24
Dri.I.I~ait . g.i~gno.sis Wi.l:h...NeU~.I . . .N..,."".CJr~il .
R.A. Arehart .e;xxon ProductipnRe~arch Cp.i.
Copyright 1990 Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper (SPE 19558) was prepared for presentation at the 1989 SPE Annua[ Technica[
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 8-11.
Summary
A neural network was constructed to determine the grade (state of
wear) of a drill bit while it is drilling. With a three-layer neural
network and back-propagation as the learning algorithm, the system
was trained with laboratory data collected using bits of known grades
drilling through known lithologies, The inputs to the neural network
were rate of penetration (ROP), weight on bit (WOB), torque (T),
revolutions per minute (RPM), and hydraulic horsepower per square
inch (HSI). The network was tested on synthetic formations ofvar-
ious bed thicknesses constructed from the test data.
Introduction to Drill-Bit Diagnosis
During drilling, it is important to have an estimate of the drill bit's
condition or state of wear. Drill bits are graded primarily on the
length of their teeth. A new bit is said to have a grade of 0, and
as the bit wears during drilling, the grade goes up linearly until
the teeth have completely worn away, at which time they are said
to have a grade of 8. If the drill bits are continually pulled before
they are dull, then the cost of the drilling operation rises significantly
owing to the cost of the rig time required to pull the bit and to install
a new one. If the bit is used too long, then it will driIJ inefficiently,
and the cost will rise because of the time required to drill at a low
ROP. In extreme cases, the condition of the bit may be ignored
until catastrophic failure occurs, resulting in the loss of one or more
of the rolling-cone cutters. When this occurs, economic loss can
be very significant because of the time consumed in retrieving the
broken pieces from the bottom of the hole. Consequently, a more
accurate estimate of the drill-bit grade translates directly into a more
efficient, less costly drilling operation.
Analytic methods for using driIJing parameters and an estimate
of the lithology to estimate the bit grade during driIJing have been
Fig. 1-Three-cube parallel computer.
SPE Computer Applications, July/August 1990
only marginally acceptable because of the lack of a good algorithm
and the marginal quality oflithology estimates during drilling. As
a result, drillers often still use their experience in the particular
field and formation and their knowledge of the bit they are using
to estimate the bit grade. The result is that the bit often is pulled
too quickly, and the cost of drilling is higher than necessary.
Introduction to Neural Networks
Computers can perform many tasks, such as numerical processing
and database management, much more quickly and accurately than
humans. Some tasks, however, such as pattern recognition and fuzzy
reasoning, humans perform better and faster than computers, even
though the CPU operates much faster than a neuron, which is the
processing unit of the brain. The brain is capable of performing
some tasks better than computers because the architecture of the
brain is much different from that of the computer. The use of neural
networks represents an attempt to emulate the architecture of the
brain with hardware or software simulations. Neural networks do
not attempt to model the brain because not enough is known about
the way the brain functions to make a serious attempt to model it.
Neural networks merely use what is known about the brain to build,
or simulate with software, machines with similar architectures.
Computers are usually built with a single powerful processing
unit. There are some parallel machines, but they usually have at
most a few thousand processing units that are sparsely intercon-
nected. Fig. 1 illustrates a 3D cube with eight processing units and
the standard interconnection scheme of each processing unit con-
nected with its three nearest neighbors. Fig. 2 illustrates a simple
three-layer feed-forward neural network with each node connect-
ed to all nodes on the next level. Neural networks differ from "or-
dinary" parallel processing machines in that neural networks have
many more processing units that are much more densely intercon-
nected and much less powerful. Software simulations of the use
of a very large number of simple processing units that are mas-
sively interconnected have resulted in advancements toward solving
OUTPUT 1 OUTPUT 2 OUTPUT3
INPUT1 INPUT2 INPUT3 INPUT4
Fig. 2-A simple neural network.
---------------------------------------------------------25
the pattern-recognition problem and other types of problems at which
computers have been only partially successful. In addition, these
simulations have been used in a supervised learning mode to per-
form n-dimensional, nonparametric classification.
Using Neural Networks as n-Dimensional,
Nonparametric Classifiers
A neural network that is to be trained in a supervised learning mode
to perform nonparametric classification is characterized by its ar-
chitecture, node characteristics, and learning algorithm. The very
simple network in Fig. 3 consists of a single node with two variable
inputs, X and Y, and a constant input of 1, which are weighted by
the constants A, B, and C. The node sums these weighted inputs,
and it produces a 0 or 1, depending on whether the weighted sum
is <0 or >0. The case where the weighted sum is equal to 0 is
discussed later.
The output will be 0 when AX + BY+ C < 0 and it will be I when
AX + BY+ C> O. Fig. 4 is a graphical representation of the output
of the node as a function of the input (X,y). If (X,Y) lies below
the line, then AX +BY+C<O and the output is O. If (X,Y) lies above
the line, then AX + B Y + C> 0 and the output is 1. Thus, a single
node can be used as a classifier if the two classes are half-planes.
If (X, Y) lies on the line, then AX + BY+ C=O, and the node output
could be defined as either 0 or 1, depending on whether the appli-
cation required the line to be included with the upper or lower half-
plane. Note that the node could be redefined to give an output of
o for the points above the line and an output of I for the points
below the line simply by reversing the signs of A, B, and C.
If the network is composed of two nodes, as in Fig. 5, then there
will be two outputs, which are graphically represented in Fig. 6.
One output will indicate whether the input (X, Y) is above or below
the line AX + BY+ C=O; the other output will indicate whether the
input (X, Y) is above or below the line DX +EY +F=O. It has been
assumed that each node will produce I if the input (X, Y) is above
its line and will produce 0 if the input is below its line. In either
case, the node output could be reversed by simply reversing the
signs of all its input weights.
A single node can be used to implement a logical "or" or a logical
"and." Fig. 7 illustrates an implementation of a logical "or." The
two variable inputs are binary, and the output will be I if either
input is 1. Fig. 8 illustrates an implementation of a logical "and."
The two variable inputs are binary, and the output will be I only
if both inputs are I. If the inputs to the node implementing the logical
"or" are the outputs from the two-node network, as in Fig. 9, then
the resulting network output will represent the union of the points
above the two lines, as in Fig. 10. If the inputs to the node im-
plementing the logical "and" are the outputs from the two-node
network, as in Fig. I1, then the resulting network output will rep-
resent the intersection of the points above the two lines, as in Fig. 12.
If a third input node is added with coefficients that make the network
output 1 if and only if the point (X,Y) is below its line, and the
second-level node is reconfigured to give a network output of 1
OUTPUT 1 OUTPUT 2
{O,l} {O,l}
c F
x Y

