network inthe
layers, thenumber
same of block of Tarim
neurons, dropout Oilfield is used
and activation to test and o
function
are optimized and each model is trained 120 epochs. The three indexes of MAPE
the BP-LSTM model. The data of 52 wells are used for training and the rest for tes (mean
absolute percentage error), RMSE (root mean square error) and model complexity which
The number of network layers, the number of neurons, dropout and activatio
is the number of parameters to be trained are combined to optimize the model. The
tion are optimized
experimental scheme of and each model
the BP-LSTM model is trained
is shown 120 epochs.
in Table 1. The three indexes of
(mean absolute percentage error),
r RMSE (root mean square error) and model com
which is the number of RMSE 1 toNbe trained are
parameters ∑ ypre − ytrue combined to optimize
(5)the mod

2
= i = 1
N
experimental scheme of the BP-LSTM model is shown in Table 1.
ypre −ytrue
∑iN=1 ytrue

 ( )
MAPE = 1 N 2 (6)
RMSE = N ypre − ytrue
N Ni =is1 the number of samples.
ytrue is the measured value; ypre is the predicted value;

Table 1. Test table of BP-LSTM network model. ypre − ytrue


N
i =1
WOB (kN) y TOB (kN·m)
Layers Neurons Layers Neurons
Dropout MAPE =
Activation
RMSE MAPE
true
RMSE MAPE
(BP) (BP) (LSTM) (LSTM) Function
(kN) N
(%) (kN·m) (%)
1 1 32 1 ytrue is 16 0.1
the measured sigmoid
value; ypre is the 77.3
predicted39.5
value; N6.2is the number
29.0 of sam
2 1 64 1 32 0.3 tanh 23.8 13.0 2.8 12.8
3 1 128 1 64 0.2 relu 24.6 13.0 3.1 14.0
4 2 32 Table
2 1. Test16table of BP-LSTM
0.3 network
relu model.35.3 18.9 3.6 16.1
5 2 64 2 32 0.2 sigmoid 76.7 39.2 5.5 25.7
6 2 128 2 64 0.1 tanh 23.9 12.8 WOB 2.9(kN) 13.3 TOB (kN
7 3 32 3 Lay-16 Neu-
0.2 tanh Activation
28.5 16.3 3.2 14.7
Layers==(BP) Neurons==(BP) Dropout RMSE==(k MAPE== RMSE==(k M
8 3 64 3ers==(LSTM)
32 rons==(LSTM)
0.1 relu Function
27.1 14.5 3.4 16.6
9 3 128 3 64 0.3 sigmoid 78.4 39.9 N) 9.4 (%) 40.1 N· m)
1 1 32 1 16 0.1 sigmoid 77.3 39.5 6.2
2 1 64 1 32 0.3 tanh 23.8 13.0 2.8
3 1 128 1 64 0.2 relu 24.6 13.0 3.1
4 2 32 2 16 0.3 relu 35.3 18.9 3.6
5 2 64 2 32 0.2 sigmoid 76.7 39.2 5.5
6 2 128 2 64 0.1 tanh 23.9 12.8 2.9
7 3 32 3 16 0.2 tanh 28.5 16.3 3.2
8 3 64 3 32 0.1 relu 27.1 14.5 3.4
9 3 128 3 64 0.3 sigmoid 78.4 39.9 9.4

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5282 Calculation Results of WOB and TOB 6 of 16

The results of WOB and TOB are shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. Th
and MAPE of WOB is 23.8 kN and 13.0%, respectively. The RMSE and MAPE of
Calculation Results of WOB and TOB
2.8 kN·m and 12.8%, respectively.
The results of WOB and TOB are shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. The RMSE
The BP-LSTM
and MAPE neural
of WOB is 23.8 network
kN and 13.0%, is used to realize
respectively. the real-time
The RMSE and MAPE prediction
of TOB is of W
TOB,
2.8 kN·which lays arespectively.
m and 12.8%, foundation for the real-time inversion of friction coefficient.

Figure2.2.Comparison
Figure Comparison of predicted
of predicted and
and true true
WOB. WOB.

Figure3.3.Comparison
Figure Comparisonof predicted and true
of predicted TOB.
and true TOB.
The BP-LSTM neural network is used to realize the real-time prediction of WOB and
3.1.2.which
TOB, Real-Time Inversionforofthe
lays a foundation Friction Coefficient
real-time inversion of friction coefficient.

3.1.2.
Torque Real-Time Inversion
and Drag Modelof Friction Coefficient
Torque and Drag Model
The classical torque and drag models include soft string model [26] and sti
The classical torque and drag models include soft string model [26] and stiff string
model[27].
model [27].
TheThesoftsoft
stringstring
modelmodel
withoutwithout any consideration
any consideration for theisstring
for the string stiffness simplestiffnes
ple applied
and and applied earlier,
earlier, but butsuitable
it is only it is only suitable
for vertical fororvertical
wells wells withwells
smallor wells with sma
inclination.
The
nation. The stiff string model with considering the stiffness of string is
stiff string model with considering the stiffness of string is more complex, but it ismore
more comp
suitable for extended reach wells, horizontal wells and other non-straight wells. The stiff
it is more suitable for extended reach wells, horizontal wells and other non-straigh
string model is used for the real-time inversion of friction coefficient.
The Thestiffstiff
string
stringmodel
model is used
is as for the real-time inversion of friction coefficient.
follows:
The stiff string model is as follows:
d(− F ) dkb
(
= − EIk
ds d − F b ds ) = − EIk
− q cos α ± µ1 · nt
dk b
− q cos   1  nt
(7)

