Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 210 (2022) 109904

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol

Downhole data correction for data-driven rate of penetration prediction

modeling
Mauro A. Encinas, Andrzej T. Tunkiel, Dan Sui ∗
Department of Energy and Petroleum Engineering, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Stavanger, 4036 Stavanger, Postboks, 8600 12 Forus, Norway

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In recent years, machine learning has been adopted in the Oil and Gas industry as a promising technology for
Drilling solutions to the most demanding problems like downhole parameters estimations and incidents detection. A
Machine learning big amount of available data makes this technology an attractive option for solving a wide variety of drilling
Rate of penetration
problems, as well as a reliable candidate for performing big-data analysis and interpretation. Nevertheless,
Drilling data quality improvement
this approach may cause, in some cases, that petroleum engineering concepts are disregarded in favor of more
Recurrent neural networks
data-intensive approaches. This study aims to evaluate the impact of drilling data measurement correction on
data-driven model performance. In our study, besides using the standard data processing technologies, like
gap filling, outlier removal, noise reduction etc., the physics-based drilling models are also implemented for
data quality improvement and data correction in consideration of the measurement physics, rarely mentioned
in most of publications. In our case study, recurrent neural networks (RNN) that are able to capture temporal
natures of a signal are employed for the rate of penetration (ROP) estimation with an adjustable predictive
window. The results show that the RNN model produces the best results when using the drilling data recovered
through analytical methods. Moreover, the comprehensive data-driven model evaluation and engineering
interpretation are conducted to facilitate better understanding of the data-driven models and their applications.

1. Introduction
1.1. Background
Having an accurate method for the rate of penetration (ROP) pre-
diction has been the one of the objectives of the drilling engineering
industry since the 1950s. However, this problem has been proven to be
more complex than initially anticipated as there is no obvious relation
between a single drilling parameter and the target ROP value. Different
variables, e.g. weight on bit (WOB), rotary speed (RPM), standpipe
pressure (SPP), formation/bit properties, interact in ways such that it is
difficult to formulate an accurate and dynamic mathematical expression
to predict the ROP dynamics or estimate a good value close to the
ground truth. The complexity of the parameters’ relationships involved
in the ROP models makes the use of machine learning (ML) technology
appealing (Barbosa et al., 2019a).
There are a number of ML methods to formulate a regression prob-
lem, like Random Forest (RF) (Breiman, 2001), Gradient Boosting Ma-
chines (GBM) (Friedman, 2001), K-nearest Neighbors (KNN) (Altman,
1992), Support Vector Machine (SVM) (Christiani and Shawe-Taylor,
2000). In Ahmed et al. (2019), Eskandarian et al. (2016), Hegde et al.
(2017), Soares and Gray (2020) and Barbosa et al. (2019b), different
authors have presented machine learning approaches (KNN, GBM, RF,
SVM etc.) for data-driven rate of penetration modeling. For example,
in Han et al. (2018), the authors investigated the performance of the
RF model for ROP predictions and compared it with other ML archi-
tectures, like Artificial Neural Networks (ANN’s) (McCulloch and Pitts,
1943). It showed that the results using the RF were optimal, specially
considering the situation when limited data was available. Another ML
model that has been used for the ROP prediction is the mentioned
ANN’s, see Amer et al. (2017), Han et al. (2019) and Moran et al.
(2010). In general, there are good results for the ROP prediction using
the above-mentioned models with different ML structures, see Hegde
et al. (2019), Esmaeli et al. (2012), Tunkiel et al. (2021) and Soares
and Gray (2020).
Some of the most important challenges of data-driven modeling are
data issues like data availability, data generality, data quality, data
scaling, and data selection. Among them, the data quality issue is very
critical for model performances. Data problems due to sensors’ failure,
malfunction, miscalibration, user errors, sampling frequencies, time
delay, data corruptions and so on, are often encountered, as seen in the

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: andrzej.t.tunkiel@uis.no (A.T. Tunkiel), dan.sui@uis.no (D. Sui).
URL: https://github.com/mauro-encinas (M.A. Encinas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2021.109904
Received 5 July 2021; Received in revised form 9 November 2021; Accepted 22 November 2021
Available online 7 December 2021
0920-4105/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M.A. Encinas et al.
discussions in Geekiyanage et al. (2020). High data quality is desired
to provide valuable and useful information. Data processing techniques
like data filtering, cleansing, imputation, resampling, outlier removal
and data correction are the necessary steps to improve data quality, that
are always implemented in data preparation work. However, to the best
of the authors’ knowledge, there is limited research focused on how to
improve or correct the data with the help of measurement physics or
analytical methods. In some cases, like sensor failure or malfunction,
it would be beneficial to validate and correct wrong measurements
through the use of physics-based models.
1.2. Objectives and novelty
The main objective of this study is to develop a data-driven model
that is able to predict the ROP with a high degree of confidence.
The second objective is to show the importance of data correction on
increasing the accuracy of data-driven models, where the input data
quality is improved using not only standard signal processing methods,
but also the analytical physics-based models. The specific objectives
towards fulfilling this goal are:
• Identify the key parameters involved in the ROP prediction;
• Determine/correct downhole weight on bit (DWOB) from the
surface measurements based on physics-based models;
• Implement and evaluate the different ML models;
• Analyze and interpret ML models from data science and drilling
engineering perspectives respectively;
• Provide a benchmark data-set that provides the opportunity for
reproducible results.
The main innovation behind this paper is to show that feature
engineering can be a significant factor in prediction quality in relation
to the ROP prediction. We present a case study, where Hookload (HL)
and DWOB data, recovered through analytical methods, yields signifi-
cant improvements over a model utilizing only the raw available data,
where data is processed purely using standard data processing methods.
The case study illustrates how much improvement data reconciliation
can bring to the method utilizing branched ML model, expanding the
understanding of the method’s potential and sensitivity to data quality.
The work presented in this paper in terms of the model architecture
relies on the previously published work (Tunkiel et al., 2021), where
a two-branched model architecture utilizing recurrent elements was
introduced. This previous work focused on the inclination data only
and therefore the performance of the method for other applications
was unknown. The work presented here re-uses the ML architecture
to predict the ROP, a first attempt with the ROP prediction is based
on an ML model utilizing both Recurrent Neural Networks as well as
multilayer perceptron elements.
1.3. Methodologies and structures
Presented research is divided into 3 categories:
• (C1) Data preparation and correction;
• (C2) Data driven ROP modeling via Recurrent Neural Networks
(RNN) (Rumelhart et al., 1986);
• (C3) RNN model evaluation and interpretation.
(C1): The data cleaning process used in this study (like noise reduction,
outlier removal, gap filling) is conducted to remove outliers and correct
erratic measurements, see Section 2.1. This work also comprises the
data correction based on measurement physics to improve the accu-
racy of the measurements. For this purpose, a physics-based model is
implemented to correct the WOB measurements before feeding them to
ML models, see Section 2.2.
(C2): Recurrent Neural Networks, such as Long–Short-Term-Memory
(LSTM) (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997) access data sequentially,
2
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 210 (2022) 109904
that maintain the information from previous computations when pro-
cessing new information. Recently, a novel and accurate approach
(Tunkiel et al., 2021) was proposed to solve a depth-based series
problem using a multi branch structure that contains a multilayer
perceptron (MLP) (Jain et al., 1996) and a RNN to predict the well
inclination in the section between the downhole sensor and the drilling
bit. In our work, the RNN ROP model developed follows a similar model
structure and configuration as the one presented in Tunkiel et al. (2021)
with some changes, see Section 3.
(C3): The RNN model prediction abilities were evaluated and compared
with and without the data correction step, see Section 4. This was
done to verify if the ML models can significantly benefit from corrected
data, or the ML algorithms can overcome flawed inputs. Moreover, the
other evaluated consideration is the model prediction capability, see
Section 5.
2. Data preparation
As a general overview of drilling data, it is important to understand
the parameters’ physics. This helps us understand whether the behavior
of the data is appropriate or erratic. For instance, how to identify an
outlier from a data-set that could present some meaningful information,
or is outside of the previously shown pattern? The most of the common
drilling data issues are the presence of missing data, outliers, noisy
data, and faulty measurements. Each of these issues can be solved
in different ways. In this section, we first present some widely used
methods in signal processing domain to solve common data issues via
noise reduction, imputation, outlier removal and redundant measure-
ments. Considering the specifics of drilling data, especially the HL and
WOB, the analytical methods are employed here for such measurement
correction based on mathematical drilling models.
2.1. Signal processing methods
2.1.1. Data imputation
Most of data sets have missing information that could be repre-
sented as Not a Number (NaN) values in the set. There are two principal
ways of dealing with this situation, eliminating the row containing
such value or replacing it with an estimated value determined by
the behavior of the analyzed feature. The first case is used when the
available data set is large enough that the elimination of rows does not
affect the quality of the whole data set. When the row elimination is not
an option, filling of these empty cells (i.e. estimating the intermediate
values) can be done by using interpolation techniques (Hauser, 2009)
or regression methods, such as linear, quadratic, cubic and polynomial
interpolation. To decide which one to be used will depend on the
particular characteristics of data sets. For instance, it can be beneficial
to perform a check on each attribute’s first numerical derivative. If
the most of values of the first derivative are zero, then forward filling
(using last valid value forward) is selected as presumably the better
method. This will identify rarely changing values such as wellbore
diameter, which is more likely to change rapidly or discretely, where
linear interpolation would introduce unrealistic slopes to the data.
2.1.2. Data assimilation
Fig. 1 shows one encountered drilling data issue: the hookload
measurements below 2200 m did not follow the same incremental
tendency as the data above 2200 m. It is known that in wells that
are not horizontal, the weight of the string increases continuously with
depth because more pipes are added to the well, considering that we
analyzed a hole section that used the same drillstring to be drilled (see
Section 4.1.2). In the presented case, this pattern was not followed
by the hookload measurements, as it changes abruptly at 2200 m
measured depth. Therefore, as all the other features in the data set
contained valuable information, it was necessary to correct this faulty
measurement.
M.A. Encinas et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 210 (2022) 109904