Fig. 5-Two-node neural network.

OUTPUT

{O,l}

Y
AX + BY +C=O
t
OUTPUT 1 = 1
OUTPUT 2 = 1

x Y -------------+~~~------~X

OUTPUT 1 = 1
OUTPUT 2 =0
Fig. 3-Single node.

OUTPUT 1 = 0
Y OUTPUT2=0
AX+ BY +C=O
Fig. 6-Graphical representation of two-node network.

)
OUTPUT
OUTPUT =1
{O,l}
--------------+---~~------~x

OUTPUT =0
-0.5

{O,l} {O,l}

Fig. 4-Graphical representation of a single node. Fig. 7-Logical "or" implementation.

26---------------------------------------------------------
if and only if all three variable inputs are 1 (as in Fig. 13), then
the output from the network is graphically characterized by Fig. 14.
A neural network could be used to classify the two sets of points
indicated in Fig. 15 by closed squares and open circles. In fact,
the network illustrated by Fig. 13 would suffice. In two dimensions,
one could plot the data, draw the lines (Fig. 16), and determine
the interconnection weights analytically from the equations of the
lines. But as the number of dimensions increases, the manual process
becomes impossible. Fortunately, supervised learning with neural
networks offers an alternative. Supervised learning requires a learn-
ing algorithm and a set of training data, which include cases with
values for all network inputs and a known result. A discussion of
learning algorithms is beyond the scope of this paper; see Refs. 1
through 4 for detail.
OUTPUT
{O,1}
{O,1} {O,1}
Fig. a-Logical "and" implementation.
OUTPUT
x y
Fig. 9-Union implementation.
AX+ BY + C=O
Fig. 10-Graphical representation of union.
In supervised learning, the input values for one of the training
cases are presented to the network. These values are propagated
through the network and an output results. This output is compared
with the known result, and if the difference is not 0, then the inter-
connection weights are adjusted according to the learning algorithm.
This process continues for all the cases in the training set. The entire
set of training cases is then run through the network again, with
the weights readjusted when necessary. This process continues until
OUTPUT
x y
Fig. 11-lntersection implementation.
Y
AX+ BY + C=O
t
OUTPUT =1
OUTPUT=O
Fig. 12-Graphical representation of intersection.
OUTPUT
x Y
Fig. 13-lntersectlon implementation with three input nodes.
-------------------------------------------------------------27
the network gets the correct result for all the cases in the training
set. The system can then be used to estimate the classification of
an unknown set of inputs. When the network makes an error, that
case can be added to the training set and the system retrained, similar
to the way that a person learns from mistakes.
A two-layer neural network can be trained to classify any convex
set that is separable by straight lines in 2D space or hyperplanes
in n-dimensional space. The convexity requirement can be removed
if a third layer is added to the network.
Using Neural Networks for Drill-Bit Diagnosis
Because conventional methods had not produced estimates of the
quality desired, a neural network was trained with laboratory data
to estimate drill-bit grade. The neural network was a three-layer
feed-forward system with a sigmoid as the transfer function for all
the nodes, and the learning algorithm was back-propagation. 1-4
The data consisted of 173 cases, each of which included values for
the bit grade, lithology (LITH), HSI, T, RPM, ROP, and WOB.
The network was trained by presenting the five drilling parameters
and LITH to the system as inputs, propagating these inputs through
the system, and comparing the network output with the known bit
grade. In those cases where there was disagreement, the interconnec-
tion weights were adjusted according to the back-propagation learn-
ing algorithm. After many iterations through the training set, the
network was able to adapt its interconnection weights to give the
correct output for each case in the training set.
Even though successful, this network solved only part of the prob-
lem because, in the real world, the LITH estimate was only margi-
nally acceptable, and it was still being used as an input to the system.
A new network was trained to estimate the lithologic hardness using
inputs of bit grade and the five drilling parameters. The term "hard-
ness" was substituted for "LITH" because the usage was now
v
t
OUTPUT = 0