b
ds ds
 dM D
= 2  nt  bi (8
ds 2
“±”: Negative for lifting condition, positive for lowering condition; F: axial load o
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5282 7 of 16
the drill string, N; S: depth, m; q: Gravity per unit length of drill string, N/m; 𝛼: inclinatio
angle, rad; EI: bending stiffness of drill string, N m2; 𝑛t : Contact force between drill strin
and wellbore, N/m; 𝜇1 : Axial friction
dM coefficient;
D 𝜇2 Circumferential friction coefficien
𝑘b : hole curvature, rad/m. = µ2 · nt · bi (8)
ds 2
Calculation
“± ”: Negativeformula
for liftingofcondition,
boreholepositive
curvature 𝑘𝑏 :
for lowering condition; F: axial load on
the drill string, N; S: depth, m; q: Gravity per unit length of drill string, N/m; α: inclination
 dNm2 ; nt : Contact 
2 2
angle, rad; EI: bending stiffness of drill string,  d 
force between drill string
and wellbore, N/m; µ1 : Axial frictionkb =coefficient;
  µ+2sin
2
   friction coefficient;
Circumferential
(9
kb : hole curvature, rad/m.
 ds   ds 
Calculation
Calculation formula of borehole
formula force 𝑛k𝑡b : on drill string:
curvature
of contact
s
 2  2
α +B
dα 2 dφ 2
+ sin2 A
ds nt =
kb = (9)
ds 2 (10
1 + 2
Calculation formula of contact force nt on drill string:
d 2 kb q d
A = EI 2 + kb F − knA(2−+kbBM T + EI  kb kn ) + sin 
s
2 (11
ds nt = kb ds (10)
1 + µ2 2

d2dk −k M + EI  k k + EI  k dk q d
A =BEI= 2b + (
kbbF −Tk n (−kb MbT + )
n EI · k b k n )n+ − sin α
q b dα sin 2  (11) (12
ds
ds ds
kb ds kb ds
d dk q dφ
B= (−kb MT + EI2· kb kn ) + EI2 · kn b −  sin2 α 2  d(12)
sin  d d  d d  ds kb ds1  d 
ds  
kn = 2  −  2   2 2 !
+ cos  + 1 (13
dφ d2 αds ds  1 dα  kb  ds
dφ   ds
2
sin αkb dαdds
2 φ ds
  (13)
kn = 2 − + cos α 2 +1
kb ds ds2 ds ds2 kb ds ds
𝜙: azimuth, rad; 𝑘n : borehole torsion, rad/m.
φ: azimuth, rad; kn : borehole torsion, rad/m.
Real-Time
Real-Time Inversion
Inversion of Friction
of Friction Coefficient;
Coefficient
Taking
Taking thethe above
above fourfour basic
basic parameters
parameters into
into the the torque
torque and
and drag drag the
model, model, the real-tim
real-time
inversion of friction coefficient can be realized by dichotomy, as shown in Figure 4. The 4. Th
inversion of friction coefficient can be realized by dichotomy, as shown in Figure
inversionresult
inversion resultof of friction
friction coefficient
coefficient is shown
is shown in Section
in Section 3.3. 3.3.

Figure4.4.Flow
Figure Flow chart
chart of real
of real timetime inversion
inversion for friction
for friction coefficient.
coefficient.
, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16
2, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5282 8 of 16

3.2. Intelligent Prediction of Stuck Pipe Probability Based on LSTM
3.2. Intelligent
3.2.1. Prediction
Establishment of Stuck
of Stuck Pipe Probability Based on LSTM
Sample
3.2.1.Firstly, it is 3.2.
Establishment Intelligent
of Stuck
necessary toPrediction
Sampleof Stuck
determine thePipe Probability
stuck date andBasedtime
on LSTM
according to the mudlog
3.2.1. Establishment of Stuck Sample
data report,
Firstly,and
it isthen mark to
necessary thedetermine
normal sample anddate
the stuck the stuck sample.
and time according to the mudlog
Firstly, it is necessary to determine the stuck date and time according to the mudlog
dataFigure
report,5and
shows then
data
the changes
mark
report, and the inmark
hookthe
normal
then
tension
sample and
normaland
torque
the
sample stuck
and
throughout
the sample.
stuck sample.
the day on 2 May
It canFigure
be seen5 that the
showsFiguretime of
the changes stuck
5 shows the pipe
in hook is
changes around
tension 20:48:08
in hookand torque
tension from the
throughout
and torque figure.
the the
throughout dayday
onon
2 May
2 May
It can be seen that the time of stuck pipe is around 20:48:08 from the figure.
It can be seen that the time of stuck pipe is around 20:48:08 from the figure.

Figure 5. Hook tension and torque changes in the whole day on 2 May.
Figure 5. Hook tension and
Figure 5. torque
Hook changes
tension in the
and torque whole
changes day
in the on 2day
whole May.
on 2 May.
As shown in Figure 6, it is the change of hook tension and torque from 20:11:28 to
21:21:28. As shown in Figure 6, it
Duringin20:50:28–20:51:28, is the change of hook tension and torque from19.6
20:11:28 to
As shown Figure 6, it is thethe torque
change of suddenly
hook tensionincreases from
and torque 14.2
fromto20:11:28 kN,to
21:21:28. During 20:50:28–20:51:28, the torque suddenly increases from 14.2 to 19.6 kN,
which is consistent
21:21:28. Duringwhichwith the mudlog data
20:50:28–20:51:28, report.
themudlog
is consistent with the torque Therefore,
suddenly
data
the accurate
increases
report. Therefore, thefrom
time of stuck
14.2
accurate timetoof19.6
pipe
stuckkN,
pipe
can be determined
which is consistent as 20:51:28.
with
can be the mudlog
determined data report. Therefore, the accurate time of stuck pipe
as 20:51:28.
can be determined as 20:51:28.

