applied

sciences
Article
Drilling Parameters Optimization for Horizontal Wells Based
on a Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm to Improve the Rate of
Penetration and Reduce Drill String Drag
Chuanzhen Zang 1 , Zongyu Lu 1 , Shanlin Ye 2 , Xinniu Xu 1 , Chuanming Xi 1 , Xianzhi Song 2, *, Yong Guo 1
and Tao Pan 2

1 Research Institute of Engineering Technology, PetroChina Xinjiang Oilfield Company, Karamay 834002, China
2 School of Petroleum Engineering, China University of Petroleum (Beijing), Beijing 102249, China
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-010-89732176

Abstract: With the development of China’s oil and gas exploration and development to complex oil
and gas fields, the drilling efficiency and safety of complex formations with large hardness and strong
abrasiveness have become increasingly significant. Optimizing drilling parameters is an effective
means to increase the rate of penetration (ROP) and improve drilling efficiency. However, traditional
drilling parameter optimization methods with only a single objective of increasing the ROP lack
consideration of the drill string’s drag which may also be increased when drilling parameters change.
When drilling a horizontal well, increased drag can reduce drilling efficiency. Aiming at this problem,
this paper uses the logging data of the oil field as the data source, establishes an intelligent ROP
prediction model through the random forest algorithm, and calculates the string drag using the
“hard-string” model. Finally, the nondominant sorting genetic algorithm-II (NSGA-II), which is a
domination-based multiobjective optimization algorithm, is used to optimize the drilling parameters
Citation: Zang, C.; Lu, Z.; Ye, S.; Xu, to increase the ROP and reduce the drag at the same time. The optimized drilling parameters guide
X.; Xi, C.; Song, X.; Guo, Y.; Pan, T. the drilling operations. We used the proposed method to optimize the parameters during the drilling
Drilling Parameters Optimization for of a new horizontal well. The results show that the ROP of the horizontal section of the new well
Horizontal Wells Based on a increases by 10.3%, and the drag reduces by 4.5% on average compared with the adjacent well.
Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm to
Improve the Rate of Penetration and Keywords: drilling parameters optimization; big data; ROP; string drag
Reduce Drill String Drag. Appl. Sci.
2022, 12, 11704. https://doi.org/
10.3390/app122211704

Academic Editor: Daniel Dias 1. Introduction

Received: 18 October 2022

The horizontal well is a well type formed by drilling the wellbore parallel to the
Accepted: 15 November 2022
oil reservoir for a certain length after drilling to the oil reservoir vertically or inclined.
Published: 17 November 2022
The horizontal wellbore has a larger contact area with the oil reservoir, which can greatly
improve oil and gas production. However, the drilling operation of horizontal wells is
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
difficult with slow ROP, which seriously affects the drilling efficiency [1]. Optimization of
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
drilling parameters is an important means to improve drilling efficiency. With the main
published maps and institutional affil-
goal of high ROP and low cost, drilling parameters (e.g., weight on bit (WOB), revolutions
iations.
per minute (RPM)), and hydraulic parameters (e.g., pump pressure (PP), pumping flow per
minute (GPM)) are optimized [2].
So far, researchers have proposed a variety of methods for optimizing drilling pa-
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
rameters. Some previous methods optimize parameters with a single objective. Chen. [3],
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Bahari and Hankins [4,5], Hegde, Gray, and Momeni [6–8] took the minimum mechanical
This article is an open access article specific energy (MSE), the minimum drilling cost, and the maximum ROP, respectively, as
distributed under the terms and single optimization objectives to optimize the drilling parameters. This single-objective
conditions of the Creative Commons optimization method takes into account fewer factors affecting drilling efficiency and has
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// very limited speedup effects. In actual drilling operations, different optimization objectives
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ often conflict with each other, and the increase in one objective is often accompanied by
4.0/). a decrease in other objectives. Therefore, researchers came to use multiple indicators as

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11704. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122211704 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11704 2 of 14

optimization objectives at the same time for the synergistic optimization of drilling pa-
rameters, as shown in Table 1. These works achieved better results than single objective
optimization. It can be seen that the method of multiobjective optimization of drilling
parameters considering the restriction effect between objectives is more scientific.

Table 1. Related works of multi-objective optimization of drilling parameters.

Work Obj. Function Opt. Parameters

Abughaban et al. [9] max ROP, min MSE WOB, RPM
Payette et al. [10] max ROP, min stick–slip risk WOB, RPM, GPM
Gidh et al. [11] max ROP, max bit life WOB, RPM
Guria et al. [12] max ROP, max bit life WOB, RPM, PP
Ammar et al. [13] max ROP, min nonproductive time (NPT) WOB, RPM, GPM

Although drilling parameter optimization methods are developing rapidly, there is

still a lack of research on drilling parameter optimization of horizontal wells [14], and the
existing drilling parameter optimization methods do not consider the impact of horizontal
well drag on drilling efficiency. For horizontal well drilling, the change in drilling parame-
ters will affect the drag, and the drag will also affect ROP. In addition, large drag will also
lead to complex downhole accidents such as stick–slip and stuck [15].
In this paper, according to the characteristics of horizontal well drilling, using oil
field big data and machine learning algorithm, the maximum ROP and minimum drag are
simultaneously used as optimization objectives of drilling parameter, and the parameter
combination of horizontal well drilling is given more scientifically to improve drilling
efficiency. Field tests show that the proposed optimization method of drilling parameters
can improve the ROP of the horizontal section under the requirement of reducing drag.

