People | Locations | Statistics |
---|---|---|
Naji, M. |
| |
Motta, Antonella |
| |
Aletan, Dirar |
| |
Mohamed, Tarek |
| |
Ertürk, Emre |
| |
Taccardi, Nicola |
| |
Kononenko, Denys |
| |
Petrov, R. H. | Madrid |
|
Alshaaer, Mazen | Brussels |
|
Bih, L. |
| |
Casati, R. |
| |
Muller, Hermance |
| |
Kočí, Jan | Prague |
|
Šuljagić, Marija |
| |
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-Artemi | Brussels |
|
Azam, Siraj |
| |
Ospanova, Alyiya |
| |
Blanpain, Bart |
| |
Ali, M. A. |
| |
Popa, V. |
| |
Rančić, M. |
| |
Ollier, Nadège |
| |
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro |
| |
Landes, Michael |
| |
Rignanese, Gian-Marco |
|
Krishna, Shwetank
Montanuniversität Leoben
in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%
Topics
Publications (1/1 displayed)
Places of action
Organizations | Location | People |
---|
document
Application of Deep Learning Technique to Predict Downhole Pressure Differential in Eccentric Annulus of Ultra-Deep Well
Abstract
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Accurate prediction of downhole pressure differential (surge/swab pressure gradient) in the eccentric annulus of ultra-deep wells during tripping operation is a necessity to optimize well geometry, reduction of drilling anomalies, and prevention of hazardous drilling accidents. Therefore, a new predictive model is developed to forecast surge/swab pressure gradient by using feed-forward and backpropagation deep neural networks (FFBP-DNN). A theoretical-based model is developed that follows the physical and mechanical aspects of surge/swab pressure generation in eccentric annulus during tripping operation. The data generated from this model, field data, and experimental data are used to train and test the FFBP-DNN networks. The network is developed used Keras’s deep learning framework. After testing the models, the most optimal arrangement of FFBP-DNN is the ReLU algorithm as an activation function, 4-hidden layers, the learning rate of 0.003, and 2300 of training numbers. The optimum FFBP-DNN model is validated by comparing it with field data (Wells K 470 and K 480, North Sea). It shows an excellent argument between predicted data and field data with an error range of ±7.68 %.</jats:p>