Figure 6. Hook tension

Figureand torque
6. Hook changes
tension from
and torque 20:11:28
changes fromto20:11:28
21:21:28.
to 21:21:28.
Figure 6. Hook tension and torque changes from 20:11:28 to 21:21:28.
The stuck pipe is a sudden accident, that is, the time from the beginning of the stuck
pipe to
Thethestuck
complete
pipe isstuck pipe is
a sudden very short,
accident, that and sufficient
is, the time
time from thecannot be left
beginning of to
theadjust
stuck
the drilling
pipe to the parameters in time
complete stuck pipetoisavoid
very the stuck
short, andpipe. Therefore,
sufficient time it is necessary
cannot to adjust
be left to mark
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5282 9 of 16

The stuck pipe is a sudden accident, that is, the time from the beginning of the stuck
pipe to the complete stuck pipe is very short, and sufficient time cannot be left to adjust
the drilling parameters in time to avoid the stuck pipe. Therefore, it is necessary to mark
the period before the stuck pipe as stuck pipe samples in order to achieve the purpose of
forecasting in advance. The data of 20:28:28–20:50:28 are labeled as stuck pipe samples, and
20:11:28–20:27:28 are labeled as normal samples.

3.2.2. Selection of Characteristic Parameters for Stuck Pipe

Based on the mudlog data and the analysis of the factors affecting the stuck, we use
15 parameters: bit depth, hook tension, stand pipe pressure, torque, weight on bit, rpm,
total pump stroke, inlet/outlet temperature, Inlet/outlet conductance, inlet/outlet density,
inlet/outlet flow.

3.2.3. Training, Testing and Optimization of Intelligent Prediction Model for Stuck Pipe
Generally, the optimal hyper-parameter combination is obtained through trial and
error. We optimize the following parameters: time-stepping of the input data, the learning
rate, the number of LSTM network layers, the number of LSTM neurons, and the activation
function. In order to reduce the number of tests, the orthogonal test method (L18.3.5) is
used to set the test plan [28].
The FAR (false alarm rate), MAR (missed alarm rate) and F1 are used to evaluate and
optimize the model. The evaluation indexes of classification problems are shown in Table 2,
The relevant calculation formulas are as follows.
TP + TN
Precison = (14)
TP + FP
FAR = 1 − Precison (15)
TP
Recall = (16)
TP + FN
MAR = 1 − Recall (17)
2 × Precison × Recall
F1 = (18)
Precison + Recall

Table 2. Evaluation indexes of classification problem.

Forecast Category
Real Category
Positive (Stuck) Negative (Non Stuck)
Positive (Stuck) True Positive False Negative
Negative (Non stuck) False Positive True Negative

We combine FAR, MAR, F1 and model complexity to optimize the model. The evalua-
tion indicators of each model are shown in Figure 7.
F1 has been widely employed in information retrieval which can well evaluate the
advantages and disadvantages of the classification model [29]. Therefore, our criterion
for model selection is to select a model with low complexity when F1 are not significantly
different. The larger the F1, the better the model. As shown in Figure 7a, the first, second,
fourth, seventh, ninth, tenth, thirteenth, fifteenth and seventeenth models have higher F1,
and the values are close to each other. Considering there are not many training samples, in
order to prevent over fitting and improve the generalization ability of the model, as shown
in Figure 7b, the first and the seventeenth model with lower complexity are selected.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5282 10 of 16

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 7. Different
Figure 7. Differentevaluation
evaluationindexes of classification
indexes of classificationmodel.
model.(a)(a)
F1 F1 of each
of each model;
model; (b) Complexity
(b) Complexity
of each model; (c) FAR of each model; (d) MAR of each
of each model; (c) FAR of each model; (d) MAR of each model.model.

F1In thebeen
has process of drilling,
widely we pay
employed inmore attention retrieval
information to the MAR, that is,
which canwewell
can accept
evaluate a the
certain FAR,
advantages andbut cannot accept of
disadvantages thethe
MAR (all stuck can
classification be predicted,
model but someour
[29]. Therefore, non-stuck
criterion for
may be predicted as stuck). Therefore, when using the FAR and the
model selection is to select a model with low complexity when F1 are not significantly MAR to optimize the
model, the model with the lower MAR should be selected. As shown in Figure 7d, the first
different. The larger the F1, the better the model. As shown in Figure 7a, the first, second,
model with smaller MAR is selected as the best model.
fourth, The
seventh, ninth,results
prediction tenth,of thirteenth, fifteenth
the best model are and
shown seventeenth models
in Section 3.3. The have higher F1,
prediction
andresult
the values
is givenare close pipe
by stuck to each other. Considering
probability, and when thethere are not
probability is many
greatertraining
than 0.4, samples,
it is
in order to prevent
considered as stuckover
pipe,fitting
otherwiseandit improve
is not. the generalization ability of the model, as
shown in Figure 7b, the first and the seventeenth model with lower complexity are se-
3.3. Comprehensive Evaluation Method of Stuck Pipe Based on Fuzzy Mathematics
lected.
In Through
the processthe analysis of Sections
of drilling, we pay3.1 andattention
more 3.2, two evaluation
to the MAR,indicators
that is,ofwe
stuck
canpipe
accept a
are finally obtained. One is the evaluation index based on the torque
certain FAR, but cannot accept the MAR (all stuck can be predicted, but some non-stuck and drag model, that
is, the friction coefficient, and the other is the evaluation index based on the data-driven
may be predicted as stuck). Therefore, when using the FAR and the MAR to optimize the
model, that is, the probability of stuck pipe.
model, Thethe model
above twowith the lower
indicators canMAR should
measure be selected.
the possibility As shown
of stuck pipe toinaFigure
certain 7d, the first
extent.
model with smaller
Considering MARare
that there is selected as the best
many fuzziness andmodel.
uncertainty in drilling process, fuzzy
The prediction results of the best model
mathematics theory is used to establish a comprehensive are shown in Section
evaluation 3.3.basis
on the Theof prediction
the two re-
sultsub-indices
is given by stuck pipe
to realize probability,
comprehensive and when
evaluation the probability
of stuck pipe. is greater than 0.4, it is
considered as stuck pipe, otherwise it is not.

