Next Article in Journal
Supply Chain Management in Renewable Energy Projects from a Life Cycle Perspective: A Review
Previous Article in Journal
Forging Robust Cognition Resilience in Large Language Models: The Self-Correction Reflection Paradigm Against Input Perturbations
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Stuck Pipe Detection in Oil and Gas Drilling Operations Using Deep Learning Autoencoder for Anomaly Diagnosis

Oil Gas Equipment Technology Sharing and Service Platform of Sichuan Province, School of Mechanical Engineering, Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu 610500, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(9), 5042; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15095042
Submission received: 17 March 2025 / Revised: 26 April 2025 / Accepted: 27 April 2025 / Published: 1 May 2025

Abstract

:
Stuck pipe events remain a critical challenge in oil and gas drilling operations, leading to increased non-productive time and substantial financial losses. Traditional detection methods rely on manual monitoring and expert judgment, which are prone to delays and human error. This study proposes a deep learning autoencoder-based anomaly diagnosis approach to enhance the detection of stuck pipe incidents. Using high-resolution time series drilling data from the Volve field, a deep learning autoencoder model was trained exclusively on normal drilling conditions to learn operational patterns and detect deviations indicative of stuck pipe events. The proposed model leverages reconstruction error as an anomaly detection metric, effectively distinguishing between normal and stuck cases. The results demonstrate that the model achieves a detection accuracy of 99.06%, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.958. Additionally, the model attained a precision of 97.12%, a recall of 91.34%, and a F1-score of 94.15%, significantly reducing false positives and false negatives. The findings highlight the potential of deep learning-based approaches in improving real-time anomaly detection, offering a scalable and cost-effective solution for mitigating drilling disruptions. This research contributes to advancing intelligent monitoring systems in the oil and gas industry, reducing operational risks, and enhancing drilling efficiency.

1. Introduction

1.1. General Background

Drilling operations in the oil and gas industry are highly complex and require precise control to ensure safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. One of the most important problems encountered in drilling is pipe sticking, where the drill string becomes lodged in the wellbore and becomes stuck and unable to proceed any further [8,9,10,11,12]. Pipe sticking can lead to significant delays in operations, additional costs, and abandonment of the well in extreme situations if left unmanaged. Pipe sticking incidents are caused by a number of factors, including geological conditions, wellbore instability, differential pressure, and improper drilling practices. With the advancement in complexity and depths in modern day drilling activities, particularly in offshore and unconventional reservoirs, avoiding the hazards of pipe sticking have become a priority for the industry [13,14,15,16,17,18]. Pipe sticking carries implications beyond financial loss, as it affects the efficiency and safety of the entire drilling process. In the event of pipe sticking, operators are forced to undertake costly remedial measures such as jarring, backreaming, or side-tracking the wellbore in an attempt to free the stuck pipe. These remedial measures lead to delays in operations, as well as create risks of formation damage, failure of tools, and additional wear on the drill components. Pipe sticking also leads to non-productive time (NPT), an important parameter in measuring the efficiency of a drill process. Reducing NPT becomes essential in order to maintain cost efficiency, as the costs of drilling continue to rise with increasing depths and challenging well conditions.
Several factors contribute to pipe sticking, with mechanical and differential sticking being the most common types. Mechanical sticking results from the physical blockage of the drill string due to wellbore instability, cuttings accumulation, or key seat formation [19,20,21,22]. Differential sticking, however, results from pressure differentials between the drill pipe and the surrounding formation, causing the pipe to adhere to the wellbore wall. Inefficient hole cleaning, high mud weight, and poor drilling fluid properties are some of the factors that can exacerbate the risk of pipe sticking. The interaction of these factors needs to be understood for the formulation of effective prevention and mitigation strategies. With growing technical difficulties in drilling operations, traditional stuck pipe prevention and detection techniques have been found lacking in many cases. Traditional techniques rely on real-time surface monitoring, historical data analysis, and drilling engineer experience to identify early warning signs. While these techniques have been useful, they are often beset by late detection, subjective interpretations, and weak predictive abilities. The dynamic drilling process requires more proactive and data-driven approaches to enhance early detection, improve decision-making, and reduce operational risks associated with stuck pipe incidents.
Recent advancements in stuck pipe detection have extended beyond traditional mechanical indicators that incorporated alternative technologies of physical modeling, sensor-based diagnostics, and hybrid signal analysis. For example, magnetic flux leakage analysis has been proposed to detect outer wall defects in bimetal composite pipes with high sensitivity [23]. In a related study, contact property evaluation and friction modeling were used to enhance the predictive understanding of pipe string behavior during pipe jacking operations [24]. Additionally, non-invasive diagnostic techniques, such as radioisotope-based blockage localization in multiproduct pipelines, have been successfully employed to detect obstructions with precision [25]. These alternatives reflect the diverse technological landscape in which stuck pipe detection strategies continue to evolve and strengthen the need for new methodologies.
In parallel, explainable artificial intelligence (xAI) has gained prominence for enhancing trust and interpretability in machine learning applications. xAI frameworks provide predictions and clarify the reasoning behind them, which increases transparency. While primarily explored in cybersecurity and industrial threat detection [26,27], xAI has recently been integrated into physical diagnostics as well, such as battery health estimation using ultrasonic signals [28]. These developments highlight the potential for combining explainable AI with deep learning-based anomaly detection models in drilling, which paves the way for future recommendations.