2.1.4. Noise reduction

In the case of noisy data, some useful methods are different types of
low pass filters or high pass filters. In our case study, the most widely
used method, moving average filter is implemented to smooth data
signals and remove noises. It is simple, yet powerful tool used for data
filtering. The formula in discrete time domain is given below:

1 ∑
𝑁−1
𝑦(𝑡) = 𝑥(𝑡 − 𝑗),
𝑁 𝑗=0

where 𝑥 is the raw data, 𝑦 is the processed data after filtering, 𝑡 is the
time/depth coordinate and the index 𝑗 corresponds to the number of
convolution steps for a data point at time 𝑡, 𝑁 is the number of data
point span considered for the average taking. The moving average filter
is very practical for engineers since it does not require much frequency
analysis for cutoff frequency selection. However it might lead to time-
delay issues. In some cases when the quick reactions are needed, low
pass filter is an alternative to the moving average filter over a certain
frequency selected and the delay problem might be resolved, see more
discussions in Geekiyanage et al. (2020).

2.2. Engineering data correction

Fig. 1. Raw Hookload vs Depth.
In the following section, we will present the physics-based method-
ology used to correct the WOB data.
For this case, the data assimilation (DA) (Law et al., 2015; McLaugh-
lin, 2014) for measurement correction is useful as it works in situations 2.2.1. Hookload correction
where the DA mathematical discipline seeks to optimally combine the- The foundation for this physics-based calculations is the work pre-
sented in Hareland et al. (2014), as it shows the necessity of correcting
ory with observations /estimations. In data assimilation, the parameter
the HL measurements registered on the field. In Luke and Juvkam-Wold
is calibrated using statistical analysis. In Geekiyanage et al. (2018),
(1993), it presents that, due to the position of the sensor, a difference
it was shown that if there is a proven independence between the
between the true HL and the measured one exists. However their work
measurements or estimations, the calibrated calculation 𝑥̂ based on the
only considered the effect of sheaves as the possible source of such
two individual measurements/estimations 𝑥1 and 𝑥2 , is calculated as:
difference. In recent years more detailed studies on this matter were
𝑥̂ = 𝑎1 𝑥1 + 𝑎2 𝑥2 (1) published. For example, Cayeux et al. (2015) presented a more detailed
analysis of the source leading to this difference, where it analyzed the
where, effects such as the sheave angle, diameter, length and angle of the mud
hose, etc.
𝑎1 + 𝑎2 = 1, The first effect to be analyzed is the sheave effect. This correction
only applies if the measurement of the HL is done with a tension sensor
1∕𝜎12 1∕𝜎22 in the anchor of the deadline. Sheave effect is present as the source
𝑎1 = , 𝑎2 = . of the signal must pass through the block and tackle the arrangement
1∕𝜎12 + 1∕𝜎22 1∕𝜎12 + 1∕𝜎22
before it is measured, which causes a distortion in the measurement.
In the above equation, 𝜎1 is the standard deviation of the measurements Installing a sensor located close to the saver sub in the Top Drive has
𝑥1 and 𝜎2 is the one from 𝑥2 . More details regarding the implementation been discussed in Cayeux et al. (2015), Wu et al. (2017), as well as
of this methodology for the case study are given in Section 4.1.2. having load cell located in the hanging point of the Top Drive (Cayeux
et al., 2015). Eq. (5) presented in Hareland et al. (2014) represents the
impact of the sheaves on the measured weight:
2.1.3. Outlier removal
1 − 𝑒𝑛
An outlier is defined as an observation that deviates so much from HLa1 = 𝐹dl , (5)
1−𝑒
the other observations as to arouse suspicions, see Hawkins (1980).
where 𝑛 is the number of lines that pass through the traveling block,
There are several methods for outlier removal, like using median filter,
𝐹dl is the measured tension, 𝑒 is the individual sheave efficiency, and
mean filter or other methods based on density/distance information. HLa1 the corrected hook load considering sheave effect.
Among them, the Interquartile Range (IQR) method is often used. Eq. (5) is similar to the one presented in Luke and Juvkam-Wold
In Deep (2005), the IQR equation is given as: (1993) for the inactive dead-line sheave, and it is also applicable
to the second effect: static HL effect. In this case the weight of the
IQR = 𝑃75 − 𝑃25 (2)
traveling block needs to be corrected as this weight is also added to
where the measurement from the dead-line sensor. Eq. (6) is used to determine
this corrected load:
Lower Range = 𝑃25 − 1.5 ∗ IQR, (3) 1 − 𝑒𝑛
HLa2 = 𝐹tb , (6)
Upper Range = 𝑃75 + 1.5 ∗ IQR. (4) 1−𝑒
where 𝐹tb is the weight of the traveling block and HLa2 is the corrected
Eq. (2) presents the values that are accepted to pass this outlier removal traveling block load.
process. 𝑃75 represents the 75th percentile and 𝑃25 is the 25th per- The third correction to the HL measurement is the stand pipe
centile. Eqs. (3)–(4) define the lower and upper range for data removal pressure effect (Cayeux et al., 2015). It covers a broader range of
respectively. elements, not only the one present in the mud hose, but the weight