2. Data and Methods

This study establishes data-driven ROP prediction models based on the big data from
the oil field and machine learning algorithms. The “hard-string” drag calculation model
is also established. Since both ROP and drag are affected by drilling parameters such as
WOB and torque, we optimized both models simultaneously using NSGA-IIalgorithm, a
multitarget genetic optimization algorithm. The optimized drilling parameters can increase
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, the
x FORROP
PEER and reduce the string drag within a certain range. The specific work includes
REVIEW 3 of the
15
four works shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The workflow of multiobjective drilling parameters optimization.

Figure 1. The workflow of multiobjective drilling parameters optimization.
Work 1: Merge and clean data from different sources, including mud logging, well log-
ging, and bit parameters data. Clean data can improve the prediction accuracy of models;
Work 2: Establish the ROP prediction models based on SVM, random forest, and BP
neural network algorithms, and compare the prediction effect of the models;
Work 3: Establish drag calculation model by “hard-string” drag calculation model;
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11704 3 of 14

Work 1: Merge and clean data from different sources, including mud logging, well log-
ging, and bit parameters data. Clean data can improve the prediction accuracy of models;
Work 2: Establish the ROP prediction models based on SVM, random forest, and BP
neural network algorithms, and compare the prediction effect of the models;
Work 3: Establish drag calculation model by “hard-string” drag calculation model;
Work 4: The ROP prediction model and drag calculation model are used as the
objective functions, and the weight on bit (WOB), revolutions per minute (RPM), and pump
flow rate (GPM) are optimized by NSGA-II multiobjective optimization algorithm.

2.1. Data
ROP is the result of engineering factors and formation factors. To make our intelligent
ROP prediction model take into account engineering and formation factors, we collected
bit data, mud logging data, and well logging data from six wells in the oil field and then
merged the data existing in different documents into a data table by depth. The table
contains a total of 22,317 pieces of data, and each piece contains 15 features, as shown
in Table 2.

Table 2. Oilfield multi-source data.

Data Sources Features

Depth, rate of penetration (ROP), weight on bit (WOB), handing
Mud logging load, revolutions per minute (RPM), torque(T), pumping flow per
minute (GPM), equivalent density of drilling fluid
Well logging Well deviation, azimuth, acoustic logging, density logging
Bit parameters Diameter, cutting-tooth diameter, number of cutting tooth

2.2. Data-Driven Algorithms

ROP is one of the important indicators to measure drilling efficiency. Therefore,
the maximum ROP is selected as one of the optimization objectives in this study, and
the ROP prediction model is taken as the optimization function in the multiobjective
optimization algorithm. The traditional ROP model is based on laboratory experiments
studying the relationship between parameters such as WOB, RPM, and ROP. The ROP
prediction equations are established linear or nonlinear combinations of these parameters
shown in Table 3 [16–19]. However, there are some uncertain coefficients in the traditional
ROP model, which need to be adjusted according to different formations, different types of
circulating media, and different drilling tool combinations.

Table 3. Traditional ROP equations and coefficients.

Work Equation Coefficients

a
Bingham [16] ROP = k( W
d ) N
k, a
B and Y [17] ROP = w f · k · c · W · N λ w f , k, c, λ
ROP = w f G· Nd·S·W
γ α
Hareland [18] w f , γ, α
a
· N · T ·SSP· Q
Al-abduljabbar [19] ROP = 16.96 Wd2 ·ρ· PV ·UCSb
a, b
Where W is the weight on the bit, N is the rotary speed, T is the torque, Q is theflow rate, d is the drill-bit diameter,
SSP is the standpipe pressure, PV is the plastic viscosity, and UCS is the uniaxial compressive strength.

With the digital transformation of the oil field, MWD and other measurement tools
are widely used. The oil field recorded and stored a large amount of drilling and logging
data. Nowadays, many data-driven ROP models have been proposed. Researchers used
the random forest regression method (RF) [20,21], gradient boosting tree [22], BP neural
network [23–25], Support Vector Machine Regression (SVM) [26,27], and other algorithms
to establish the ROP prediction models. These ROP prediction models have higher accuracy
and timeliness than traditional ROP models.
 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11704 4 of 14

In this work, we establish three drill-rate prediction models based on SVM, RF, and BP
neural network algorithms and compare their prediction accuracy within the same dataset.
The principles of the three algorithms are below.
(1) SVM algorithm
Support vector machine (SVM) is a machine learning method based on statistical
learning theory. For regression problems, conventional regression models usually calculate
the loss directly on the basis of the difference between the predicted values of the model
and the true values, and the loss is 0 if and only if the predicted value of the model is
exactly equal to the ground truth. The loss is 0 only if the predicted value of the model is
exactly equal to the true values. However, the SVM regression model assumes that an error
ε between the predicted value and the true value can be tolerated. The loss is calculated
only if the absolute value of the difference between the predicted value and the true value
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15
is greater than 2ε, as shown in Figure 2. The training problem of the SVR model is an
optimization problem under a given objective function and constraint conditions.