3.3. Comprehensive Evaluation Method of Stuck Pipe Based on Fuzzy Mathematics

Through the analysis of Sections 3.1 and 3.2, two evaluation indicators of stuck pipe
are finally obtained. One is the evaluation index based on the torque and drag model, that
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5282 11 of 16

3.3.1. Establishment of Fuzzy Set for Stuck Pipe

The American scientist Zadeh [30] extended the value of the ordinary set charac-
teristic function from {0, 1} to [0, 1], thus creating the fuzzy set theory, and has the
following definition:
Let X be a space of points (objects), with a generic element of X denoted by x. Thus,
X = {x}, if there is a real-valued function µA , such that,

µA : X → [0, 1] (19)

Then A is a fuzzy set on X. In order to distinguish it from ordinary sets, the charac-
teristic function µA ( x ) is called a membership function. This function describes that the
element x in the X belongs to the set A to the degree µA ( x ).
Different values of membership function µA ( x ) correspond to different membership
degrees of x to set A.
When µA ( x ) = 0, x does not belong to A at all; When µA ( x )= 1, x belongs to A
completely; When 0 < µA ( x ) < 1, x belongs to A to the extent of µA ( x ).
Based on the above fuzzy mathematics theory, the following fuzzy set of stuck pipe,
S, can be established. The fuzzy set S indicates that “stuck pipe may occur”, Suppose
that the membership degree of each element in the P = { P1 , P2 , · · · , Pn } to the fuzzy set
S is µs ( P1 ), µs ( P2 ), · · · , µs ( Pn ), then the stuck pipe fuzzy set S can be expressed in the
following form:
S = (µs ( P1 ), µs ( P2 ), · · · , µs ( Pn )) (20)
P1 , P2 , · · · , Pn are the various evaluation indexes of stuck pipe. Two evaluation indexes
were used, friction coefficient and probability of stuck pipe. µS ( x ) is the membership
function of stuck pipe, and the final fuzzy set S can be simplified into the following form,

S = (µs ( P1 ), µs ( P2 )) (21)

3.3.2. Determination of Membership Function

For the stuck pipe fuzzy set, it is necessary to give the degree of membership of each
stuck evaluation index to the fuzzy set S. Therefore, when using fuzzy mathematics theory,
it is very important to find or design an appropriate membership function. The determi-
nation of membership function is subjective. Different people will give different results
for the same problem. Finally, the Sigmoid-type function is selected as the membership
function of the stuck pipe fuzzy set.
The range of the two sub-evaluation indexes in the { P1 , P2 } is between 0 and 1. Theo-
retically, when the two sub indexes are both small (between 0 and 0.5), it means that the
final possibility of stuck pipe is very small at this time, that is, the possibility of stuck pipe
obtained by the comprehensive evaluation index is also very small. However, when either
of the two indexes is larger (0.5–1), it indicates that the possibility of stuck pipe is greater,
that is, the probability of stuck pipe obtained by comprehensive evaluation index is greater.
As shown in Figure 8, it can be found that the sigmoid function can simulate a similar
situation, that is, when x is between 0 and 0.5, it can be simply considered that y increases
linearly with x, when x is between 0.5 and 1, y increases exponentially with x. When there
is basically no stuck pipe risk, the comprehensive evaluation index value for stuck pipe
will be small. When there is a certain stuck pipe risk, the sigmoid function will further
expand the possibility, that is, the comprehensive evaluation index will be larger.
 further expand the possibility, that is, the comprehensive evaluation index will be
similar situation, that is, when x is between 0 and 0.5, it can be simply considered
increases linearly with x, when x is between 0.5 and 1, y increases exponentially
When there is basically no stuck pipe risk, the comprehensive evaluation index va
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5282 12 of 16 functi
stuck pipe will be small. When there is a certain stuck pipe risk, the sigmoid
further expand the possibility, that is, the comprehensive evaluation index will be

Figure 8. Function curve in sigmoid form.

3.3.3. Establishment of Comprehensive Evaluation Index for Stuck Pipe

After determining the membership function of the fuzzy set, a comprehensiv
of stuck pipe can be constructed. The fuzzy set S is expressed as,
Figure 8.8.Function
Figure Functioncurve in sigmoid
curve form. form.
in sigmoid
S = sIndex
3.3.3. Establishment of Comprehensive Evaluation ( s Stuck
( P1 ),for ( P2 ) Pipe )
3.3.3.After
Establishment of Comprehensive
determining the Evaluation
membership function of the fuzzyIndex for Stuck Pipeindex
set, a comprehensive
of stuck pipedetermining
After can be constructed.
the membership = ( )
 xis expressed
The fuzzy set Sfunction of1 as,
the fuzzy set, a comprehensiv
))1 + e−expressed
6( x −1)
S
of stuck pipe can be constructed.
S = (The
µ ( Pfuzzy
), µ ( P set S is as, (22)
s 1 s 2