3
M.A. Encinas et al.
Fig. 2. Hookload Correction Diagram.
applied from hydraulic and electric lines. For this correction, Eq. (7)
in Hareland et al. (2014) is used:
HLa3 = 𝛼 ∗ SPP ∗ ID2 ,
where HLa3 is the load effect due to standpipe pressure, 𝛼 is the model
coefficient, SPP is the standpipe pressure and ID the inner diameter of
the mud hose. With this equation, we aim to determine the value of
the force applied by the mud filled hose connected to the Top Drive.
Eq. (8) shows the final result of this process:
HLcorrected = HLa1 − HLa2 − HLa3 ,
where HLcorrected is the corrected hookload with considering these three
effects. Fig. 2 shows the necessary inputs for the model (HL, Weight of
Traveling Block and SPP), the equations used and finally the output of
this process. More detailed information about the use of these equations
for the analyzed case are given in Section 4.2.1.
2.2.2. WOB correction
Once the corrected HL is calculated, it is possible to calculate the
DWOB using the Torque and Drag (T&D) model. Fig. 3 presents the flow
process used for the calculation of the DWOB for given data points. The
inputs besides the aforementioned are the friction factor, well trajec-
tory, BHA configuration and fluid density. The T&D model selected for
this study was developed by Johancsik et al. (1984). The methodology
to calculate the DWOB is based on the shooting method Press et al.
(2007). The idea of shooting method is that an initial guess is made of
the unknown boundary conditions at one end of the interval. Using this
guess, the terminal conditions obtained from the numerical integration
are compared to the known terminal conditions and if the integrated
terminal conditions differ from the known terminal conditions by more
than a specified tolerance, the unknown initial conditions are adjusted
and the process is repeated until the difference between the integrated
terminal conditions and the required terminal conditions is less than
some specified threshold.
First, the algorithm sets an initial DWOB guess which is used as an
input for the T&D model, then the T&D model calculates the weight
of the drill string (calculated HL) under the given conditions. This
calculated HL is compared to the results obtained in the previous step
at the same depth. The result of this difference (error) is then identified
as either a positive or negative value. It will be positive if the calculated
HL is greater than the corrected HL1 and vice versa. If this error is
greater than a predetermined threshold, a correction to the DWOB is
1
The steps for the corrected HL are given in Section 4.1.2.
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 210 (2022) 109904
Fig. 3. DWOB Correction Diagram.
(7)
applied taking into account. For example, if the error is a positive
value, meaning that the calculated HL is bigger than the corrected
HL, the model will increase the DWOB in a predetermined value to
reduce this difference. This process is repeated until the error is equal or
(8) smaller than the threshold value. In order to validate the calculations,
the results of this algorithm were compared to the ones obtained using
Halliburton’s WellPlan Software (Halliburton, 2020), see Section 5.1.
Fig. 3 shows the flowchart of DWOB correction algorithm. The input
data of this algorithm is the corrected HL, friction factor, well path,
BHA data and fluid density. The output is the calculated DWOB.
3. Data-driven ROP modeling
Throughout this section, the main data-driven ROP modeling steps
will be presented, including the identification of the most important
parameters of the ROP models and the ML architecture.
3.1. Key features
Physics-based ROP models have been developed throughout the
years, starting in the 1950’s. Among them, the one of the most impor-
tant developments in those earlier years is the Bingham model (Bour-
goyne et al., 1991) which considers two main operational parameters,
WOB and RPM. As the years passed, the more developments were
presented. Some of them are regarded as a reliable source for the
ROP calculation, for example, the model presented in Bourgoyne et al.
(1991). It was developed in a time where tri-cone bits were used
but has been adapted throughout the years to be used with PDC
bits, see Wiktorski et al. (2017). One of the recent models was pre-
sented by Motahhari et al. (2010), where the different factors were
taken into considerations, for example, confined rock strength, cutter
diameter (PDC bits), pore pressure gradient, Equivalent Circulating
Density (ECD), and many more. Some of these parameters are available
and possibly do not change between one location and the other one.
However in most cases most of measurements are not always available
or they are only applicable in some specific areas.
It is important to analyze how ML models function with their pa-
rameters and which parameters have been historically selected for this
purpose. In Barbosa et al. (2019a), the authors presented a study based
on more than 50 publications which studied machine learning ROP
4
M.A. Encinas et al.
Fig. 4. Heatmap with Correlation Coefficient Values.
models, showing that 8 parameters were the most used or mentioned in
all of them. Therefore, in our study, based on the available data-sets and
the correlation index, see Fig. 4, the following parameters are included
in the model for this study:
• Bit Depth;
• Average Hookload;
• WOB (surface or calculated downhole ones);
• Surface Torque (STQ);
• RPM;
• Standpipe Pressure.
The heatmap of the correlation between the ROP and the features
selected for this study is shown in Fig. 4. It is easy to see that the
correlation score between the HL and the ROP, and the one between the
DWOB and the ROP are quite high. Hence it shall be with the necessary
step to correct the HL data and DWOB data for the ML data preparation.
In addition, from the heatmap, the correlation score between the DWOB
and the ROP is higher than the one between the SWOB and the ROP,
meaning that if the DWOB is available, it would be wise to prioritize
the good downhole measurements, see more discussions in Section 4.3.
3.2. Machine learning model structure
This study uses a continuous learning idea proposed by Liu (2017)
and applied in the domain of drilling by Tunkiel et al. (2021) to
continuously update the developed ML model. In Tunkiel et al. (2021),
the model considers an expanding data set, which represents a real life
case for drilling operations. The initial available data equals to 15%
of the total available data, that will be used to train and validate the
model. And the following 20% of the total available data is used for
testing, which is the data that the model has never seen, completely out
of samples. Afterwards, the quantity of the available data for training
is increased and the training and validation process is repeated, see the
detailed presentation in Tunkiel et al. (2021).
In our ROP modeling, the model structure is composed of two
branches, a RNN branch and an MLP branch, see Fig. 5. This structure
was originally presented by Tunkiel et al. (2021, 2020). In this work the
main changes are primarily given by the fact that the RNN branch uses
LSTM cells instead of Gated Recurrent Unit. Additionally, the number
of LSTM cells and neurons in MLP were determined after a hyper-
parameter tuning process. In the RNN branch, the input is only the
5
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 210 (2022) 109904
Fig. 5. Presented Machine Learning Model Structure, Two Branches: RNN Branch (left)
and MLP Branch (right).
past ROP data, which goes through a Gaussian noise layer to ensure
that we generate some levels of randomization in the data (the value
used is 0.007 of standard deviation of noise distribution). Afterwards,
the information goes towards the RNN. The output of the LSTM cells,