1.2. Challenges in Traditional Detection Methods

The detection and prevention of stuck pipe incidents in oil and gas drilling have historically relied on conventional monitoring techniques that depend on real-time surface data, historical well records, and the expertise of drilling engineers [29,30,31]. These methods rely on the measurement of variations in weight on bit, torque, hook load, rate of penetration, and standpipe pressure to sense anomalies representative of pipe sticking. While such indicators can be valuable in providing insight, they are typically reactive and non-predictive in nature and, consequently, only identify occurrences of a sticking pipe once they have occurred or when mitigation becomes increasingly difficult. Manual observation also involves subjectivity and variability, as different engineers may have different interpretations of the same information and, consequently, response times may be delayed. Apart from this, conventional methods of sticking pipe detection are incapable of coping with the non-linearity and dynamics of the interactions between the drilling parameters, the formation characteristics, and the fluid dynamics, and consequently, early diagnosis becomes very challenging. Due to the fact that the conditions of drilling are very different in different well environments, surface-based observation by itself typically fails to capture downhole complexities, leading to sticking pipe occurrences.
Traditional detection methods lack real-time predictive capability, and they lead to longer NPT and higher cost. Due to the reactive nature of these methods, they are inappropriate for demanding drilling, e.g., in directional and extended-reach wells. Historical data analysis is undermined by availability and quality and might not reflect the current conditions. Deeper formations also complicate detection with pressure, temperature, and geomechanical uncertainties. Furthermore, the vast, multidimensional drilling data are difficult for drilling engineers to interpret manually in real time.

1.3. Literature Survey

Table 1 presents a comprehensive summary of recent studies that utilized deep learning approaches for anomaly detection and predictive modeling in oil and gas drilling applications. Various techniques, including artificial neural networks, convolutional neural networks, gated recurrent units, and long short-term memory models, have been used to counter problems such as stuck pipe occurrence, lost circulation, and inefficiency in hole cleaning. Hybrid models that combine machine learning with fuzzy logic or the attention mechanism have been discovered to offer improved prediction performance and robustness in real-time operation environments. The outcomes indicate that deep learning-based models outperform the traditional techniques consistently, with some models achieving more than 90% accuracy in detecting drilling anomalies.

1.4. Contributions of This Study

Despite significant advancements in deep learning for drilling anomaly detection, previous studies have faced limitations such as dataset imbalance, lack of interpretability, and insufficient real-time adaptability. This study addresses these challenges by introducing a robust deep learning autoencoder-based approach for detecting stuck pipe incidents with improved accuracy and real-time feasibility. The contributions of the study can be summarized within the following points:
  • Implementation of an unsupervised parameter-sensitive deep learning autoencoder trained exclusively on normal drilling conditions to enhance anomaly detection accuracy and reduce false positives and validated against traditional AI methods.
  • Development of a reconstruction error-based detection threshold that ensures improved sensitivity to subtle variations in the drilling parameters.
  • Comprehensive evaluation using real-world drilling data from the Volve field to demonstrate the model’s effectiveness in predicting stuck pipe events with minimal computational overhead.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 details the dataset used and the processing steps. Section 3 presents the proposed deep learning autoencoder methodology utilizing LSTM. Section 4 discusses the results of the classification. Finally, Section 5 concludes the study with findings, limitations, and future research directions.

2. Data Description and Preparation

2.1. Data Source and Characteristics

This study utilizes a publicly available dataset from Equinor’s Volve field, which provides high-resolution time series drilling data essential for analyzing stuck pipe incidents [44]. The Volve field, located in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea, was developed based on production from the Mærsk Inspirer jack-up rig, as illustrated in Figure 1. The dataset includes real-world operational parameters recorded during drilling, which offers a robust foundation for anomaly detection in stuck pipe prediction.
The dataset comprises a wide range of critical drilling parameters that influence the wellbore conditions and potential stuck pipe occurrences. These include hookload, weight on bit, rate of penetration, rotary speed, surface torque, standpipe pressure, and mud flow rate, among others. These values capture information about the mechanical and hydraulic wellbore conditions that are crucial in recording an early indication of stuck pipe occurrences. Table 2 provides a complete picture of the drilling parameters and corresponding units [45]. To ensure sound and organized analysis, the dataset was preprocessed and labeled according to expert verification. Experts manually prepared the “Stuck Cases” column by labeling drilling operations as “no stuck” or “stuck” in accordance with real operational assessments. Expert-labeled classification contributes to the dataset accuracy and usability in training machine learning algorithms.

2.2. Data Processing

Before training the deep learning autoencoder, the dataset was preprocessed to be consistent, noise-free, and prepare the data for time series analysis. the preprocessing steps included imputing missing values, normalizing numeric features, and structuring data into time sequences. For maintaining consistent feature scaling, all numeric parameters were normalized by z-score normalization, provided as follows:
x = x μ σ ,
where x represents the original value, μ is the mean, σ is the standard deviation, and x′ is the normalized value (Equation (1)). This transformation ensures that all features have a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one, improving model convergence and stability. Since time dependency is crucial for detecting stuck pipe events, the dataset was restructured into sequences using a lookback window of five time steps. This process, known as temporalization, allows the model to learn patterns across consecutive drilling states. The transformation is mathematically expressed as
X i , j , k = X i , j , X i , j 1 , , X i , j ( k 1 ) ,
where Xi,j,k represents the time series data for sample i at time j within a window of k, and xj is the original value at time j, as presented in Equation (2). After processing, the dataset was split into training (80%), validation (10%), and testing (10%) subsets, ensuring that only normal drilling operations (non-stuck cases) were used for training. This setup enables the model to effectively learn normal operational patterns while detecting anomalies indicative of stuck pipe incidents.