The value range of the two indexes

µS ( x ) =
S= 1 s𝑃 (
(1P1and )
), s (𝑃P22 )after the membership
(23)
funct
between 0 and 0.5, so the two elements 1+ein
− 6 (the
x − 1 ) stuck pipe fuzzy set can be simply
added as the final comprehensive evaluation index,1 membership function are
( )
The value range of the two indexes P1 and P2 after the
S stuck
between 0 and 0.5, so the two elements in the x =pipe fuzzy
−6( x −set
1) can be simply linearly
= S 1P+
Pstuckindex,
added as the final comprehensive evaluation 1 +
e  ( )
S P2 ( )
The value range of theP two=indexes
As shown in Figure 9, the stuckblue ( P1 ) + µ𝑃S1represents
µSsurface ( Pand
2)
𝑃2 after the membership
the surface composed (24) funct
of v
between 0 and 0.5, so the two elements in the stuck pipe fuzzy set can be simply l
evaluation
As as
shownindex 1 (friction
in Figure coefficient,),
9, the blue surface evaluation
represents index
the surface 2 (probability
composed ofofstuck pi
of values
added the final comprehensive evaluation index,
comprehensive
evaluation index 1 index.
(frictionThe red plane
coefficient,), represents
evaluation index the threshold
2 (probability of value of the
stuck pipe) andcompre
comprehensive
evaluation index.
evaluation index.
P = P + P
index. The red plane represents
stuck
the
S ( 1)
threshold value
S ( 2)
of the comprehensive

As shown in Figure 9, the blue surface represents the surface composed of va

evaluation index 1 (friction coefficient,), evaluation index 2 (probability of stuck pip
comprehensive index. The red plane represents the threshold value of the compreh
evaluation index.

Figure 9. Schematic diagram of comprehensive evaluation index surface and threshold plane.
Figure 9. Schematic diagram of comprehensive evaluation index surface and threshold pla
In order to reduce the rate of missing alarm, the threshold value of comprehensive
In order
evaluation indextoofreduce
stuck pipe theisrate
set toof0.4,
missing alarm,
that is, when thethe threshold value
comprehensive of compre
evaluation
index is less than
evaluation index 0.4,ofit stuck
is considered
pipe isthatsetthere is basically
to 0.4, that is, no risk of
when thestuck pipe. The
comprehensive eva
smaller the index is, the smaller the probability of stuck pipe is. When the comprehensive

Figure 9. Schematic diagram of comprehensive evaluation index surface and threshold plan

In order to reduce the rate of missing alarm, the threshold value of compreh
evaluation index of stuck pipe is set to 0.4, that is, when the comprehensive eva
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 16

index is less than 0.4, it is considered that there is basically no risk of stuck pipe. The
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5282 index
smalleristhe
lessindex
thanis,0.4,
theitsmaller
is considered that there
the probability is basically
of stuck pipe is.noWhenrisk the
of stuck pipe. The
comprehensive
13 of 16
smaller the index is
evaluation is,greater
the smaller
thanthe
0.4,probability of stuck
it is considered thatpipe
thereis.isWhen
a riskthe
of comprehensive
stuck pipe. The
evaluation index is greater than 0.4, it is
larger the index is, the greater the probability is.considered that there is a risk of stuck pipe. The
larger the index
evaluation indexisis,greater
the greater theitprobability
than 0.4, is considered is.that there is a risk of stuck pipe. The
4. Results and Discussion
larger the index is, the greater the probability is.
4. Results and Discussion
The paper analyzes the stuck pipe case of well A in Tarim Oilfield, China. The stuck
4. Results and Discussion
pipe The paperatanalyzes
occurred 6110.58 the stuck various
m. After pipe case of well
rescue A in Tarim
measures, the Oilfield,
accident China.
was not The stuck
success
The paper analyzes the stuck pipe case of well A in Tarim Oilfield, China. The stuck
pipe
fully occurred
resolved,atso6110.58
it was m. Afterdecided
finally varioustorescue measures,
sidetrack again. the accident
It took aboutwas not success-
3 months from
pipe occurred at 6110.58 m. After various rescue measures, the accident was not successfully
fully
the resolved, so
occurrence of it
thewas finally
stuck pipe decided
to the to sidetrack of
continuation again. It took
drilling, about
which 3 months
seriously from
affected
resolved, so it was finally decided to sidetrack again. It took about 3 months from the
the occurrence theof the pipe
drillingofefficiency.
occurrence stuck stucktopipe to the continuation
the continuation of drilling,ofwhich
drilling, whichaffected
seriously seriouslythe affected
the drilling
Figure efficiency.
10
drilling efficiency.shows the stuck pipe index 1 (friction coefficient), which is calculated by
Figure1010
the real-time
Figure shows thethe
inversion
shows stuck
pipe pipe
method
stuck index
of friction
index 1coefficient
1 (friction(friction coefficient),
established
coefficient), which is by
in Section
which is calculated calculated
the and by
3.1, it
the
changereal-time
real-time inversion
inversion
can methodmethod
characterize stuckofpipe
of friction
the friction
trendcoefficient
coefficient established
to a certain established
Section 3.1,in
in extent. Section
and 3.1, and its
its change
can characterize
change the stuck pipe
can characterize trend to
the stuck a certain
pipe trendextent.
to a certain extent.

Figure 10. Variation trend of friction coefficient.