enters a dropout layer as an additional measure to avoid overfitting.
The other branch of the model (MLP), uses all other parameters
selected for the study as inputs (Depth, WOB, HL, STQ, RPM and
SPP). This information goes directly to the MLP layer, the output of
the MLP goes to a dropout layer to avoid overfitting. The output of
the dropout layer enters a flatten layer as a previous step towards
another MLP layer. The output of both branches RNN and MLP are then
concatenated in order to obtain a single tensor that is the input for an
additional MLP layer. Finally, the output of the last MLP will provide
the predicted ROP, during the training stage. The model is ran several
times and then the model with the lowest validation score is selected.
In the current work, no quantitative work was performed to identify
the cost–benefit curve for quantity of validation runs against model
performance gains. For the purpose of work presented in this paper
the model was re-trained from scratch 10 times. The desired value is
dependent on the performance increase (about 10% in presented case
study) evaluated against additional time needed to perform training
(1-10 min in presented case study), which will be dependent on the
computational hardware available, problem at hand, complexity of the
network, available time and the effect of diminishing returns. More
quantitative methods with respect to time, trial and the heuristics
involved for optimal model development will be further investigated.
The data set has to be reshaped to fit the presented machine learning
model, which means that samples are created to contain the input and
predicted output of the model. In Fig. 6, the attribute A is the one to
be predicted. A user shall specify the length of past data of the target
attribute (A) to be fed to the RNN branch (data shown in green boxes),
and also the length of the predicted output from the MLP (data shown
in the red boxes). The blue boxes with the attributes (B, C, D) are the
other input attributes fed to the MLP branch. In general, the length
of the green boxes (N1) and red boxes (N2) are selected by the users
in consideration with the sampling interval and model accuracy. More
discussions on the choice of N1 and N2 are given in Section 5.2.
M.A. Encinas et al.
Fig. 6. Input Data Shapes of RNN and MLP.
In our study, the machine learning model was developed using
Keras library with Tensorflow 2 backend. Both of them are open source
projects developed and maintained by Google. The LSTM implemen-
tation included in Keras was used with 281 neurons. Other branch
consists notably of two MLP layers of 5 and 1 neurons and a dropout
layer randomly truncating 45% of connections. The two branches are
concatenated and processed in a further MLP layer of 44 neurons.
Details of multiple parameters related to the model are available in the
source code published on GitHub.2
In order to determine the structure parameters, Bayesian Optimiza-
tion (Mockus et al., 2014; Nogueira, 2014) was used for the hyper-
parameter tuning process. During the algorithm implementation, three
percentages of the data were selected for the optimization process, 20,
50 and 80 percent. Then an average of the obtained parameters for each
of these percentages was used as the parameters of the final model. Due
to the limited data set, it was not verified if the hyperparameter tuning
process realized for this well could be optimal for the deployment in
other wells. But considering the parameters used as inputs which are
available in all drilling rigs, it is possible to believe that if necessary,
the tuning time could be reduced compared to the initial run made for
this model.
4. Case study
The Volve Field data was released by Equinor, Norwegian Energy
Company in 2018. The complete production and downhole well data
from the Volve Field was made publicly available (Equinor, 2018). The
field is located at the central part of the North Sea. The field started
production in 2008 but was first discovered in 1993. The field has
produced for 8 years until 2016 when it was decided to permanently
close production (Equinor, 2020). The data-set used for this study is
a part of the Volve Field data where the well 15/9-F5 was selected
among other wells, since it contains the relevant information that could
2
https://github.com/mauro-encinas.
6
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 210 (2022) 109904
Table 1
Parameters used in case study with ranges.
Feature Units Range
1 Bit Depth (MD) meters 1900–2400
2 Surface Weight on Bit tonnes 0.7–7.2
3 Average Hookload tonnes 126–143
4 Surface Torque kN-m 14.9–25.3
5 Downhole Weight on Bit tonnes 0.5–7.4
7 Average Rotary Speed rpm 150
8 Average Standpipe Pressure kPa 18363–20646.5
be used to verify the validity of the developed calculations. The data is
publicly available for its use as depth- or time-based data sets.3
In principle it is possible to work on both time-based and depth-
based data in relation to real-time drilling logs. In the presented case
study it was decided to use a depth-based data since such logs present
drilling in a single continuous process. Time-based data sets are less
processed and contain all the operations performed during drilling,
such as tripping, connecting pipes etc., which is generally irrelevant
to the ROP prediction process. The complete data set for the 15/9-F5
well is located as a csv file4 and it contains 1287579 rows and 201
columns. The raw data cannot be directly usable for machine learning
purposes, and must go through extensive data cleaning and preparation
processes. After the cleaning process, the data set is reduced to 16220
rows. Table 1 shows the range of the attributes used in the case study.
Using modern consumer grade computer hardware (i7 CPU, 32 GB
RAM, Nvidia Quadro P1000), one training cycle took approximately
between 2 and 10 min to complete, depending on the data quantity as
dictated by the continuous learning approach.
4.1. Data preparation
Data preparation is an important step to ensure the quality of the
results delivered by any ML models. Drilling data is, in most cases, not
usable for modeling when it is received from field. Even tough there are
some general procedures that can be followed for most of the data sets,
in some cases (like the one presented in this study) additional steps are
needed to ensure the data is usable for ML purposes. We divided the
data preparation for the 15/9-F5 into three steps that will be explained
in the following paragraphs.
4.1.1. Data cleaning and imputation
First, we selected the section of the well to be analyzed, including
the ’on bottom’ feature available on the data set that will be later
removed. This feature helps identify when the bit is drilling. In the
data set it contains two values, 0 when the bit was ’off bottom’ and
1 when the bit was ’on bottom’. As it will help us separate the drilling
from non-drilling operations, we dropped the rows that contained NaN
values. Finally, the missing information in the features is filled by using
polynomial interpolation.
4.1.2. Data assimilation
There are some good reasons to explain the HL measurement devia-
tion, seen in Fig. 1, e.g., change of the BHA due to drilling another hole
section or the BHA with new drillpipe. Nevertheless, as per the daily
drilling reports, the 12 41 section (1405 m - 2921 m) was drilled using 5 12
inch drillpipe with the BHA without observing major problems. Hence,
an inconsistency of this magnitude of the HL can be explained by a
sensor failure. If such wrong HL measurements (after 2200 m) were to
be used in ML models’ training, the ML models’ behavior would have
3
https://www.ux.uis.no/~atunkiel/.
4
http://www.ux.uis.no/~atunkiel/Norway-StatoilHydro-15_$47$_9-F-
5%20time.zip.
M.A. Encinas et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 210 (2022) 109904