Figure 2. SVM algorithm.

Figure 2. SVM algorithm.
The objective function is as follows:
The objective function is as follows:
1 m
1 + C ∑ i =1 ξ i , ξ i ≥ 0
2 m
min min||w,bw 2||2||wC|| 
i 1 i
， i  0 (1)
(1)
w ,b 2

The constraint
The constraint is as follows:
is as follows:

i   i  i
|| f ( xi||) f||(xiy)||− y = ε + ξi (2) (2)

where w is weight,
where b is the
w is weight, b isbias, C is the
the bias, C ispenalty factor,
the penalty  isε the
factor, error
is the tolerance
error inter-
tolerance interval, and
val, and i slack variable.
ξ i is the is the slack variable.
(2) (2) Random
Random forest forest algorithm
algorithm
Random forestforest
Random is a classical machine
is a classical learninglearning
machine algorithm that has been
algorithm widely
that has beenused in used in
widely
the industry since it
the industry wasitfirst
since wasproposed by Breiman
first proposed in 2001 [28].
by Breiman In this
in 2001 algorithm,
[28]. decision decision
In this algorithm,
treestrees
are selected as weak
are selected as learners. Decision
weak learners. trees cantrees
Decision be classified into classification
can be classified trees
into classification trees
and regression trees. In this paper, we established the ROP regression prediction model,
and regression trees. In this paper, we established the ROP regression prediction model, so
so the regression decision tree is selected as the weak learner. The schematic diagram of
the regression decision tree is selected as the weak learner. The schematic diagram of the
the random forest algorithm is shown in Figure 3.
random forest algorithm is shown in Figure 3.
 (2) Random forest algorithm
Random forest is a classical machine learning algorithm that has been widely used in
the industry since it was first proposed by Breiman in 2001 [28]. In this algorithm, decision
trees are selected as weak learners. Decision trees can be classified into classification trees
and regression trees. In this paper, we established the ROP regression prediction model,
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11704 5 of 14
so the regression decision tree is selected as the weak learner. The schematic diagram of
the random forest algorithm is shown in Figure 3.

The
Figure3.3.The
Figure random
random forest
forest algorithm.
algorithm.

When training the binary decision tree model, we need to consider how to select
the cut variables and cut points and how to measure the goodness of a cut variable and
cut point. The impurity of the cut nodes is generally used to measure the goodness. In
Breiman’s work (Equations (3) and (4)) [28], the impurity is calculated as follows:
nl nr
G ( xi , vi ) = H ( Xl ) + H ( Xr ) (3)
Ns Ns

where xi is a cut variable, vi is a cut point, nl , nr , and NS are the number of samples of the
left child node, the number of samples of the right child node, and the number of samples
of the parent node, Xl , Xr is the set of samples of the left and right child nodes, and H(X) is
the impurity function. The regression task generally uses the squared mean error (MSE)
as the impurity function. In this study, the random forest algorithm was used to establish
the ROP regression model, so MSE was chosen as the impurity function, and the impurity
formula was calculated as follows:
1
H ( Xm ) =
Nm ∑i∈ Nm (y − y)2 (4)

(3) Backpropagation (BP) neural network algorithm

A backpropagation (BP) neural network is a kind of backpropagation algorithm
according to error, shown in Figure 4. By using the steepest descent method and the
learning rule of backpropagation, the weights and thresholds of the network are adjusted
continuously so as to train a multilayer neural network with minimum errors. The training
of the BP neural network consists of two processes: forward propagation and backward
propagation. In the forward propagation, the training samples are input from the input
layer, calculated step by step by each hidden layer, and passed to the output layer. Then,
the error between the output results and the real results is calculated. If the error exceeds
the given threshold, the backward propagation stage will be carried out. In the backward
feedback phase, all neurons in each layer will correct the weights according to the error.
The BP neural network model will repeat the above process until the error is less than the
set threshold.
 gation. In the forward propagation, the training samples are input from the input layer,
calculated step by step by each hidden layer, and passed to the output layer. Then, the
error between the output results and the real results is calculated. If the error exceeds the
given threshold, the backward propagation stage will be carried out. In the backward
feedback phase, all neurons in each layer will correct the weights according to the error.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11704 The BP neural network model will repeat the above process until the error is less than the 6 of 14
set threshold.

Figure 4. BP neural network algorithm.