Figure 10.Variation
Figure10. Variationtrend of friction
trend coefficient.
of friction coefficient.
Figure 11 shows the stuck pipe index 2 (stuck pipe probability), which is obtained
Figure 11 shows the stuck pipe index 2 (stuck pipe probability), which is obtained from
from
the Figure 11 showsprediction
the intelligent
intelligent prediction the stuck
model pipe pipe
of model
stuck index 2 (stuck
of stuck pipe pipe
probability probability),
probability
based which
on the isLSTM
based network
on the LSTM inobtained
net
from
work the
in intelligent
Section 3.2, prediction
which can model
provide of stuck
early pipe
warning probability
of stuck based
pipe
Section 3.2, which can provide early warning of stuck pipe through the changes of mudlog on
through the LSTM
the net-
changes
work
data. in Section
of mudlog
The reddata. 3.2,
straightThe which
red
line can provide
straight
indicates the line earlyresult
warning
indicates
predicted the of (stuck/non
stuck result
predicted
of stuck pipestucking).
through the
of stuckBlue changes
(stuck/non
of mudlog
stucking).
scatter data.the
Blue
indicates The
scatter red straight
indicates
probability theline
of stuck indicates
probability
pipe. ofthe
The blue predicted
stuck pipe.
straight result
The
line blueofstraight
representsstuck (stuck/non
line repre
the real
sample
stucking).
sents theof the
realsite
Blue (0: no of
scatter
sample stuck,
the 1:
indicates stuck).
site theno
(0: probability of stuck pipe. The blue straight line repre
stuck, 1: stuck).
sents the real sample of the site (0: no stuck, 1: stuck).

Figure11.
Figure 11.Intelligent
Intelligent prediction
prediction of stuck
of stuck pipe pipe probability.
probability.
Figure 11. Intelligent prediction of stuck pipe probability.
Figure 12 shows the comprehensive prediction of stuck pipe by using the comprehen-
Figure 12 shows the comprehensive prediction of stuck pipe by using the compre
sive evaluation index established in Section 3.3.
Figure
hensive 12 shows
evaluation the established
index comprehensive prediction
in Section 3.3. of stuck pipe by using the compre
hensive evaluation index established in Section 3.3.
Appl. Sci.Sci.
Appl. 2022,
2022,12,
12,x5282
FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 16 14 of 1

Figure12.
Figure 12.Prediction
Prediction of stuck
of stuck by comprehensive
by comprehensive evaluation
evaluation index. index.

As
Asshown
shown in Figure
in Figure10, it10,
is found that thethat
it is found friction
thecoefficient increases gradually
friction coefficient increases fromgradually
6000 m to 6110 m. The friction coefficient increases sharply from 0.35 to 0.75 around 6110 m,
from 6000 m to 6110 m. The friction coefficient increases sharply from 0.35 to 0.75 around
which indicates the risk of stuck pipe. However, Real-time inversion of friction coefficient
6110 m, which indicates the risk of stuck pipe. However, Real-time inversion of friction
can only achieve qualitative evaluation, and it is difficult to accurately predict stuck pipe.
coefficient
It can becan seenonly
fromachieve
Figure qualitative evaluation,
11 that the evaluation and it
indexes is difficult
predicted to accurately
by the intelligent predic
stuck pipe.
prediction model are: FAR: 0.3, MAR: 0, F1: 0.82. It can be found that although the MAR
It can
is 0, the FARbe is seen fromhigh,
relatively Figure 11 that
reaching the Although
30%. evaluation indexes
a certain FARpredicted
is allowed byfor
thethe
intelligen
prediction model are: FAR: 0.3, MAR: 0, F1: 0.82. It can be found that although athe MAR
prediction of stuck pipe, the FAR is too high, which will affect the drilling efficiency to
certain
is 0, the extent.
FAR is relatively high, reaching 30%. Although a certain FAR is allowed for the
predictionbeofseen
It can stuck from Figure
pipe, the FAR12 thatis the
too comprehensive
high, which will evaluation
affect theindexes
drillingforefficiency
stuck to a
pipe are: FAR: 0.01, MAR: 0.04, F1: 0.98. Compared with the intelligent prediction model,
certain extent.
the FAR is lower, only 1%. However, there is a certain MAR, which is 4%. Although for
It can be seen from Figure 12 that the comprehensive evaluation indexes for stuck
the prediction of stuck pipe, the existence of MAR will cause a certain risk to the site, this
paperare:
pipe FAR: 0.01,
has marked some MAR:
normal 0.04, F1: 0.98.
samples Compared
as stuck samples with
when thedividing
intelligent
stuckprediction
samples, model
the itFAR
and can isbe lower,
found fromonlythe1%.figure
However,
that thethere is a certain
4% missed MAR,
alarm rate which
is only is 4%. Although
the samples that fo
the prediction of stuck pipe, the existence of MAR will cause
is artificially marked as stuck samples are missed, and the real stuck samples have not a certain risk to the site, this
paper
been has marked some normal samples as stuck samples when dividing stuck samples
missed.
and As shown
it can in Tablefrom
be found 3, thethe
three prediction
figure methods
that the are compared
4% missed and analyzed.
alarm rate is only the First of
samples tha
all, trend analysis method of friction coefficient has a long history. In
is artificially marked as stuck samples are missed, and the real stuck samples have no this paper, the neural
network model is introduced to realize the real-time calculation of the WOB and TOB,
been missed.
and further realize the real-time monitoring and trend analysis of the friction coefficient
As shown in Table 3, the three prediction methods are compared and analyzed. Firs
during drilling, but it is still qualitative analysis, and it is difficult to give the accurate
of all, trendindex.
quantitative analysis method of friction coefficient has a long history. In this paper, the
neural network model is introduced to realize the real-time calculation of the WOB and
TOB,3.and
Table furtherofrealize
Comparison the real-time
three prediction monitoring
methods of stuck pipe.and trend analysis of the friction coef
ficient during drilling, but it is still qualitative analysis, and it is difficult to give the accu
Method FAR MAR F1
rate quantitative index.
Qualitative Friction coefficient / / /
Intelligent prediction 0.3 0.0 0.82
Table 3. Comparison of three prediction methods of stuck pipe.
Quantitative
Comprehensive evaluation 0.01 0.04 0.98
Method FAR MAR F1
Qualitative
The intelligent prediction Friction
of stuckcoefficient /
pipe based on LSTM network / accurate /
can give
quantitative index of stuck pipe. However,
Intelligent through the analysis
prediction 0.3of FAR, MAR and F1, it is 0.82
0.0
Quantitative
found that the prediction of stuck pipe based on
Comprehensive evaluation data-driven method
0.01 has a
0.04 FAR of 0.98
high
30%, which will have a certain impact on the site.
The
Thecomprehensive evaluation
intelligent prediction ofindex
stuckfor stuck
pipe pipeon
based is obtained by combining
LSTM network two accurate
can give
stuck sub-indexes through fuzzy mathematics. It realizes the prediction of stuck pipe based
quantitative index of stuck pipe. However, through the analysis of FAR, MAR and F1, i
on data-driven and knowledge-driven model. Through the analysis of evaluation indexes
is found that the prediction of stuck pipe based on data-driven method has a high FAR o
30%, which will have a certain impact on the site.
The comprehensive evaluation index for stuck pipe is obtained by combining two
stuck sub-indexes through fuzzy mathematics. It realizes the prediction of stuck pipe
based on data-driven and knowledge-driven model. Through the analysis of evaluation
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5282 15 of 16