Fig. 7. Hookload vs Depth Comparison before Correction (blue) and after Data
Assimilation Correction (green).

been affected. Therefore, the necessary data correction is expected for

such case.
In this context the data assimilation given in Section 2.1.2 is used
to correct such HL measurements. For this, 𝑥1 and 𝑥2 (see Eq. (1)), are
based on two calculated values. The first one, 𝑥1 was determined by
the results of the implemented Johancsik T&D model (Johancsik et al.,
1984) and 𝑥2 was obtained by using Halliburtons’ WellPlan software.
These are the two independent signals that will help us apply the data Fig. 8. Raw Data Elements after HL Correction.

assimilation process. Fig. 7 shows the comparison of the HL data, where

the blue curve is the raw surface HL measurements and the green one
is the corrected one after data assimilation.
After this step, the data set which includes the features used in
the case study: Bit Depth, Average Hookload, WOB, STQ, RPM, SPP is
presented in Fig. 8. As visible in the plots, the data is noisy and needs
to be further processed in order to make it usable for ML purposes.
4.1.3. Outlier & noise removal and data resampling
This process starts by removing outliers, which are observation
points that are located far away from the average measurements and
interfere with the model’s ability to perform properly. Additionally, the
noises present in all sensors were smoothed using a moving average
filter (given in Section 2.1.4). In this study the IQR method discussed in
Section 2.1.3 is used to remove the outliers. These steps are important
for the model to perform as desired.
When the measurements were not sampled equally, it will generate
problems when the data is fed to the RNN model. One reason behind
this inconsistency may be that sensors do not have the same sampling
frequency. Another reason, might be the existence of a data gap in
data-sets. To solve this issue, and to get an evenly sampled data set,
Radius Neighbors Regressor, using open source Scikit-learn (Pedregosa
et al., 2011) implementation is used such that the data is re-sampled
to get equally distanced observation points; depth interval of approx-
imately 0.25 m is selected to reduce the high amount of data. The
processed data set after outlier removal, noise reduction and gap filling
is presented in Fig. 9.
In addition, feature scaling is also a necessary step to ensure that ML
models perform properly. In this case, Scikit-Learn (Pedregosa et al.,
2011) offers a number of possibilities, e.g., Standard-Scaler, MinMax-
Scaler, Robust-Scaler, and Normalizer etc. Depending on the type of
models and the intended use of the data, one can argue that each
of these options would help the model obtain better results. When
working with Artificial Neural Networks and RNN, the recommended
practice is to take feature scale in a range between 0 and 1. It is worth
mentioning that the scaling to an interval between 0 and 1 depends
strongly on the problems, and in lots of cases other transformations
may be more adequate.
4.2. Data correction
As above-mentioned, the one of the objectives of this study is to
correct measurements using physics-based models. Two results for the
surface HL and downhole WOB correction are presented below.
4.2.1. Hookload correction
Section 2.2.1 describes the procedure to correct the hookload mea-
surement. Firstly, the effect of sheaves shall be removed from the
measurement, that only applies if the sensor is located at the anchor
of the deadline. Secondly, it is necessary to subtract the weight of the
traveling block, that is not part of the weight of the drill string, but
is measured by the sensor. Finally, it is necessary to remove the SPP
effect. As the sheave efficiency for the rig is not known, a sensitivity
analysis was run to identify the correct value. According to Luke and
Juvkam-Wold (1993), the sheave efficiency range is between 96%
to 99%. The corrected hookloads with applying different sheave ef-
ficiency coefficient are presented in Fig. 10. In order to determine
the correct sheave efficiency, the results of the HL correction were
compared against the ones obtained by the simulations using Hallibur-
ton’s WellPlan. For this case the 99% sheave efficiency is the one that
provided the best results.

7
M.A. Encinas et al.
Fig. 9. Processed Data Elements.
Fig. 10. Corrected HL Measurements for Different Sheave Efficiencies.
4.2.2. DWOB correction
There are a number of considerations taken during this process.
Firstly, the value of the bit depth is set as the deepest value registered
in the data. Secondly, a trajectory needs to be set for this point up to
the surface, considering that the data is re-sampled approximately each
8
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 210 (2022) 109904
Fig. 11. Comparison between Calculated DWOB (blue) and Measured SWOB (green).
0.25 m. Since the available surveys for this well were registered each
40 m, it is necessary to interpolate the well trajectory to obtain at least
5 m interval of survey points in the BHA section and 20 m in the drill
pipe section. This was done to obtain more accurate results of the HLs,
as the efficacy of this model relies on the quality of this parameter.
The shooting method mentioned in Section 2.2.2 was numerically
implemented to search the best matched DWOB following the proce-
dure presented in Fig. 3. First, a lower boundary value of the DWOB
is selected. In this case the first assumption was to set this value
equivalent to the registered surface WOB (SWOB). Then the model
back-calculates the total weight of the drill string, which is then com-
pared to the corrected HL value. For this case study the threshold was
set at 0.25Ton and if the difference is greater than this value, the DWOB
guess value is changed. This process is repeated until the difference is
smaller than the predefined threshold. Once the termination condition
is satisfied, the guess value of DWOB is the estimated WOB based
on T&D model calculation with regards to the calculated HL. Fig. 11
presents the estimated DWOB results (blue curve) obtained from this
process and the registered SWOB (green curve). It shows that the DWOB
and SWOB have big deviations during two sections (1900 m–2000 m
and 2200 m- 2300 m). In the following section, we will compare the
ML models’ results with using two different measurements respectively,
especially for ROP predictions in such two sections.
4.3. ROP predictions
There are several metrics to evaluate the error in the prediction,
e.g., coefficient of determination (𝑅2 ), mean absolute error (MAE). It
is a common practice for ML models to report the results with respect
to the 𝑅2 . Nevertheless, the MAE was selected by the authors as it
provides a quantifiable option to understand the results. This results
are expressed in the units of the predicted value (m/h) and help better
visualize the results for ML model.
As the main objective is to know whether the additional step of the
DWOB correction improves the overall results of the ROP prediction,
the model is evaluated with the same input data (Depth, Average
M.A. Encinas et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 210 (2022) 109904

Fig. 12. Error in Predicted ROP Comparison when Using Calculated DWOB (blue) and
SWOB (red).