Figure 4. BP neural network algorithm.
2.3. The “Hard-String” Drag Calculation Method
The classic drilling string drag torque models are the “soft-string” model and the “hard-
string” model. The ”soft-string” model used earlier is simple and has certain accuracy, but it
does not take into account the rigidity of the drilling string and is suitable for straight wells
and wells with small slope angles. The “hard-string” model makes up for this shortcoming.
The intelligent analysis method of drag and torque proposed by Zhu [29] uses the hard-
string model to calculate the drag and has achieved good results. Therefore, this study
adopts H.-S. Ho’s ‘’hard-string” model (Equations (5)–(13)) [30] for the real-time calculation
of the drilling string drag.
The differential equation for the force of the overall drill string is:

d(− F ) dk
= − EIk b b − qcosα ∓ µ1 ·µt (5)
ds ds
dM Do
= µ1 · µ t · (6)
ds 2
where in the “∓”, the “−” stands for pulling up the string, the ‘’+” stands for pressing
down the string; F is the axial pressure on the drill string N, s is the depth of the well, m; q
is the gravity of the drill string per unit length, N/m; α is the inclination angle of the well,
rad; EI is the bending stiffness of the drill string, N m2 ; nt is the contact drag force between
the drill string and the well wall, N/m; µ1 is the axial drag coefficient of the drill string; k b
is the wellbore axis curvature, m−1 .
The borehole curvature k b is calculated as:
s
 2  2
dα dϕ
Kb = + sin2 α (7)
ds ds

where ϕ is the azimuth angle of the well.

The contact drag force nt on the drill column is calculated by:
s
A2 + B2
nt = (8)
1 + µ21
 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11704 7 of 14

d2 k b q dα
A = EI 2
+ k b F − k n (−k b MT + EI ·k b k n ) + sinα (9)
ds k b ds
d dk q dϕ 2
B= (−k b MT + EI ·k b k n ) + EI ·k n b − sin α (10)
ds ds k b ds
!
sinα dα d2 ϕ dϕ d2 α 1 dα 2
   
dϕ
kn = 2 2
− 2
+ cosα· 2 +1 (11)
kb ds ds ds ds k b ds ds

We use the finite difference method to solve for the forces on the entire drill string.
The drill string can be divided into several small drill string sections, as shown in Figure 5.
The forces on the small drill string sections can be obtained by the following equations,
with the pressure as positive:

1 2 2
Fi = Fi+1 + EIi (Kbi
2
− Kbi +1 ) + (− qi cosαi ∓ µ1 · µti ) ∆si (12)

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 15

1
MTi = µ ·n · D ∆s + MTi+1 (13)
2 1 ti bi i

Figure 5. Small drill string sections analysis diagram.

Figure 5. Small drill string sections analysis diagram.
Among them, Fi and Fi+1 are the axial force at the end of the i-th drill string near the
ground
Among and near
them, andthe bit,are respectively, N; M
the axial force and
atTithe MTi
end 1 are
of+the thedrill
i-th torque at near
string both ends of the
i-th drill string, in N·N;
m; Kbi2 and K 2
the ground and near therespectively,
bit, respectively, and bi+1 are arethe
theborehole
torque atcurvature
both ends at both ends
of the
of the i-th drilli-th section,
string, respectively,
respectively, in N·m; EIi , nti , ∆sare
m-1; qi , and i , and
theDborehole
bi are thecurvature
line weightat (N/m) and
bending 2 ) of the drill string in the i-th section, respectively, and the contact
(N·mrespectively,
both ends of thestiffness
i-th section, m-1; , , , ∆ , and are the line
weight with
(N/m)the borehole
and bending wall force (N/m),
stiffness length
(N·m2) of (m),string
the drill and outer
in thediameter (m) respec-
i-th section, of small drill string
sections.
tively, and the contact with the borehole wall force (N/m), length (m), and outer diameter
(m) of small drill string sections.
2.4. Nondominant Sorting Genetic Algorithm-II
2.4. Nondominant Sorting
In this Genetic
study, Algorithm-II
NSGA-II was used to solve the optimization parameters. NSGA-II
In is
this
anstudy, NSGA-Ⅱ
improved was usedoftoNSGA
algorithm solve the optimization
proposed by K.parameters.
Deb [31], NSGA-Ⅱ
which isisonean of the best
improved algorithm of
evolutionary NSGA proposed
algorithms to solveby K. Deb [31], which
multiobjective is one ofproblems.
optimization the best evolu-
It searches for the
tionary optimal
algorithms to solve
solution bymultiobjective
simulating the optimization problems.
natural evolution It searches
process for the
and can findopti-
the Pareto front
mal solution
quicklybyand
simulating
keep thethe natural of
diversity evolution process and can find the Pareto front
the population.
quickly and keep thethe
Firstly, diversity
algorithmof the population.
will randomly generate the initial population N for nondominant
Firstly,
sorting. Then the next generationgenerate
the algorithm will randomly the M
population initial population
is obtained N for nondomi-
by genetic operation (Mutation,
nant sorting.
Crossover, Competition). The elite preservation strategy is usedoperation
Then the next generation population M is obtained by genetic to merge(Mu-the populations
tation, Crossover,
M and N toCompetition). The elite preservation
form a new population, strategy
and the new is used is
population tosorted
merge bythefast
pop-nondominant
ulations M and N to form a new population, and the new population is sorted by fast non-
dominant sorting. The crowding distance is assigned to the individuals belonging to the same
nondominant layer. According to the crowding distance value between individuals, N indi-
viduals are selected to form a new population. The next generation population M is obtained
by genetic operation. The above process is repeated until the termination condition is reached.
Appl.Appl.
Sci. Sci.
2022,2022, 12, 11704
12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 14
9 of

sorting. The crowding distance is assigned to the individuals belonging to the same
nondominant layer. According to the crowding distance value between individuals, N
individuals are selected to form a new population. The next generation population M is
obtained by genetic operation. The above process is repeated until the termination9 condition
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW of 15
is reached. The program flow chart of the NSGA-II algorithm is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. The flow chart of the NSGA-II.