such as FAR, MAR, and F1, it is found that although the MAR is 4% (the missing is only the
artificially marked stuck sample, not the real stuck sample), the FAR is only 1%, compared
with the FAR obtained by intelligent method, the FAR is reduced by 96%, which greatly
reduces the false alarm of stuck pipe.

5. Conclusions
The prediction of stuck pipe is very challenging due to the hybrid nature of the drilling
process (which consists of different activities), the variability of geological conditions, the
combined occurrence of adverse events etc.
Three prediction methods of stuck pipe are established. In the first method, the neural
network technology is used to calculate WOB and TOB in real-time. Combined with the
torque and drag model, the real-time inversion of the friction coefficient is realized. The
analysis method of stuck pipe trend based on the friction coefficient is finally established.
In the second method, intelligent prediction of stuck pipe probability is realized by using
mudlog data and LSTM network. Finally, a comprehensive prediction model is established,
which combines knowledge-driven model (the first method) with data-driven model (the
second method) using fuzzy mathematics theory.
For future work, we plan to look for more stuck pipe samples. On the one hand, we
can increase the stability and generalization ability of the intelligent prediction model. On
the other hand, we will use more samples to determine a reasonable threshold of stuck
pipe instead of setting thresholds artificially.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, X.S. and S.Z.; methodology, S.Z., X.S. and Z.Z.; software,
X.Y. and M.L.; validation, S.Z.; formal analysis, S.Z. and X.S.; investigation, S.Z. and Z.Z.; resources,
M.L.; data curation, S.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, S.Z. and Z.Z.; writing—review and
editing, S.Z. and X.S.; supervision, X.S.; funding acquisition, X.S. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by National Key Research and Development Program of China
(funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China, No. 2019YFA0708300), the Strategic Coop-
eration Technology Projects of CNPC and CUPB (funded by China National Petroleum Corporation,
No. ZLZX2020-03), the National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars (funded by National
Natural Science Foundation of China, No. 52125401) and Science Foundation of China University of
Petroleum, Beijing (funded by China University of petroleum, Beijing, No. 2462022SZBH002).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data are not publicly available due to involve the information of
Chinese oil fields and need to be kept confidential.
Acknowledgments: The authors want to thank the National Natural Science Foundation of China
and the CNPC for the financial support.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Wu, S.N.; Chen, M.Y.; Fan, J.C.; Zhang, L.B.; Yang, X.Q.; Feng, H.Z. Statistical analysis of lost time events in drilling and
completion of HTHP wells in South China Sea, Safety production science and technology in China. J. Saf. Sci. Technol. 2020,
16, 14–20.
2. Lesage, M.; Falconer, I.G.; Wick, C.J. Evaluating Drilling Practice in Deviated Wells with Torque and Weight Data. SPE Drill. Eng.
1988, 3, 248–252. [CrossRef]
3. Brett, J.F.; Beckett, A.D.; Holt, C.A.; Smith, D.L. Uses and Limitations of Drillstring Tension and Torque Models for Monitoring
Hole Conditions. SPE Drill. Eng. 1989, 4, 223–229. [CrossRef]
4. Annis, M.R.; Monaghan, P.H. Differential Pressure Stuck pipe-Laboratory Studies of Friction Between Steel and Mud Filter Cake.
J. Pet. Technol. 1962, 14, 537–543. [CrossRef]
5. Shahbazi, K.; Meschi, M.; Shahri, E. A New Criteria to Predict Stuck Pipe Occurrence. In Proceedings of the North Africa Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Cairo, Egypt, 14–17 February 2010.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5282 16 of 16