------------~~~~------~x
OUTPUT=O
OUTPUT = 0
Fig. 14-Graphical representation of intersection with three
input nodes.
y
------~--~~--~~---------------x
Fig. 15-Data set with two classes of points.
different. Previously, LITH was used because it could be estimated
directly from various known data and hardness was then inferred
from the lithology. The bit grade and drilling parameters can be
used to estimate hardness, but not LITH, because several lithologies
may have the same hardness. Hardness was now being estimated
directly and the actual LITH was of no importance. The new net-
work was trained to identify the hardness of all the test data cor-
rectly.
Because bit grade changes very slowly, its value at one level of
measurements can be used as a very good estimate of its value at
the next level; i.e., if measurements are taken every foot, then the
bit grade at one foot is a very good estimate of the bit grade at the
next foot. The two neural networks were then linked together, as
in Fig. 17, to estimate both hardness and bit grade at each level.
The bit grade estimated for the previous level and the five drilling
parameters for the current level were used to estimate hardness,
and that value of hardness was used with the five drilling parameters
for the current level to estimate the bit grade for the current level.
The bit grade for the current level was then fed back to the hardness
neural network, along with the five drilling parameters for the next
level, to estimate the hardness for the next level, and the process
continued. When a new bit enters the hole, it has a known grade
of 0, and this value was used with the first set of five drilling pa-
rameters to start the process.
Results
The data used are proprietary, so the results can be reported only
very generally. The data set included data representing three bit
grades: 0, 3, and 6. Two lithologies, Mancos shale and Carthage
marble, were included in the data set. The networks were trained
with the entire data set and tested with synthetic formations, similar
y
Fig. 16-Classlfication lines.
GRADE
NEURAL NETWORK
12
HARDNESS
NEURAL NETWORK
ROP RPM T HSI WOB
Fig. 17-Network for drill-bit diagnosis.
28---------------------------------------------------------
to that in Fig. 18, constructed from the data. The drilling process
was simulated by requiring the bit grade to be nonincreasing with LITH GRADE
depth, and the lithologies were intermingled to simulate bed thick-
nesses of varying lengths. The estimates of hardness and bit grade
were perfect in every test where the entire data set was used for 1 o
training. The technique was also tested by partitioning the data set 1 o
into a training set, used to train the system, and its complement, 1 o
used to test the system. These results were mixed and reflected the 2 o
degree to which the training set spanned the test set. If the training 2 o
set spanned the test set, then the results were very good; if it did 1 o
not, then the points in the test set that were not spanned were often 1 o
misclassified. 2 o
2 o
Conclusions 2 o
2 o
Neural networks can be used successfully for n-dimensional, non- 2 3
parametric classification if the classes are separable by hyperplanes 2 3
in the n-dimensional space and if the training set spans the entire 1 3
domain of interest. In this test, neural networks were very successful 1 3
with the training data available. However, the data available were 1 3
not sufficient to train a system for actual implementation in a drilling 2 3
environment because they did not span the entire domain of interest. 2 3
For example, the training data covered only two lithologies, only 1 3
three of the eight drill-bit grades, and only one drill-bit model. Many 1 3
more training data must be collected before the system will be ready 2 6
for operational testing. 2 6
2 6
References 2 6
I. McClelland, J.L. and Rumelhart, D.E.: Parallel Distributed Processing, 1 6
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1986) 1,2. 1 6
2. Minsky, M.L. and Papert, S.A.: Perceptrons, Expanded Edition, MIT 1 6
Press, Cambridge, MA (1988). 2 6
3. DARPA Neural Network Study, AFCEA Press, Fairfax, VA (1988).
4. Miller, R.K.: Neural Networks: Implementing Associative Memory Models
Fig. 18-Example of synthetic formation.
In Neurocomputers, SEAl Technical Publishing, Madison, GA (1987).