Figure 6.
Figure 6. The
Theflow
flowchart
chartofofthe
theNSGA-II.
NSGA-II.
3. Results and Discussion
3.
3. Results
Results
3.1. andDiscussion
and
Abnormal Discussion
Data Processing
3.1. Abnormal Data Processing
3.1. Abnormal Data Processing
Because of the limited accuracy of the sensors used for data acquisition in the fie
Becauseof
Because ofthe
thelimited
limited accuracy of of
thethe sensors used for data acquisition in theinfield,
the field,
abnormal points will beaccuracy
collected sensors
in the used
drilling for data
process,acquisition
as shown in Figure 7. These o
abnormal pointswill
abnormal points will
bebe collected
collected in drilling
in the the drilling process,
process, as shown
as shown in Figurein7.Figure
These 7.out-These
liers will
outliers will
liers will increase
increase
increase the the
the difficulty
difficulty
difficulty of of training
training
of training theThe
the model.
the model. model. The
The quality
quality quality
of theofdata
the dataof the data determin
determines
determines
the
the upperlimit
the upper
upper limit
limit of of
thethe
ofthe accuracy
accuracy
accuracy ofof the
the of the model.
model.
model. Since
Since weSince
we at we
aimaim aimprediction
at theofprediction
at prediction
the the of mechani
of mechanical
mechanical
drillingrate
drilling
drilling rateand
rate andand thethe
the optimization
optimization
optimization of of drilling
drilling parameters
of drilling parameters
parameters in the normal in the drilling
in the normal normalprocess,
drilling process,drilling proce
detecting and
detecting
detecting and
and eliminating
eliminating
eliminating these abnormal
thesethese
abnormal data
dataisismore
abnormal moreconducive
data conducive
is to to
improving
more conduciveimproving theimproving
to train-
the training the tra
ing accuracy
accuracy of theof the model.
model.
ing accuracy of the model.

Figure 7. ROP data collected from the oil field.

The machines that record data in the field take one piece of data every second. The
ground engineering parameters remain in a relatively stable range in a short period of
Figure
Figure 7.7.ROP
ROP data collected
data collectedfromfrom
the oil
thefield.
oilitfield.
time (5 s, 10 s). In such a short time interval, can be considered that the formation has not
changed. When drilling into a uniform formation, the drilling parameters and formation
shouldThe machines
not change muchthat record
in a short data
time, and in
the the
ROPfield
shouldtake one pieceinof
be maintained datarange.
a small every second. T
If abnormal data points occur in a small time window, the data variance will
ground engineering parameters remain in a relatively stable range in a short period increase.
time (5 s, 10 s). In such a short time interval, it can be considered that the formation has n
 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11704 9 of 14

The machines that record data in the field take one piece of data every second. The
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
ground engineering parameters remain in a relatively stable range in a short period of
time (5 s, 10 s). In such a short time interval, it can be considered that the formation
has not changed. When drilling into a uniform formation, the drilling parameters and
formation should not change much in a short time, and the ROP should be maintained in
a smallBased
range. on
If abnormal data pointswe
this regulation, occur in a small
select a datatime window, the
window withdata variance
a fixed time ste
will increase.
the variance
Based on thisofregulation,
the engineering
we select a data in thewith
data window window. When
a fixed time step new data appear
and calculate
if the
the variance
variance of the data
of the engineering datain
in the window
the window. Whenchanges
new datain a range
appear in the exceeding
window, th
if the variance of the data in the window changes in a range exceeding
new data are judged as abnormal data and vice versa as normal data. Thi the set value, the
new data are judged as abnormal data and vice versa as normal data. This outlier detection
tion process
process was programmed
was programmed in python, andin good
python, andresults
detection good were
detection
achievedresults
on the were a
collected
collected data,
data, as shown
as shown in Figurein8.Figure 8.

Figure 8. The result of abnormal data detection.