6. Dunbar, M.E.; Warren, T.M.; Kadaster, A.G. Bit Stuck pipe Caused by Borehole Deformation. SPE Drill. Eng. 1986, 1, 417–425.
[CrossRef]
7. Hempkins, W.B.; Kingsborough, R.H.; Lohec, W.E.; Nini, C.J. Multivariate Statistical Analysis of Stuck Drillpipe Situations. SPE
Drill. Eng. 1987, 2, 237–244. [CrossRef]
8. Murillo, A.; Neuman, J.; Samuel, R. Pipe stuck pipe prediction and avoidance using adaptive fuzzy logic and neural network
modeling. In Proceedings of the SPE Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, USA, 4–8 April 2009;
pp. 244–258.
9. Shoraka, S.; Shadizadeh, S.R.; Shahri, M.P. Prediction of Stuck Pipe in Iranian South Oil Fields Using Multivariate Statistical
Analysis. In Proceedings of the Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition, Abuja, Nigeria, 30 July–3 August 2011.
10. Biegler, M.W.; Kuhn, G.R. Advances in Prediction of Stuck Pipe Using Multivariate Statistical Analysis. In Proceedings of the
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, TX, USA, 15–18 February 1994.
11. Sasannejad, A.; Shahbazi, K. A New Approach for Estimating Free Point in Fishing of Stuck Pipe using Artificial Neural Network.
Int. J. Comput. Appl. 2013, 82, 53–57. [CrossRef]
12. Nezhad, M.M.; Ashoori, S.; Hooshmand, P.; Mirzaee, M. Stuck Drill Pipe Prediction with Networks Neural in Maroon Field. J.
Basic Appl. Sci. Res. 2012, 6, 5570–5575.
13. Siruvuri, C.; Nagarakanti, S.; Samuel, R. Stuck Pipe Prediction and Avoidance: A Convolutional Neural Network Approach,
Stuck Pipe Prediction and Avoidance: A Convolutional Neural Network Approach. In Proceedings of the IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, Miami, FL, USA, 21–23 February 2006.
14. Naraghi, M.E.; Ezzatyar, P.; Jamshidi, S. Adaptive Neuro Fuzzy Inference System and Artificial Neural Networks: Reliable
approaches for pipe stuck prediction. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2013, 7, 604–618.
15. Heinze, L.; Al-Baiyat, I.A. Implementing Artificial Neural Networks and Support Vector Machines in Stuck Pipe Prediction. In
Proceedings of the SPE Kuwait International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition, Kuwait City, Kuwait, 10–12 December 2012.
16. Naraghi, M.E.; Ezzatyar, P.; Jamshidi, S. Prediction of drilling pipe stuck pipe by active learning method (ALM). J. Pet. Gas Eng.
2013, 4, 173–183. [CrossRef]
17. Salminen, K.; Cheatham, C.; Smith, M.; Valiulin, K. Stuck Pipe Prediction Using Automated Real-Time Modeling and Data
Analysis. SPE Drill. Complet. 2017, 32, 184–193. [CrossRef]
18. Shahbazi, K.; Shahri, M.P. The Development of a Window for Stuck Pipe Prediction. Pet. Sci. Technol. 2012, 30, 176–192. [CrossRef]
19. Shan, Z.G.; Shao, W.G.; Chen, J.T. Application of artificial neural network in real time prediction of stuck pipe. Geol. Explor. 2000,
36, 10–12.
20. Yu, R.Q. Research on prediction technology of stuck pipe accident. Pet. Drill. Tech. 1996, 24, 15–17.
21. Liu, J.M.; Li, Y.M.; Zhang, T.; Song, J.M. Research on PCA-RF-Based Stuck Pipe Prediction Method. Available online:
https://scjg.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?filename=BJGY202101004&dbcode=CJFQ&dbname=CJFD2021&v=MTY2
NTJUZzJYMmhzeEZyQ1VSN3VlWnVacUZ5dmxWTC9BSnlmTWQ3RzRITkRNcm85RllJUitDMzg0emg0WG5EMEw= (accessed
on 1 May 2022).
22. Brankovic, A.; Matteucci, M.; Restelli, M.; Ferrarini, L.; Piroddi, L.; Spelta, A.; Zausa, F. Data-driven indicators for the detection
and prediction of stuck-pipe events in oil&gas drilling operations. Upstream Oil Gas Technol. 2021, 7, 100043. [CrossRef]
23. Song, X.Z.; Zhu, S.; Li, G.S.; Zeng, Y.J.; Guo, H.J.; Hu, Z.J. Prediction of hook tension and torque based on bp-lstm dual input
network. J. China Univ. Pet. (Ed. Nat. Sci.) 2022, 46, 76–84.
24. Rumelhart, D.; Hinton, G.E.; Williams, R.J. Learning Representations by Back Propagating Errors. Nature 1986, 323, 533–536.
[CrossRef]
25. Hochreiter, S.; Schmidhuber, J. Long short-term memory. Neural Comput. 1997, 9, 1735–1780. [CrossRef]
26. Johancsik, C.A.; Friesen, D.B.; Dawson, R. Torque and Drag in Directional Wells-Prediction and Measurement. J. Pet. Technol.
1984, 36, 987–992. [CrossRef]
27. Ho, H.-S. An Improved Modeling Program for Computing the Torque and Drag in Directional and Deep Wells. In Proceedings of
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, USA, 2–5 October 1988.
28. Li, L.; Huang, B.; Zhang, G.; Wang, D.; Dai, M.; Yang, Z.; Wang, C. Optimization of Ammonium Sulfate Crystals Based on
Orthogonal Design. J. Cryst. Growth 2021, 570, 126217. [CrossRef]
29. Baeza-Yates, R.; Ribeiro-Neto, B. Modern Information Retrieval; ACM Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999.
30. Zadeh, L.A. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control. 1965, 8, 338–353. [CrossRef]