3. Methodology

This section outlines the proposed methodology for stuck pipe detection using a long short-term memory (LSTM) autoencoder, the model architecture, the training process, and the evaluation metrics. Figure 2 illustrates the workflow of the LSTM autoencoder-based anomaly detection process, highlighting key steps from data preprocessing to model evaluation.

3.1. LSTM Autoencoder

Machine learning encompasses a wide range of applicability when it comes to classification and regression analysis [46,47,48,49]. Deep learning is used in many fields of interest, especially those depending on mechanical operations [50,51,52,53,54]. The LSTM autoencoder is designed to learn the normal operational patterns of drilling data and detect deviations indicative of stuck pipe events [55]. The architecture consists of an encoder, which compresses input sequences into a lower-dimensional representation, and a decoder, which reconstructs the original input from this compressed form. The network is trained in normal drilling conditions so that any significant deviation in reconstruction indicates an anomaly. The transformation in LSTM memory cells is mathematically expressed as
h t = σ ( W h h t 1 + W x x t + b ) ,
where ht is the hidden state at time step t, Wh and Wx are weight matrices, xt is the input, and b is the bias term. This formulation ensures the model captures temporal dependencies critical for detecting stuck pipe events.

3.2. Model Training and Optimization

Training involves minimizing the autoencoder to minimize the reconstruction error and learn effective representations of normal drilling conditions. Hyperparameters like the learning rate, batch size, and layer architecture were optimized for improved performance. The Adam optimizer improved the convergence speed and avoided overfitting. Figure 3 illustrates the data flow through the LSTM autoencoder architecture, emphasizing the encoding, compression, and reconstruction process necessary for anomaly detection.
To distinguish between normal and anomalous drilling patterns, a fixed threshold was applied to the reconstruction error. This threshold, determined empirically from the validation set distribution, was set to T = 0.3. It effectively separates normal data from stuck pipe anomalies, as will be confirmed in Section 4. Although some marginal overlap remains, the threshold strikes a practical balance between precision and recall to ensure reliable detection while minimizing false alarms.

3.3. Evaluation Metrics

The model’s performance was assessed using standard classification metrics, including precision, recall, F1-score, and accuracy, calculated as follows:
P r e c i s i o n = T P T P + F P ,
R e c a l l = T P T P + F N ,
F 1 - S c o r e = 2 × P r e c i s i o n × R e c a l l P r e c i s i o n + R e c a l l ,
A c c u r a c y = T P + T N T P + T N + F P + F N
where TP represents true positives, TN as true negatives, FP as false positives, and FN as false negatives.
Precision measures the proportion of correctly identified anomalies, while recall evaluates the model’s ability to detect all true anomalies. The F1-score balances precision and recall, particularly in imbalanced datasets, and accuracy provides an overall assessment of classification correctness. Together, these metrics ensure a comprehensive evaluation of the model’s effectiveness in detecting stuck pipe events. These evaluation metrics were selected due to their established effectiveness in previous studies for assessing anomaly detection models [56,57,58].

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. General Visualization

The analysis of the drilling parameters provides crucial insights into the relationship between operational conditions and wellbore stability. Figure 4 illustrates the correlation between hole depth and the rate of penetration, which reveals a general decreasing trend as the depth increases. Initially, the penetration rate exhibits significant variability, peaking at approximately 29.76 m/h at a depth of 376.89 m. However, beyond 380 m, the penetration rate stabilizes below 15 m/h, suggesting increased resistance due to lithological changes or operational adjustments.
In Figure 5, the relationship between weight on bit and standpipe pressure is examined. The data indicate that, as the weight on bit varies within a range of −0.96 to 1.20 kkgf, the standpipe pressure remains relatively stable, fluctuating around 407–430 kPa. This suggests that, while weight on bit fluctuations might influence torque and drag, they have a limited direct impact on standpipe pressure. These visualizations highlight key trends essential for optimizing the drilling performance and mitigating stuck pipe incidents.