Figure 8. The result of abnormal data detection.
3.2. Correlation Analysis between Drilling Parameters and ROP
3.2. The Pearson correlation
Correlation Analysiscoefficient
betweenis Drilling
used to measure the degree
Parameters andof ROP
linear correlation
between two variables, X and Y, and the calculation formula is as follows [32]:
The Pearson correlation coefficient is used to measure the degree of lin
∑ (x − x)(yi − y)
between two variables,ρ X q iY,i and the
= and calculation formula is as(14)
follows [
2 2
∑i (xi − x) ∑i (yi − y)
∑( )( )
ρ= ,
where x is one of the drilling variables and y is the ROP.∑( ) ∑( )
Input variables are critical to the performance of ROP models, especially to the data-
where x ismodels.
driven ROP one ofThethecorrelation
drillingbetween
variables and
drilling y is theand
parameters ROP.
ROP is an important
Input
index for variables
selecting are critical
model input variables.to the performance
Drilling parameters withof ROP
high models,
correlation withespecia
ROP (such as Torque, WOB, etc.) were used as key data for model input. Drilling parameters
driven ROP models. The correlation between drilling parameters and ROP
with little correlation with ROP (such as Acoustic) can be selectively used as input to the
index
ROP for selecting
model. model
Figure 9 shows input variables.
the Pearson Drilling between
correlation coefficient parameters with high correl
each parameter.
(such as Torque, WOB, etc.) were used as key data for model input. Drilling p
little correlation with ROP (such as Acoustic) can be selectively used as inp
model. Figure 9 shows the Pearson correlation coefficient between each param
 where x is one of the drilling variables and y is the ROP.
Input variables are critical to the performance of ROP models, especially to the data-
driven ROP models. The correlation between drilling parameters and ROP is an important
index for selecting model input variables. Drilling parameters with high correlation with ROP
(such as Torque, WOB, etc.) were used as key data for model input. Drilling parameters with
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11704 10 of 14
little correlation with ROP (such as Acoustic) can be selectively used as input to the ROP
model. Figure 9 shows the Pearson correlation coefficient between each parameter.

Figure 9.
Figure 9. The
ThePearson
Pearsoncorrelation
correlationcoefficient
coefficient between
between each
each parameter.
parameter.

3.3. Rate of Penetration Prediction Model

In this study, SVM, BP, and RF methods are selected to establish an ROP model. The
model optimization work was carried out by comparing the mean absolute percentage
error (MAPE) of each model.

100% n ŷi − yi
n ∑ i =1
MAPE = (15)
yi

where ŷ is predicted ROP, and y is measured ROP.

The modeling process of the three data-driven ROP prediction models is as follows:
Data Partition: The data of five wells collected from the oil field have 18,143 remaining
after outlier processing. Among them, 80% is used as the training set and 20% as the test set.
Model Training: 14 features in Table 2 are used as inputs except for the ROP, and the
ROP is the output. After training, the MAPE of the training set was 5%. Hyperparameters
of the random forest, SVM, and BP model were selected in Table 4.

Table 4. Superparameter of the ROP prediction data-driven models.

Model Hyperparameter Type Value

number of decision trees 185
maximum depth of decision tree 130
RF minimum number of samples required to
2
split decision tree nodes
finding the optimal number of feature
9
variables to consider for a node
impurity evaluation function MSE
kernel function rbf
SVM penalty parameter 100
gamma parameter 0.01
number of hidden layers 3
number of neurons [64, 128, 32]
BP optimizer Adam
learning rate 0.001
loss function MSE
 number of neurons [64, 128, 32]
BP optimizer Adam
learning rate 0.001
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11704 loss function MSE 11 of 14

Model Prediction: The test set was imported into the trained model, and the predic-
tion results were output.Model Prediction: The test set was imported into the trained model, and the prediction
The prediction results of the test set are shown in Figure 10.
results were output. The prediction results of the test set are shown in Figure 10.

R PEER REVIEW 12 of 15

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 10. The prediction effect
Figure andprediction
10. The MAPE comparison. (a) comparison.
effect and MAPE The prediction results
(a) The of SVR
prediction model;
results (b)model;
of SVR
The prediction results (b)
of RF
Themodel; (c)results
prediction The ofprediction results
RF model; (c) of BP network
The prediction model;
results of BP (d)
network Comparison
model; (d) Comparison
of models accuracy. of models accuracy.
The random forest ROP model performs best in both test and training sets. Therefore,
The random forest ROP model
we choose performs
to use the random best
forestin both
ROP test andmodel
prediction training sets.
as one Therefore,
of the multiobjective
we choose to use theoptimization
random forest ROP prediction model as one of the multiobjective
functions.
optimization functions.
3.4. Drag Calculation Model
The above Equations (5)–(13) can be used to calculate the drag of the drill string, which
3.4. Drag Calculation isModel
used as another optimization function of the multiobjective optimization algorithm. The
The above Equations
equations(5)–(13) can beusing
were calculated used
theto calculate
finite differencethe dragand
method ofprogrammed
the drill string,
through the
which is used as another optimization function of the multiobjective optimization on
python computer language. Figure 11 shows the calculated drag distribution the drill
algo-
string of well A:
rithm. The equations were calculated using the finite difference method and programmed
through the python computer language. Figure 11 shows the calculated drag distribution
on the drill string of well A:
 we choose to use the random forest ROP prediction model as one of the multiobjective
optimization functions.

3.4. Drag Calculation Model

The above Equations (5)–(13) can be used to calculate the drag of the drill string,
which is used as another optimization function of the multiobjective optimization algo-
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11704 rithm. The equations were calculated using the finite difference method and programmed 12 of 14
through the python computer language. Figure 11 shows the calculated drag distribution
on the drill string of well A:

Figure 11. The calculated drag distribution on the drill string of well A.
Figure 11. The calculated drag distribution on the drill string of well A.
3.5. Multiobjective Collaborative Optimization Model
3.5. Multiobjective Collaborative Optimization Model
The random forest rate of the penetration prediction model and drag calculation
modelThearerandom forest
used as the rate of the
optimization penetration
functions prediction
of NSGA-II, model and
and the maximum ROPdrag
andcalculation model
are used as
minimum the
drag areoptimization functions
used as the optimization of NSGA-II,
objectives. and
Giving the the maximum
optimization ROP and minimum
boundary
of drilling
drag parameters
are used as theand setting the hyperparameters
optimization of NSGA-II,
objectives. Giving the maximum ROP
the optimization boundary of drilling
parameters and setting the hyperparameters of NSGA-II, the maximum ROP and minimum
drag within the parameter boundary can be obtained using NSGA-II, as well as their
corresponding parameter combinations (WOB, RPM, and GPM). The hyperparameters are
selected in Table 5.