Hookload, Surface Torque, RPM and SPP), while the only input to be
different is the WOB (SWOB measurement or corrected DWOB).
Fig. 12 presents the model results for the case where the calculated
DWOB is used as the input (blue line), and the one where the SWOB is
used as the input (red line). In this plot the MAE is located in the y axis,
while the data percentage (continuous learning such that the training
data is increasing with the depth during operations) is located on the
x axis. It is observed that the use of the calculated DWOB provides
an overall better result for the ROP predictions, especially in the first Fig. 13. Heatmap Comparison ROP Prediction Using Corrected DWOB and Measured
drilling section (approximately 18%–26%). SWOB.
Fig. 13 shows how the MAE varies with the drilled depth and
the fixed prediction length (5 m) using the corrected DWOB and the
measured SWOB respectively. In the y axis we have the drilled depth
in meters; and in the x axis it represents the distance predicted ahead
of the bit in meters. The figure is divided into three sections, on the
left hand side is the results for the calculations using the DWOB; in
the middle is the results for the calculations using the SWOB and on
the right is the color bar to understand the quality of the prediction
(MAE).
It is noted that at the beginning with less information (15% of
the data used to train the model which represents only 75 m), it
achieves a good level of the precision in the prediction with the use
of corrected DWOB. It is also noted that for this case only in a part
between 2125–2150 m the prediction error obtained is higher than
6 m/h, while the rest of the section is predicted properly. Another
observation is that with the more data used for training, the error in
the prediction decreases. For the case of the ROP prediction using the
SWOB as the input, at the beginning of the well section, we encounter
with higher errors. As the number of training samples is increasing,
the error reduces but still, when compared to the plot on the left
(calculated DWOB) there is a higher overall error in the predictions,
more discussions on the results are given in Section 5.2–5.3.

5. Result analysis and evaluations

Fig. 14. Hookload Comparisons.
5.1. Data quality analysis

Fig. 14 presents the different HL results. In this plot three values are
shown. The red line represents the results of the corrected HL, which
takes into account three effects. The yellow line shows the results for
the corrected HL calculated by the T&D model. Finally, the blue line
shows the values obtained by Halliburton’s WellPlan, which was used
as the verification of the proposed calculations. From this figure, it
is also possible to see that the implemented model (red one) works
properly to maintain a low difference with the calculated HL (yellow
one).

9
M.A. Encinas et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 210 (2022) 109904

The model for Halliburton’s WellPlan T&D Analysis was originally

developed by Johancsik et al. (1984) and put in a standard form
by Sheppard et al. (1986). As observed in Fig. 14, there is a difference
between the results obtained with our simulation (yellow curve) and
WellPlan (blue curve), but both curves have a similar tendency. For
results verification, other reliable models (Aadnoy et al., 2010; Wu
et al., 2011) can also be used.

5.2. Model prediction analysis

The model was tested with different percentage combinations of

data available for training and validation. With the comparisons, the
combination of 80% for training and 20% for validation out of the area
considered available at a given step provides the best results.
Fig. 13 shows the model results with a predicted length of 5 m. The
model was evaluated extensively in order to determine the best possible
combination of retained information and predicted length (N1 and N2,
see Fig. 6). It is also interesting to see the model performance with
the different prediction window sizes. The model predictive capabilities
were tested starting with 5 m, then 7.5 m and finally 10 m ahead of the
bit. It means that the model could predict 20, 30 and 40 data points
ahead respectively. This test was carried out both for the calculated
DWOB and surface WOB as the inputs for the models.
The results of the model that used the calculated DWOB as the input
are presented in Fig. 15. This plot comparison provides us a better
insight on the model’s behaviors. It is noted that the stability of the
model decreases while we try to predict further ahead (larger window
size, N2). Compared with the errors presented in the first two heat
maps (for 5 m and 7.5 m case), the MAE increases considerably for the
last plot (window size is 10 m). In the case study of ROP prediction,
the performance starts to significantly deteriorate for model predicting
furthest, and therefore experiments with even longer prediction win-
Fig. 15. Heatmap Comparison ROP Prediction Using Corrected DWOB with Different
dow are not presented as not useful. Moreover, using longer prediction
Predicted Lengths.
window degrades the near performance, i.e. prediction 3 meters ahead
in 5 m model will be much closer to reality than the same predicted
location for 10 m model. Combining multiple models is considered
potential future work that can extend the prediction window without parameters, which makes us wonder why the other sections do present
such quality deterioration. this behavior. We attribute these behaviors (high and low difference)
Fig. 16 presents the results for the ROP prediction using the SWOB to two main reasons, which were identified after analyzing the well
as the input parameter. As observed in Fig. 15, increasing the predicted characteristics and normal operational practices. First, the well does
length causes the decrease of the accuracy of the results. Comparing the not have a high inclination profile, actually the analyzed section has
results obtained by using the corrected DWOB, the plots show a higher a 33◦ inclination, which helps us make sense of why the difference in
tendency of increasing the error as the predicted length increases, the 2000–2200 m is not bigger. Finally, while drilling, once the stand
which is another point in favor of improving the quality of the input is drilled, the driller followed the company’s operational best practices
parameters of the model. before adding another stand. When the new stand is added the driller
Moreover, it is important to explain why the results presented in set the initial (zero) value of the WOB, therefore, the consistency of the
Figs. 15–16 only cover the 1975–2300 m section. The model was measured SWOB depends on the driller’s expertise. In some cases if this
provided initially 15% of all the data for training and validation, is not performed properly, it is possible to see the difference observed
that corresponds to the initial 75 m. After it, the model makes the in the 1900–2000 m and 2200–2300 m sections.
predictions for the next 20% of the data (100 m, which corresponds to If we refer back to Figs. 15–16 and compare the results presented in
1975–2075 m section). Then the process is repeated. Finally, the last the heat maps. The difference between the two runs provide the enough
one to be analyzed is 2300 m which corresponds to 80% of the data evidence that the use of either of the WOB values will have a heavy
set. They are used to train and validate the model to finally predict for influence on the results of the predicted ROP. While the difference
the last 20% of the data, completing 100% use of the available data. between the results might not look as extreme, it is encouraging enough
to provide a basis for further studies on this topic.
5.3. Engineering analysis
5.4. ML models evaluation
The main difference between the two ML model results is the
use of the calculated DWOB and the measured SWOB respectively. The model presented in this study represents a great alternative for
The parameter, WOB, is regarded as the one of the most influential the ROP prediction which requires only 75 meters of the training data
in the ROP determination, and therefore its influence should not be to start predicting with the relative high confidence. It is necessary,
understated. specially when presenting a new alternative, to compare the accuracy
It is evident that the biggest difference between these two param- of the presented model with existing and widely used ML models in
eters are located, firstly, in the initial 100 meters of the analyzed the same conditions. In this case we used Random Forest Regressor,
area and secondly, located between 2200–2300 m. The section of Gradient Boosting Regressor and Extreme Gradient Boosting for com-
2000–2200 m does not present a considerable difference between the parisons. The results of the comparisons are presented in Fig. 17. All

10
M.A. Encinas et al.
Fig. 16. Heatmap Comparison ROP Prediction using SWOB for Different Predicted
Lengths.
Fig. 17. Comparison between Presented Model and Other Widely Used ML Models.
of the models used the calculated DWOB as the input, as it provided
both the best results for the analyzed case and highest correlation with
regards to the ROP (compared with the SWOB, see Fig. 4).
In Fig. 17, the x axis presents the data percentage used for training
the model (15% the starting point is equivalent to 70 m); and in the y
axis it presents the MAE in the predicted values for the following 20%
of the data, which is equivalent to 100 m.
11
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 210 (2022) 109904
The plot shows that there is a considerable difference in the results
obtained by the presented model (blue) and the other models. The MAE
for the other models presented in Fig. 17 is considerably higher than
the one of the presented model, at 76% exceeds a 20 m/h error in pre-
diction. A reason behind it could be that the conventional ML models
usually do not perform as expected when predicting the information out
of sample range. For instance, Random Forest is a decision tree-based
model and as its names suggests uses decision trees to provide results.
Therefore, if the value that we aim to predict was not present in the
training data set, it is too complicated for the model to come with an
appropriate prediction. The high MAE results could be explained by the
fact that, in most cases, these models need larger amounts of available
information to provide good results. The analyzed case and the focus
of the study is related to limited data sets, where the data expands as
the well is drilled. This could be a solution for many companies that
do not have large data sets available for offset wells.
5.5. Discussions
The main limitation of the presented model is the prediction hori-
zon. The RNN model is dependent on the temporal information being
accurate, as the inputs are taken from ground truth data. It is possible
to extend the model, i.e. predict a given distance of ROP data and re-use
this data as input to the model. This will cause error accumulation and
at one point the error in the ROP input will be higher than the benefit
of using it at all. From that point it will be more accurate to use a model
that does not utilize temporal information.
In practice it means that the presented model is more useful to be
used during actual drilling operation to predict and optimize the ROP
values, than to predict ROP throughout an extended portion of the well.
In fact this is already seen in Fig. 13 where further predictions are lower
quality than early ones.
6. Conclusions
The main objective of the study is to verify the feasibility of im-
proving the performance of ML models by providing better input data,
and using already available physics-based models as a way to process
the data. The obtained results suggest that this was achieved in the
analyzed case, specially in areas where a bigger difference between the
raw data and corrected data is observed.
Moreover, the developed RNN model’s performance was compared
with widely used ML models. It shows that the presented model pro-
vides better results in prediction. Also, the model performance was
tested in different prediction scenarios, varying the predicted distance.
The results show that the prediction accuracy decayed with the increas-
ing prediction length, but in the first two cases (5 m and 7 m) the model
provides a good prediction of the ROP values.
The results obtained from this study, specially in areas where the
differences between the raw and corrected data are larger, suggest a
promising and easy-to-implement way to improve the ML models for
the ROP prediction. For the future work, it is necessary to evaluate the
model with more generic data, for instance, from different wells and
scenarios, specially when the well inclination is larger such that there
exists the large differences of downhole/surface WOB.
Further work is also needed to evaluate how much benefit the
utilized branched model architecture actually brings. While the inclina-
tion (Tunkiel et al., 2021) and ROP case study presented in this study
show the performance gains compared to traditional methods such as
Random Forest, Gradient Boosting Regressor etc., it is still not clear
what kind of ML problems would benefit the most. The ML model used
in this study requires more complex data preparation, as well as it
depends on the GPU calculations for acceptable performance (training
in 3–10 min, depending on the data size). Additional complexity comes
from the size of the inputs to the ML model. While traditional methods
utilize inputs from a give point in time or space, the presented approach
M.A. Encinas et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 210 (2022) 109904

utilizes a complete series of inputs for each attribute used, making Declaration of competing interest
processes such as ROP optimization much more complex. The inputs
can be arbitrary only to an extent, as they have to be realistic. The The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
ML model will respond in a meaningful way only for the area of input cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
hyperspace that was covered in training. In the presented case study, influence the work reported in this paper.
the input is three dimensional as required when working with LSTM
networks, the batch size is constantly increasing per the principle of Acknowledgments
continuous learning and one unit in the input sequence in each training
cycle, which necessarily means that training covers only a small portion We would like to express gratitude to Equinor, Norway for providing
of this hyperspace, even if the whole realistic area is covered. funding for this research through Equinor Akademia Program and
thank OTICS at UiS for supporting the project.
Abbreviations
References
ANN Artificial Neural Network Aadnoy, B.S., Fazaelizadeh, M., Hareland, G., 2010. A 3d analytical model for wellbore
friction. J. Can. Pet. Technol. 25–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/141515-PA.
BHA Bottom Hole Assembly Ahmed, O., Adeniran, A.A., Samsuri, A., 2019. Computational intelligence based
prediction of drilling rate of penetration: a comparative study.. J. Pet. Sci. Eng.
DA Data Assimilation 1–12.
Altman, N.S., 1992. An introduction to kernel and nearest-neighbor nonparametric
DWOB Downhole Weight on Bit regression. Amer. Statist..
Amer, M.M., DAHAB, A.S., El-Sayed, A.-A.H., 2017. An ROP predictive model in Nile
Delta area using artificial neural networks. D023S012R001, URL https://doi.org/
ECD Equivalent Circulation Density 10.2118/187969-MS.
Barbosa, L.F.F., Nascimento, A., Mathias, M.H., de Carvalho, J.A., 2019a. Machine
GBM Gradient Boosting Machines learning methods applied to drilling rate of penetration prediction and optimization
- a review. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 183, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
HL Hookload article/pii/S0920410519307533.
Barbosa, L.F.F.M., Nascimento, A., Mathias, M.H., Carvalho, J.A., 2019b. Machine
learning methods applied to drilling rate of penetration prediction and optimization
IQR Interquartile Range
- a review.. J. Pet. Sci. Eng..
Bourgoyne, A., Millheim, K., Chenevert, M., Young, F., 1991. Applied Drilling
KNN K-nearest Neighbors Engineering, Vol. 2. SPE Textbook Series.
Breiman, L., 2001. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45 (1), 5–32, URL https://doi.org/
LSTM Long Short Term Memory 10.1023/A:1010933404324.
Cayeux, E., Skadsem, H.J., Kluge, R., 2015. Accuracy and correction of hook load
MAE Mean Average Error measurements during drilling operations. D021S010R005, URL https://doi.org/10.
2118/173035-MS.
Christiani, N., Shawe-Taylor, J., 2000. Support Vector Machines: Data Analysis, Machine
MAPE Mean Average Percentage Error Learning and Applications. Cambridge University Press, 0521780195.
Deep, R., 2005. Probability and Statistics with Integrated Software Routines. Academic
ML Machine Learning Press, p. 290.
Equinor, 2018. Disclose all volve data. https://www.equinor.com/en/news/14jun2018-
MLP Multilayer Perceptron disclosing-volve-data.html(Accessed: 19 May 2020).
Equinor, 2020. Volve field. https://www.equinor.com/en/what-we-do/norwegian-
continental-shelf-platforms/volve.html(Accessed: 19 May 2020).
NaN Not a Number
Eskandarian, S., Bahrami, P., Kazemi, P., 2016. A comprehensive data mining approach
to estimate the rate of penetration: application of neural network, rule based models
RF Random Forest and feature ranking.. J. Pet. Sci. Eng..
Esmaeli, A., Elahifar, B., Fruhwirth, R., Thonhauser, G., 2012. ROP modeling using
RNN Recurrent Neural Network neural network and drill string vibration data. Soc. Petrol. Eng. SPE 163330
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/163330-MS.
ROP Rate of Penetration Friedman, J.H., 2001. Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine.
Ann. Statist. 29 (5), 1189–1232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/aos/1013203451, URL
https://projecteuclid.org:443/euclid.aos/1013203451.
RPM Rotary Speed
Geekiyanage, S.C.H., Sui, D., Aadnoy, B.S., 2018. Drilling data quality management:
Case study with a laboratory scale drilling rig. Volume 8: Polar and Arctic Sciences
SPP Stand Pipe Pressure and Technology; Petroleum Technology, URL https://doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2018-
77510.
SVM Support Vector Machine Geekiyanage, S., Tunkiel, A.T., Sui, D., 2020. Drilling data quality improvement and
information extraction with case studies. J. Petrol. Explor. Prod. Technol. http:
STQ Surface Torque //dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13202-020-01024-x.
Halliburton, 2020. WellPlan engineering software. https://www.landmark.solutions/
WellPlan-Well-Engineering-Software.
SWOB Surface Weight on Bit Han, T., Jiang, D., Zhao, Q., Wang, L., Yin, K., 2018. Comparison of random forest,
artificial neural networks and support vector machine for intelligent diagnosis
T&D Torque and Drag of rotating machinery. Trans. Inst. Meas. Control 40 (8), 2681–2693, URL https:
//doi.org/10.1177/0142331217708242.
WOB Weight on Bit Han, J., Sun, Y., Zhang, S., 2019. A data driven approach of ROP prediction and
drilling performance estimation. D011S010R006, URL https://doi.org/10.2523/
IPTC-19430-MS.
CRediT authorship contribution statement Hareland, G., Wu, A., Lei, L., 2014. The Field Tests for Measurement of Down-
hole Weight on Bit(DWOB) and the Calibration of a Real-time DWOB Model.
Mauro A. Encinas: Conceptualization, Investigation, Data cura- International Petroleum Technology Conference, Doha, Qatar, p. 6, IPTC, URL
https://doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-17503-MS.
tion, Methodology. Andrzej T. Tunkiel: Formal analysis, Supervision, Hauser, J.R. (Ed.), 2009. Interpolation. In: Numerical Methods for Nonlinear Engineer-
Writing – original draft. Dan Sui: Conceptualization, Methodology, ing Models. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 187–226, URL https://doi.org/
Supervision, Writing – original draft. 10.1007/978-1-4020-9920-5_6.

12
M.A. Encinas et al.
Hawkins, D.M., 1980. Identification of Outliers. In: Monographs on applied probability
and statistics, Chapman and Hall, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-3994-4.
Hegde, C., Daigle, H., Millwater, H., Gray, K., 2017. Analysis of rate of penetration
(ROP) prediction in drilling using physics-based and data-driven models.. J. Pet.
Sci. Eng..
Hegde, C., Soares, C., Gray, K., 2019. Rate of penetration (ROP) modeling using
hybrid models: Deterministic and machine learning. In: Unconventional Resources
Technology Conference, https://doi.org/10.15530/URTEC-2018-2896522.
Hochreiter, S., Schmidhuber, J., 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural Comput. 9 (8),
1735–1780, URL https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735.
Jain, A.K., Mao, J., Mohiuddin, K.M., 1996. Artificial neural networks: a tutorial.
Computer 29 (3), 31–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/2.485891.
Johancsik, C.A., Friesen, D.B., Dawson, R., 1984. Torque and drag in directional
wells-prediction and measurement. J. Pet. Technol. 36 (06), 987–992, SPE, URL
https://doi.org/10.2118/11380-PA.
Law, K., Stuart, A., Zygalakis, K., 2015. Data Assimilation: A Mathematical Introduction.
In: Texts in Applied Mathematics, vol. 62, Springer, Cham, A mathematical
introduction, URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20325-6.
Liu, B., 2017. Lifelong machine learning: a paradigm for continuous learning. Front.
Comput. Sci. 11 (3), 359–361, URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-016-6903-6.
Luke, G.R., Juvkam-Wold, H.C., 1993. The determination of true hook-and-line tension
under dynamic conditions. SPE Drill. Complet. 8 (04), 259–264, SPE, URL https:
//doi.org/10.2118/23859-PA.
McCulloch, W.S., Pitts, W., 1943. A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in
nervous activity. Bull. Math. Biophy. 5 (4), 115–133, URL https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF02478259.
McLaughlin, D., 2014. Data assimilation. In: Njoku, E.G. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Remote
Sensing. Springer New York, New York, NY, pp. 131–134, URL https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-0-387-36699-9_33.
Mockus, J., Tiesis, V., Zilinskas, A., 2014. The application of Bayesian methods for
seeking the extremum. 2, pp. 117–129,
Moran, D., Ibrahim, H., Purwanto, A., Osmond, J., 2010. Sophisticated ROP predic-
tion technologies based on neural network delivers accurate drill time results.
SPE-132010-MS, URL https://doi.org/10.2118/132010-MS.
Motahhari, H.R., Hareland, G., James, J.A., 2010. Improved drilling efficiency technique
using integrated PDM and PDC bit parameters. J. Can. Pet. Technol. 49 (10), 45–52,
URL https://doi.org/10.2118/141651-PA.
13
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 210 (2022) 109904
Nogueira, F., 2014. BayesIan optimization: Open source constrained global optimization
tool for python. URL https://github.com/fmfn/BayesianOptimization.
Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O.,
Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A.,
Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M., Duchesnay, E., 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine
learning in python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825–2830.
Press, W.H., Teukolsky, S.A., Vetterling, W.T., Flannery, B.P., 2007. Numerical recipes
3rd edition: The art of scientific computing, third ed. Cambridge University Press,
USA, pp. 955–983.
Rumelhart, D.E., Hinton, G.E., Williams, R.J., 1986. Learning representations by back-
propagating errors. Nature 323 (6088), 533–536, URL https://doi.org/10.1038/
323533a0.
Sheppard, M.C., Wick, C., Burgess, T.M., 1986. Designing well paths to reduce drag
and torque. In: Presented At the 61st Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
of the SPE, New Orleans, https://doi.org/10.2118/15463-PA.
Soares, C., Gray, K., 2020. Real-time predictive capabilities of analytical and machine
learning rate of penetration (ROP) models. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.petrol.2018.08.083.
Tunkiel, A.T., Sui, D., Wiktorski, T., 2021. Training-while-drilling approach to in-
clination prediction in directional drilling utilizing recurrent neural networks. J.
Pet. Sci. Eng. 196, 108128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2020.108128, URL
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920410520311827.
Tunkiel, A.T., Wiktorski, T., Sui, D., 2020. Continuous drilling sensor data reconstruc-
tion and prediction via recurrent neural networks. Volume 1: Offshore Technology,
URL https://doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2020-18154.
Wiktorski, E., Kuznetcov, A., Sui, D., 2017. ROP optimization and modeling in
directional drilling process. D011S003R002, URL https://doi.org/10.2118/185909-
MS.
Wu, A., Hareland, G., Fazaelizadeh, M., 2011. Torque & drag analysis using finite
element method. Mod. Appl. Sci. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/mas.v5n6p13.
Wu, Z., Hareland, G., Loggins, S.M., Lai, S., Eddy, A., Olesen, L., 2017. A new method of
calculating rig parameters and its application in downhole weight on bit automation
in horizontal drilling. D031S004R005, URL https://doi.org/10.2118/185643-MS.