4.2. Model Performance Evaluation

An extensive analysis of the LSTM autoencoder algorithm’s performance in stuck pipe detection was executed on multiple metrics: reconstruction error analysis, confusion matrix analysis, and receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC curve). The results are shown below (including graphs) and will serve as a basis for discussion and insight. Figure 6 illustrates the loss curves for the training and validation datasets up to 200 epochs, which provide important information about model learning. The training and validation losses gradually and consistently decrease to low, constant values. This indicates that the model can learn what normal operational patterns look like from the data. Please retain the numbers as your numbers. This sharp decrease in loss from epochs 0 to 25 shows that the model is quickly learning the normal patterns. After that, the loss tends to stabilize, and only minor adjustments are needed, indicating the strength of the model with respect to unseen data.
Figure 7 shows the reconstruction errors for different data samples. Normal cases exhibit lower reconstruction errors, while stuck cases show significantly higher errors, enabling clear separation between the two classes. Reconstruction errors help us distinguish between normal and stuck states; normal data points have reconstruction errors nearer to zero, whereas stuck cases present high errors, making them easily identifiable. This creates a clear separation, which is essential for generating class labels for specific instances to detect stuck events effectively.
Figure 8 shows the distribution of reconstruction errors with a fixed threshold line at T = 0.3. This threshold is important, because it clearly separates normal and stuck data points. The data are almost linearly separable, with very marginal overlap, as illustrated in the figure. Although there are some false positives and false negatives, they are few and far between. By fine-tuning the threshold, the accuracy and precision of the classification accuracy can be improved, subsequently improving the model’s performance.
Figure 9 graphs the confusion matrix of the classification performance of the suggested LSTM autoencoder method. It plainly shows the ratios of the true classes and the forecast classes, providing valuable insights on how well the model is in capturing normal cases vs. stuck cases. The wrongly classified instances are those data points that fall below the diagonal line. This graph is necessary for evaluating the overall performance of the model and looking for potential areas of improvement in which the classifier is failing.
In addition to the confusion matrix, several key performance metrics further evaluate the model’s effectiveness. The accuracy of the model reached 99.06%, which demonstrates its strong ability to classify stuck and normal cases correctly. The precision for detecting stuck events was 97.12%, ensuring a low false positive rate. The recall stood at 91.34%, indicating the model’s effectiveness in capturing actual stuck cases. Finally, the F1-score, a balance between precision and recall, was 94.15%, reinforcing the robustness of the proposed approach in minimizing both false positives and false negatives.
Two “Stuck” cases were correctly identified, while 11,687 normal cases were correctly predicted. However, 33 normal instances were incorrectly predicted as “Stuck”, and 110 stuck cases were misclassified as “Normal”. These results show that the model is highly effective in distinguishing between the classes, with very few false positives and false negatives. This accuracy indicates the method’s effectiveness in real-world scenarios, which helps to minimize classification errors. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve is displayed in Figure 10. The text illustrates the model’s ability to differentiate between stuck and normal cases. The area under the curve (AUC) for the model is 0.958, which indicates excellent classification performance with the capacity to identify stuck events while maintaining a low false positive rate. This high AUC score emphasizes the model’s robustness and practical applicability in industrial operations, where effective anomaly detection is essential.
To assess the feasibility of real-time application, the model’s inference time was evaluated. On a standard workstation (Intel i7 CPU, 16 GB RAM), the average prediction time per sequence was approximately 14 milliseconds. This enabled rapid anomaly classification with minimal latency. Again, this low computational cost confirms the suitability of the LSTM autoencoder for deployment in time-sensitive drilling operations where prompt detection is critical for operational safety and efficiency.
As shown in Table 3, traditional supervised machine learning models demonstrate reasonable performance in stuck pipe detection tasks, with accuracy values ranging from 84.1% to 90.6% and F1-scores between 82.6% and 89.3%. Among them, Random Forest achieved the highest performance with an accuracy of 90.6%, precision of 91.5%, and recall of 87.3%. However, the proposed LSTM autoencoder outperformed all these methods, achieving an accuracy of 99.06%, precision of 97.12%, recall of 91.34%, and a F1-score of 94.15%. These results highlight the strength of the unsupervised approach in capturing complex operational patterns from normal data alone.

4.3. Challenges and Limitations

Despite the high accuracy of the LSTM autoencoder model in detecting stuck pipe events, several challenges and limitations must be acknowledged. A key limitation is the model’s reliance on a well-balanced dataset; any imbalance in classes can affect its predictive ability, leading to a higher false positive or false negative rate. Additionally, real-world drilling operations involve dynamic and unpredictable environments, and unseen operational differences can negatively affect model performance. Another challenge is the sensitivity of the reconstruction error threshold; fine-tuning is required in order to achieve optimal detection accuracy and minimize misclassification. Lastly, the computational cost of deep learning model training, particularly in resource-constrained industrial environments, is a limiting factor for real-time deployment. Future work should focus on adaptive thresholding techniques and real-time calibration to enhance model robustness.

4.4. Practical Implications

The findings of this study have significant practical implications for the oil and gas industry, particularly in preventing costly NPT due to stuck pipe incidents. Through the utilization of real-time drilling data and a LSTM autoencoder, operators are empowered to proactively detect the first signs of stuck pipe events and, consequently, take appropriate measures in good time to evade risks. The predictive capability provides enhanced operational safety, drilling efficiency, and reduced financial losses for pipe retrieval operations. Furthermore, the automation potential of the model can also support decision-making through the capability of real-time anomaly detection with minimal dependence on manual observation and experience. As industries move towards digital transformation, the integration of machine learning-based anomaly detection with existing drilling control systems can empower smarter and more autonomous drilling operations.

4.5. Deployment Considerations

The proposed LSTM autoencoder model is well suited for real-time deployment in drilling environments due to its low inference time and minimal computational overhead during prediction. Once trained, the model can be integrated into existing drilling monitoring systems to continuously analyze incoming sensor data and flag anomalies as they occur. This integration can be achieved through API-based streaming frameworks or embedded systems compatible with field instrumentation that enable proactive operational decisions and minimizing NPT without the need for constant human oversight.
To maintain long-term accuracy and adaptability, the model should undergo periodic retraining using newly accumulated operational data. This approach allows the system to adapt to evolving geological formations, equipment wear, or operational changes. A sliding window retraining schedule or data-driven triggers based on detection drift can be employed to update the model parameters. Such strategies ensure that the anomaly detection system remains reliable under shifting real-world drilling conditions while minimizing the risk of performance degradation over time.

5. Conclusions and Future Work

This study successfully developed a LSTM autoencoder model for stuck pipe detection in drilling operations, leveraging a dataset containing 11,832 normal cases and 112 stuck cases. The model effectively classified stuck and normal cases with an AUC of 0.958, demonstrating strong predictive capability. By analyzing reconstruction errors, loss curves, and classification performance, the study provided a data-driven approach to mitigating costly drilling disruptions. The findings contribute to the industry by offering an automated, real-time stuck pipe detection framework that minimizes NPT and improves operational efficiency. Additionally, this work highlights the importance of threshold optimization and the impact of data distribution on deep learning-based fault detection in drilling operations.
Future work will focus on enhancing the model adaptability to varying drilling conditions by incorporating additional real-world datasets from diverse geological formations. The further exploration of adaptive thresholding techniques will help refine stuck pipe classification and reduce false positives and negatives. Moreover, integrating the model into real-time drilling control systems will be a key step toward deployment in practical industrial settings. To improve interpretability, explainable AI (XAI) techniques can be employed to provide drilling engineers with insights into model decisions. Lastly, optimizing the computational efficiency will be crucial for scaling the approach to high-frequency streaming data to ensure seamless implementation in real-world drilling operations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and supervision, J.T. and H.M.; methodology, software, validation, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, and visualization, H.N.A.-M. 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

