ArticleScientific reports2023
A novel neural-evolutionary framework for predicting weight on the bit in drilling operations.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compares the performance of artificial neural networks (ANN) trained by grey wolf optimization (GWO), biogeography-based optimization (BBO), and Levenberg-Marquardt (LM) to estimate the weight on bit (WOB). To this end, a dataset consisting of drilling depth, drill string rotational speed, rate of penetration, and volumetric flow rate as input variables and the WOB as a response is used to develop and validate the intelligent tools. The relevance test is applied to sort the strength of WOB dependency on the considered features. It was observed that the WOB has the highest linear correlation with the drilling depth and drill string rotational speed. After dividing the databank into the training and testing (4:1) parts, the proposed LM-ANN, GWO-ANN, and BBO-ANN ensembles are constructed. A sensitivity analysis is then carried out to find the most powerful structure of the models. Each model performs to reveal the relationship between the WOB and the mentioned independent factors. The performance of the models is finally evaluated by mean square error (MSE) and mean absolute error criteria. The results showed that both GWO and BBO algorithms effectively help the ANN to achieve a more accurate prediction of the WOB. Accordingly, the training MSEs decreased by 14.62% and 24.90%, respectively, by applying the GWO and BBO evolutionary algorithms. Meanwhile, these values were obtained as around 9.86% and 9.41% for the prediction error of the ANN in the testing phase. It was also deduced that the BBO performs more efficiently than the other technique. The effect of input variables dimension on the accuracy and training time of the BBO-ANN clarified that the most accurate WOB predictions are achieved when the model constructs with all four input variables instead of utilizing either three or two of them with the highest linear correlation. It was also observed that the training stage of the BBO-ANN model with four input variables needs a little more computational time than its training with either two or three variables. Finally, the accuracy of the BBO-ANN model for the WOB prediction has been compared with the multiple linear regression, support vector regression, adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems, and group method of data handling. The statistical accuracy analysis confirmed that the BBO-ANN is more accurate than the other checked techniques.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.