Table 5. NSGA-II Multiobjective optimization algorithm hyperparameters selection.

Hyperparameters Type Value

number of individuals in each population 20
number of population iterations 25
probability of individual crossover 0.7
probability of individual mutation 0.2

We used the model to provide drilling parameters for another neighboring well under
drilling. Table 6 shows the drilling parameters before and after the optimization of the
well’s five test points, as well as the resulting ROP increase and drag reduction. Compared
with the neighboring well, the average ROP in the horizontal section of the new well is
increased by 10.3% on average, and the average drag of the drill string is reduced by 4.5%.
The final test results show that the optimized parameters achieve the purpose of increasing
ROP and reducing drag.

Table 6. The ROP increase and drag reduction effect at test points.

Depth WOB RPM GPM ROP Drag

Values Improve Reduce
(m) (kN) (r/min) (l/min) (m/h) (kN)
Initial 206.3 60.5 25.0 18.26 47.2
1181 16.31% 4.0%
Recommended 188.2 66.8 27.0 21.24 45.3
Initial 95.4 61.2 34.0 20.08 53.5
1591 12.50% 3.0%
Recommended 89.5 68.0 37.0 22.59 51.9
Initial 85.2 52.5 38.0 15.11 104.7
2304 12.37% 0.1%
Recommended 80.0 59.2 42.0 16.98 103.6
Initial 144.9 56.0 43.0 10.23 118.2
3004 19.66% 7.0%
Recommended 133.2 63.0 46.0 12.22 109.9
Initial 170.0 48.2 48.0 3.26 120.6
3636 19.63% 5.0%
Recommended 163.0 56.8 52.0 3.9 114.6
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11704 13 of 14

4. Conclusions
In this paper, the random forest algorithm is used to establish a data-driven ROP
prediction model of horizontal wells. The MSE of the training set is 5%, and the test set is
9%, which can accurately predict the ROP of horizontal wells.
The random forest ROP model and the “hard-string” drag calculation model are used
as the optimization function, and the maximum ROP and minimum drag are used as the
optimization objectives. In the drilling process, the NSGA-II multiobjective optimization
model is used to optimize the drilling parameters of the horizontal well. The oil field
experiment results show that the multiobjective optimization model for drilling parameters
is reliable. Compared with the neighboring well, the ROP of the test well is increased
by 10.3%, and the drag is reduced by 4.5% on average. The drilling time is effectively
shortened.
However, the training of the ROP prediction models is purely data driven. Similar to
other machine learning models, the interpretability of the model is low, and the reasons
why the optimized parameters can improve ROP and reduce drill string drag could not
be well explained. Improving the interpretability of data-driven models is an important
direction for future research.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.Z.; methodology, C.Z. and Z.L.; investigation, C.X.;
data curation, S.Y. and X.X.; writing—original draft preparation, T.P.; writing—review and editing,
Y.G.; supervision, X.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data are not publicly available because they involve information
on Chinese oil fields and need to be kept confidential.
Acknowledgments: The author would like to thank the academic salon of the High-Pressure Water Jet
Drilling and Completion Laboratory of China University of Petroleum (Beijing) and Zhaopeng Zhu.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Mo, H.; Shi, Z.; Hao, S.; Li, Q. Analysis and Application of Treatment Techniques in Horizontal Directional Drilling Borehole
Accident. Procedia Earth Planet 2011, 3, 273–279. [CrossRef]
2. Sha, L. Drilling Parameters Optimization Technology Status and Development Trend. China Pet. Mach. 2016, 44, 29–33. [CrossRef]
3. Chen, X.; Gao, D.; Guo, B.; Feng, Y. Real-time optimization of drilling parameters based on mechanical specific energy for rotating
drilling with positive displacement motor in the hard formation. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2016, 35, 686–694. [CrossRef]
4. Bahari, A.; Seyed, A.B. Drilling cost optimization in a hydrocarbon field by combination of comparative and mathematical
methods. Pet. Sci. 2009, 6, 451–463. [CrossRef]
5. Hankins, D.; Salehi, S.; Saleh, F.K. An integrated approach for drilling optimization using advanced drilling optimizer. J. Pet. Eng.
2015, 2015, 281276. [CrossRef]
6. Hegde, C.; Daigle, H.; Gray, K.E. Performance comparison of algorithms for real-time rate-of-penetration optimization in drilling
using data-driven models. SPE J. 2018, 23, 1706–1722. [CrossRef]
7. Gray, K.E.; Hegde, C. Use of machine learning and data analytic to increase drilling efficiency for nearby wells. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng.
2017, 40, 327–335. [CrossRef]
8. Momeni, M.; Hosseini, S.J.; Ridha, S.; Laruccia, M.B. An optimum drill bit selection technique using artificial neural networks and
genetic algorithms to increase the rate of penetration. J. Eng. Sci. 2018, 13, 361–372.
9. Abughaban, M.; Alshaarawi, A.; Meng, C. Optimization of drilling performance based on an intelligent drilling advisory system.
In Proceedings of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Beijing, China, 26–28 March 2019. [CrossRef]
10. Payette, G.S.; Spivey, B.J.; Wang, L.; Bailey, J.R. Real-time well-site based surveillance and optimization platform fordrilling:
Technology, basic workflows and field results. In Proceedings of the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition, The Hague,
The Netherlands, 14–16 March 2017. [CrossRef]
11. Gidh, Y.; Purwanto, A.; Bits, S. Artificial Neural Network Drilling Parameter Optimization System Improves ROP by Predict-
ing/Managing Bit Wear. In Proceedings of the SPE Intelligent Energy International, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 27–29 March 2012.
[CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11704 14 of 14