Data are available from the cited article [45] discussed in Section 2.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
LSTMLong Short-Term Memory
ROCReceiver Operating Characteristic
AUCArea Under the Curve
MDMeasured Depth
RPMRevolutions Per Minute
kPaKilopascal
KN·mKilonewton Meter
m/hMeters per Hour
TThreshold
ANNArtificial Neural Network
CFDComputational Fluid Dynamics
DPDDissipative Particle Dynamics
HPAMHydrolyzed Polyacrylamide
SGDStochastic Gradient Descent
CNNConvolutional Neural Network
SVMSupport Vector Machine
MSEMean Squared Error
RMSERoot Mean Squared Error
MAEMean Absolute Error
MAPEMean Absolute Percentage Error
CVRMSECoefficient of Variation of RMSE
IoUIntersection over Union
CFComfort Factor
THITemperature Humidity Index
WCFWind Chill Factor

References

  1. Yin, B.; Ding, T.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Z.; Sun, B. Pressure Drop Predicting Model for Gas and Oil-Based Drilling Fluid Two Phase Flow in Vertical Annulus. Microgravity Sci. Technol. 2024, 36, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Saldivar, B.; Mondié, S.; Niculescu, S.-I.; Mounier, H.; Boussaada, I. A Control Oriented Guided Tour in Oilwell Drilling Vibration Modeling. Annu. Rev. Control. 2016, 42, 100–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Applications in Oil and Gas Drilling. In Artificial Intelligence and Data Analytics for Energy Exploration and Production; Scrivener Publishing: Beverly, MA, USA, 2022; pp. 239–270. ISBN 9781119879893.
  4. Wang, J.; Tang, S.-X.; Krstic, M. Adaptive Output-Feedback Control of Torsional Vibration in off-Shore Rotary Oil Drilling Systems. Automatica 2020, 111, 108640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Su, H.; Hu, H.; Li, Z.; Yan, G.; Wang, L.; Xiang, D.; Zhao, C.; Wu, Y.; Chen, J.; Wang, C. Pre-Oxidized PAN Nanofibrous Membrane to Efficiently and Continuously Separate Large-Scale Viscous Oil-in-Water Emulsions Under Harsh Conditions with Ultra-Long-Term Oil-Fouling Recovery. Adv. Fiber Mater. 2024, 6, 852–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Chen, C.; Jiang, R.; Guo, Z. Bionic Functional Membranes for Separation of Oil-in-Water Emulsions. Friction 2024, 12, 1909–1928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yang, L.; Ge, J.; Wu, H.; Li, X.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, G. Study on Oil-in-Water Emulsions Stabilized by SiO2 Nanoparticles for Enhancing Oil Recovery in Harsh Reservoirs. Colloid Polym. Sci. 2024, 302, 1985–1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Shi, X.; Jiao, Y.; Yang, X.; Liu, J.; Zhuo, Y. Establishment of Drill-String System Dynamic Model with PDM and Influence of PDM Parameters on Stick–Slip Vibration. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2024, 49, 8727–8739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ejike, C.; Obuobi, I.F.; Avinu, S.; Abid, K.; Teodoriu, C. Investigation and Analysis of Influential Parameters in Bottomhole Stick–Slip Calculation during Vertical Drilling Operations. Energies 2024, 17, 622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yan, B.; Tian, J.; Meng, X.; Zhang, Z. Stick–Slip Vibration Characteristics Study of the Drill String Based on PID Controller. Energies 2023, 16, 7902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Liu, J.; Wang, J.; Guo, X.; Dai, L.; Zhang, C.; Zhu, H. Investigation on Axial-Lateral-Torsion Nonlinear Coupling Vibration Model and Stick-Slip Characteristics of Drilling String in Ultra-HPHT Curved Wells. Appl. Math. Model. 2022, 107, 182–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tian, J.; Tang, L.; Yang, Y.; Dai, L.; Xiong, C. Drill String Dynamics and Experimental Study of Constant Torque and Stick-Slip Reduction Drilling Tool. Pet. Sci. Technol. 2024, 42, 407–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fang, X.; Feng, H.; Wang, Y.; Liu, X.; Liu, X.; Xu, S.; Wang, Y.; Ni, X. Drilling-Vibration Response Characteristics of Rocks Based on Hilbert–Huang Transform. J. Pet. Explor. Prod. Technol. 2023, 13, 2417–2436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sun, Z.; Geng, D.; Guo, H.; Zhang, Q.; Liu, Y.; Liu, L.; Jiang, X.; Zhang, D. Introducing Transversal Vibration in Twist Drilling: Material Removal Mechanisms and Surface Integrity. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2024, 325, 118296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Suresh Kumar, B.; Baskar, N.; Rajaguru, K. Drilling Operation: A Review. Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 21, 926–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Han, X.; Li, P.; Xue, L.; Xu, J. Stick-Slip Vibration Characteristics of Drilling Tool during Drilling in Coal Seam with Gangue. Sci. Prog. 2022, 105, 00368504221086698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wang, D.; Li, Z.; Tian, S.; Li, T. Study on Dynamic Drilling Forces of CFRP/Ti Stacks during Longitudinal-Torsional Ultrasonic Vibration Drilling. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2023, 126, 2989–3004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Guzek, A.; Shufrin, I.; Pasternak, E.; Dyskin, A. V Influence of Drilling Mud Rheology on the Reduction of Vertical Vibrations in Deep Rotary Drilling. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2015, 135, 375–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tian, J.; Zhou, Y.; Yang, L.; Hu, S. Analysis of Stick-Slip Reduction for a New Torsional Vibration Tool Based on PID Control. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part K J. Multi-Body Dyn. 2019, 234, 82–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kessai, I.; Benammar, S.; Doghmane, M.Z.; Tee, K.F. Drill Bit Deformations in Rotary Drilling Systems under Large-Amplitude Stick-Slip Vibrations. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Choe, Y.-M.; Kim, G.-S.; Kim, I.-S.; Cha, J.-C.; Ri, K.-W.; Han, Y.-S.; Kang, C.-H. Influence of Torsional Stick-Slip Vibration on Whirl Behavior in Drill String System. Geoenergy Sci. Eng. 2023, 227, 211931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ritto, T.G.; Ghandchi-Tehrani, M. Active Control of Stick-Slip Torsional Vibrations in Drill-Strings. J. Vib. Control 2018, 25, 194–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. He, T.; Zhong, H.; Liao, K.; Liao, J.; Zhao, S.; He, G.; Zhang, J. Quantitative Study on Magnetic Flux Leakage Internal Detection Signal of Defects on the Outer Wall of Bimetal Composite Pipes. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 2025, 214, 105438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhong, Z.; Li, C.; Liu, X.; Xiong, Y.; Fan, Y.; Liang, N. Assessment of Experimental Friction Parameters and Contact Property of Pipe String for the Estimation and Verification of a Solution for Pipe Stuck in the China’s First Rock Pipe Jacking. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2021, 107, 103671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rao, P.; Yelgaonkar, V.N.; Tiwari, C.B.; Dhakar, V.; Panicker, M.C. Locating Block Caused by Stuck PIGs in Multi Product Pipeline Using Combination of Radioisotope Techniques. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 2023, 193, 110660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Shoukat, S.; Gao, T.; Javeed, D.; Saeed, M.S.; Adil, M. Trust My IDS: An Explainable AI Integrated Deep Learning-Based Transparent Threat Detection System for Industrial Networks. Comput. Secur. 2025, 149, 104191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ullah, S.; Li, J.; Ullah, F.; Chen, J.; Ali, I.; Khan, S.; Ahad, A.; Leung, V.C.M. The Revolution and Vision of Explainable AI for Android Malware Detection and Protection. Internet Things 2024, 27, 101320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liu, K.; Fang, J.; Zhao, S.; Liu, Y.; Dai, H.; Ye, L.; Peng, Q. Battery State-of-Health Estimation: An Ultrasonic Detection Method with Explainable AI. Energy 2025, 319, 134923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Saleh, T.A. Advanced Trends of Shale Inhibitors for Enhanced Properties of Water-Based Drilling Fluid. Upstream Oil Gas Technol. 2022, 8, 100069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yongwang, L.; Zhichuan, G.; Hongning, Z.; Baoping, L.; Guangjun, M.; Deyang, L. Study on Vibration Energy Conversion Efficiency of the Drill String Absorption & Hydraulic Supercharging Device. Chem. Technol. Fuels Oils 2022, 58, 340–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wang, W.; Li, S.; Yuan, X. Effect of Power-V on the Stick–Slip Vibration of a Drill String. Chem. Technol. Fuels Oils 2023, 59, 202–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Khan, J.A.; Irfan, M.; Irawan, S.; Yao, F.K.; Abdul Rahaman, M.S.; Shahari, A.R.; Glowacz, A.; Zeb, N. Comparison of Machine Learning Classifiers for Accurate Prediction of Real-Time Stuck Pipe Incidents. Energies 2020, 13, 3683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kumar, G.; Singh, V.P.; Pandey, S.K. Assessing Gas Leakage Detection Performance Using Machine Learning with Different Modalities. Trans. Electr. Electron. Mater. 2024, 25, 653–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mardanirad, S.; Wood, D.A.; Zakeri, H. The Application of Deep Learning Algorithms to Classify Subsurface Drilling Lost Circulation Severity in Large Oil Field Datasets. SN Appl. Sci. 2021, 3, 785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Dang, T.; Nguyen, T.T.; Liew, A.W.-C.; Elyan, E. Event Classification on Subsea Pipeline Inspection Data Using an Ensemble of Deep Learning Classifiers. Cogn. Comput. 2024, 17, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhu, S.; Song, X.; Zhu, Z.; Yao, X.; Liu, M. Intelligent Prediction of Stuck Pipe Using Combined Data-Driven and Knowledge-Driven Model. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Davoodi, S.; Al-Rubaii, M.; Wood, D.A.; Al-Shargabi, M.; Mehrad, M.; Rukavishnikov, V.S. Hybrid Machine-Learning Model for Accurate Prediction of Filtration Volume in Water-Based Drilling Fluids. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 9035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhang, X.; Dong, P.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Sun, Y.; Song, X.; Zhu, Z. Identification Method of Stuck Pipe Based on Data Augmentation and ATT-LSTM. Processes 2024, 12, 1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Al-Rubaii, M.; Al-Shargabi, M.; Al-Shehri, D. A Novel Automated Model for Evaluation of the Efficiency of Hole Cleaning Conditions during Drilling Operations. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Siqueira, V.S.d.M.; Cuadros, M.A.S.L.; Munaro, C.J.; de Almeida, G.M. Expert System for Early Sign Stuck Pipe Detection: Feature Engineering and Fuzzy Logic Approach. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2024, 127, 107229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mopuri, K.R.; Bilen, H.; Tsuchihashi, N.; Wada, R.; Inoue, T.; Kusanagi, K.; Nishiyama, T.; Tamamura, H. Early Sign Detection for the Stuck Pipe Scenarios Using Unsupervised Deep Learning. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2022, 208, 109489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bayazitova, G.; Anastasiadou, M.; dos Santos, V.D. Oil and Gas Flow Anomaly Detection on Offshore Naturally Flowing Wells Using Deep Neural Networks. Geoenergy Sci. Eng. 2024, 242, 213240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Song, L.; Cui, X.; Han, X.; Gao, Y.; Liu, F.; Yu, Y.; Yuan, Y. A Non-Metallic Pipeline Leak Size Recognition Method Based on CWT Acoustic Image Transformation and CNN. Appl. Acoust. 2024, 225, 110180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Equinor Volve Field Dataset in Norway. Available online: https://www.equinor.com/news/archive/14jun2018-disclosing-volve-data (accessed on 16 January 2025).
  45. Bo, C.; Yu, S.; Feng, X.; Fukang, P. Development of Time Series Drilling Datasets for Stuck Pipe Prediction Using Volve Field Data. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Singapore, 9–14 June 2024; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 2024; Volume 87868, p. V008T11A027. [Google Scholar]
  46. Abdulameer, A.G.; Mrah, M.M.; Bazerkan, M.; Al-Haddad, L.A.; Al-Karkhi, M.I. Machine Learning-Driven Power Prediction in Continuous Extrusion of Pure Titanium for Enhanced Structural Resilience under Extreme Loading. Discov. Mater. 2025, 5, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Al-Haddad, L.A.; Łukaszewicz, A.; Majdi, H.S.; Holovatyy, A.; Jaber, A.A.; Al-Karkhi, M.I.; Giernacki, W. Energy Consumption and Efficiency Degradation Predictive Analysis in Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Batteries Using Deep Neural Networks. Adv. Sci. Technol. Res. J. 2025, 19, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Al-Haddad, L.A.; Jaber, A.A.; Dhahir, M.K.; Nagim, H.Y.; Algburi, Z.I. Characterization and Prediction of Femtosecond Laser Induced Tracks in Silver-Containing Zinc Phosphate Glass. In Proceedings of the CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Conference: SYSYEM 2024: 10th Scholar’s Yearly Symposium of Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, Rome, Italy, 2–5 December 2024; Volume 3870, pp. 10–19. [Google Scholar]
  49. Sarow, S.A.; Flayyih, H.A.; Bazerkan, M.; Al-Haddad, L.A.; Al-Sharify, Z.T.; Ogaili, A.A.F. Advancing Sustainable Renewable Energy: XGBoost Algorithm for the Prediction of Water Yield in Hemispherical Solar Stills. Discov. Sustain. 2024, 5, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Al-Haddad, L.A.; Jaber, A.A. An Intelligent Fault Diagnosis Approach for Multirotor UAVs Based on Deep Neural Network of Multi-Resolution Transform Features. Drones 2023, 7, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Al-Haddad, L.A.; Alawee, W.H.; Basem, A. Advancing Task Recognition towards Artificial Limbs Control with ReliefF-Based Deep Neural Network Extreme Learning. Comput. Biol. Med. 2023, 169, 107894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Al-Haddad, L.A.; Giernacki, W.; Basem, A.; Khan, Z.H.; Jaber, A.A.; Al-Haddad, S.A. UAV Propeller Fault Diagnosis Using Deep Learning of Non-Traditional Χ2-Selected Taguchi Method-Tested Lempel–Ziv Complexity and Teager–Kaiser Energy Features. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 18599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Al-Haddad, L.A.; Kahachi, H.A.H.; Ur Rehman, H.Z.; Al-Zubaidi, A.A.; Al-Karkhi, M.I.; Al-Oubaidi, B. Advancing Sustainability in Buildings Using an Integrated Aerodynamic Façade: Potential of Artificial Intelligence. Terra Joule J. 2024, 1, 1. [Google Scholar]
  54. Abdul-Zahra, A.S.; Ghane, E.; Kamali, A.; Farhan Ogaili, A.A. Power Forecasting in Continuous Extrusion of Pure Titanium Using Naïve Bayes Algorithm. Terra Joule J. 2024, 1, 2. [Google Scholar]
  55. Li, D.; Gao, H.; Yang, K.; Zhou, F.; Shi, X. Abnormal Identification of Oil Monitoring Based on LSTM and SVDD. Wear 2023, 526–527, 204793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Al-Haddad, A.A.; Al-Haddad, L.A.; Al-Haddad, S.A.; Jaber, A.A.; Khan, Z.H.; Rehman, H.Z.U. Towards Dental Diagnostic Systems: Synergizing Wavelet Transform with Generative Adversarial Networks for Enhanced Image Data Fusion. Comput. Biol. Med. 2024, 182, 109241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Al-Haddad, S.A.; Al-Haddad, L.A.; Jaber, A.A. Environmental Engineering Solutions for Efficient Soil Classification in Southern Syria: A Clustering-Correlation Extreme Learning Approach. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2024, 22, 2177–2190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Mejbel, B.G.; Sarow, S.A.; Al-Sharify, M.T.; Al-Haddad, L.A.; Ogaili, A.A.F.; Al-Sharify, Z.T. A Data Fusion Analysis and Random Forest Learning for Enhanced Control and Failure Diagnosis in Rotating Machinery. J. Fail. Anal. Prev. 2024, 24, 2979–2989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Experimental setup: (a) Volve 3D model. (b) The Volve development was based on production from the Mærsk Inspirer jack-up rig [44].