12. Guria, C.; Goli, K.K.; Pathak, A.K. Multi-objective optimization of oil well drilling using elitist non-dominated sorting genetic
algorithm. Pet. Sci. 2014, 11, 97–110. [CrossRef]
13. Ammar, A.; Mahmoud, A.; Beshir, M. Hybrid data driven drilling and rate of penetration optimization. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2021, 200, 108075.
[CrossRef]
14. Omojuwa, E.; Osianya, S.; Ahmed, R. Influence of Dynamic Drilling Parameters on Axial Load and Torque Transfer in Extended-
Reach Horizontal Wells. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
27–29 October 2014. [CrossRef]
15. Wang, Z.; Wang, X.; Chen, L. Status and Prospect of Technologies to Reduce Cost and Increase Efficiency for Drilling in Bohai
Oilfield. Xinjiang Oil Gas 2022, 18, 66–72.
16. Bingham, M.G. A New Approach to Interpreting Rock Drillability; Petroleum Publishing Company: Tulsa, OK, USA, 1965.
17. Bourgoyne, A.; Young, F.S. A multiple regression approach to optimal drilling and abnormal pressure detection. Soc. Pet. Eng. J.
1974, 14, 371–384. [CrossRef]
18. Hareland, G.; Rampersad, P. Drag-bit model including wear. In Proceedings of the SPE Latin America/Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 27–29 April 1994. [CrossRef]
19. Al-abduljabbar, A. A robust rate of penetration model for carbonate formation. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2019, 141, 042903.
[CrossRef]
20. Hegde, C.; Wallace, S.; Gray, K. Using trees, bagging, and random forests to predict rate of penetration. In Proceedings of the SPE
Middle East Intelligent Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 15–16 September 2015. [CrossRef]
21. Chiranth, H.; Hugh, D.; Harry, M. Analysis of rate of penetration (ROP) prediction in drilling using physics-based and data-driven
models. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2017, 159, 295–306. [CrossRef]
22. Su, X.; Sun, J.; Gao, X.; Wang, M. Prediction method of Drilling rate penetration based on GBDT algorithm. Comput. Appl. Softw.
2019, 36, 87–92.
23. Ashrafi, S.B.; Anemangely, M.; Sabah, M.; Ameri, M.J. Application of hybrid artificial neural networks for predicting rate of
penetration (ROP): A case study from Marun oil field. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 2019, 175, 604–623. [CrossRef]
24. Soares, C.; Gray, K. Real-time predictive capabilities of analytical and machine learning rate of penetration (ROP) models.
J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2019, 172, 934–959. [CrossRef]
25. Hassan, A.; Elkatatny, S.; Al-Majed, A. Coupling rate of penetration and mechanical specific energy to Improve the efficiency of
drilling gas wells. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2020, 83, 103558. [CrossRef]
26. Song, X.; Pei, Z.; Wang, P.; Zhang, G. Intelligent Prediction for Rate of Penetration Based on Support Vector Machine Regression.
Xinjiang Oil Gas 2022, 18, 14–20.
27. Ahmed, O.S.; Adeniran, A.A.; Samsuri, A. Computational intelligence based prediction of drilling rate of penetration: A
comparative study. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2019, 172, 1–12. [CrossRef]
28. Breiman, L. Random Forests. Mach. Learn. 2001, 45, 5–32. [CrossRef]
29. Zhu, S.; Song, X.; Li, G. Intelligent real-time drag and torque analysis and sticking trend prediction of drill string. Oil Drill. Prod. Technol.
2021, 43, 428–435. [CrossRef]
30. 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. [CrossRef]
31. Deb, K.; Pratap, A.; Agarwal, S.; Meyarivan, T.A.M.T. A fast and elitist multi-objective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans.
Evol. Comput. 2002, 6, 182–197. [CrossRef]
32. Boslaugh, S. Statistics in a Nutshell: A Desktop Quick Reference; O’Reilly Media Inc.: Boston, MA, USA, 2012.