Figure 1. Experimental setup: (a) Volve 3D model. (b) The Volve development was based on production from the Mærsk Inspirer jack-up rig [44].
Applsci 15 05042 g001
Figure 2. Workflow of stuck pipe detection using a LSTM autoencoder.
Figure 2. Workflow of stuck pipe detection using a LSTM autoencoder.
Applsci 15 05042 g002
Figure 3. Data flow in a LSTM autoencoder.
Figure 3. Data flow in a LSTM autoencoder.
Applsci 15 05042 g003
Figure 4. Rate of penetration vs. hole depth general visualization.
Figure 4. Rate of penetration vs. hole depth general visualization.
Applsci 15 05042 g004
Figure 5. General visualization of weight on bit vs. average standpipe pressure.
Figure 5. General visualization of weight on bit vs. average standpipe pressure.
Applsci 15 05042 g005
Figure 6. Model loss.
Figure 6. Model loss.
Applsci 15 05042 g006
Figure 7. Error plot for different classes.
Figure 7. Error plot for different classes.
Applsci 15 05042 g007
Figure 8. Errors for the threshold.
Figure 8. Errors for the threshold.
Applsci 15 05042 g008
Figure 9. Confusion matrix results.
Figure 9. Confusion matrix results.
Applsci 15 05042 g009
Figure 10. ROC curve.
Figure 10. ROC curve.
Applsci 15 05042 g010
Table 1. Summary of the literature on deep learning in drilling applications.
Table 1. Summary of the literature on deep learning in drilling applications.
Ref.Deep Learning ApproachApplication/ParametersKey Finding# Parameters UsedTraining Data Type
[32]ANN, SVMStuck pipe prediction from real-time drilling dataANN outperformed SVM with 88.89% accuracy19Both
[33]ML ModelsGas leak detection via sensors & IR thermographyHigh classification precision demonstrated12Both
[34]CNN, GRU, LSTMLost circulation severity classificationCNN achieved 98% accuracy20Both
[35]Ensemble DL ModelsSubsea pipeline anomaly classificationEnsemble achieved up to 99% accuracy18Abnormal
[36]ANN, Fuzzy LogicStuck pipe prediction via friction probabilityF1-score of 0.98, 1% false alarms10Normal
[37]RBFNN, MELMFiltration volume prediction in drilling fluidsRMSE of 0.6396 mL achieved2Normal
[38]ATT-LSTMStuck pipe detection with data augmentationAccuracy improved by 21.31%10Normal
[39]Automated DL ModelHole cleaning efficiency evaluationROP improved by 52%3Normal
[40]Fuzzy Expert SystemEarly stuck pipe detection92% of stuck cases predicted7Normal
[41]Autoencoder (Unsupervised)Early stuck pipe detectionPromising results for anomaly detection15Normal
[42]DNN, GA, GRUFlow anomaly detection in offshore wellsF1-score of 0.9720Abnormal
[43]CNN + CWTPipeline leak size classificationAchieved 95% accuracy8Abnormal
Table 2. Drilling parameters and units [45].
Table 2. Drilling parameters and units [45].
ParameterUnit
DateDate/Time
Average HookloadKkgf
Hole depth (MD)M
Weight on BitKkgf
Block PositionM
Rate of Penetrationm/h
Average Rotary SpeedRpm
Average Surface TorqueKN·m
Rate of Penetration (5ft avg)m/h
Bit Depth (MD)M
Average Standpipe PressurekPa
Mud Flow InL/min
Stuck casesCategorical
Table 3. Balanced performance comparison with traditional ML methods.
Table 3. Balanced performance comparison with traditional ML methods.
MethodAccuracyPrecisionRecallF1-ScoreRemarks
K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN)85.20%86.00%81.50%83.70%Performance stable but sensitive to outliers
Support Vector Machine (SVM)88.40%89.10%84.20%86.60%Good for high-dimensional data, less adaptive
Decision Tree (DT)84.10%85.00%80.40%82.60%Interpretable but may overfit on small sets
Random Forest (RF)90.60%91.50%87.30%89.30%Balanced performance, ensemble strength
Artificial Neural Network (ANN-Deep, 3 Layers)93.10%92.00%89.80%90.90%Better feature learning but slower convergence
Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)94.60%93.50%91.20%92.30%Strong pattern extraction, needs more computation
Proposed LSTM Autoencoder (Current Study)99.06%97.12%91.34%94.15%Real-Time Compatible, Trained on Normal Only
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Al-Mamoori, H.N.; Tian, J.; Ma, H. Stuck Pipe Detection in Oil and Gas Drilling Operations Using Deep Learning Autoencoder for Anomaly Diagnosis. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 5042. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15095042

AMA Style

Al-Mamoori HN, Tian J, Ma H. Stuck Pipe Detection in Oil and Gas Drilling Operations Using Deep Learning Autoencoder for Anomaly Diagnosis. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(9):5042. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15095042

Chicago/Turabian Style

Al-Mamoori, Hasan N., Jialin Tian, and Haifeng Ma. 2025. "Stuck Pipe Detection in Oil and Gas Drilling Operations Using Deep Learning Autoencoder for Anomaly Diagnosis" Applied Sciences 15, no. 9: 5042. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15095042

APA Style

Al-Mamoori, H. N., Tian, J., & Ma, H. (2025). Stuck Pipe Detection in Oil and Gas Drilling Operations Using Deep Learning Autoencoder for Anomaly Diagnosis. Applied Sciences, 15(9), 5042. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15095042

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop