Complex Mathematical Modeling of the Well Drilling Process
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have no comments on this paper, the literature review is clear and concise. Some basic images might help illustrate key points for those less familiar with drilling infrastructure.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We thank you for the time spent on reading our manuscript and for the corrections suggested. We added schemes to describe the main physical processes in the drilled well and their interaction with each other.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper provides a detailed review of existing approaches in solving the complex modeling of the well drilling process. However, the review has several limitations and I do not recommend it for publishing. Below are my specific comments.
1) There are many reviews on the topic. Authors should have highlighted the main novelty of this review.
2) An important aspect of review article is critical discussion which is missing. The authors should address it instead of summarizing the published literature.
3) It is not clear how the literature review was searched, what was the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
4) The key challenges should be identified and recommendations for work should be provided.
5) Summary tables summarizing the previous literature are missing which is vital component of a review article.
6) The linguistic quality of the paper is also weak.
7) The review lacks proper organization. Information should be presented in logical pattern.
8) Abstract is done superficially and does not provide any insights about the review contributions and general findings.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We thank you for the time spent on reading our manuscript and for the corrections suggested. Our comments are given below.
1) The novelty of this review is an emphasis on complex modelling of multiphysical processes in well drilling. We consider the most important parts of the drilling process – the drill string, drill bit, drilling fluid, heat and mass exchange, and approaches used for modelling each of them separately. At present, there are several reviews devoted to the mathematical modeling of certain processes. At the same time, as far as the authors know, currently there is no review that combines the works on modeling each of the processes listed here that occur during drilling of oil wells.
2) We agree with this remark and have tried to improve this review by supplementing and emphasizing the relevant discussion. In this regard, we have completely reworked the Introduction and Conclusion sections, as well as supplemented the remaining sections. We hope that now the general idea, structure and motivation of this review are more visible.
3) We’ve added the detailed description of such criteria into the Introduction section.
4) The Conclusions section was expanded to take into account the recommendations.
5) The summary table was added in the Conclusions section.
6) We did our best in order to improve it.
7) The review is organized as follows: at first we consider the most important parts of the drilling process and methods used for modelling each of them separately. Afterwards we consider the combined modelling when two or more processes are modelled together, and in the last part we present our own experience in modeling all considered processes at once.
8) The abstract was modified to take into account these recommendations.
Reviewer 3 Report
Reviewer Comments
Paper title: Complex mathematical modeling of the well drilling process
The present manuscript aims to complex mathematical modeling but such modelling cannot be found in the paper.
Then motivation of the paper seems to be unclear. I was not able to find review research results.
Despite the review type of article only one Figure is presented. Why do not give more schemes, tables, diagrams? It is not a student work!
A manuscript has no practical application and also provides important theoretical for the next studies.
General comments:
Comment 1. The title of the paper do not reflects the contents of the work
Comment 2. The abstract section sounds unclear. The abstract should follow the MDPI style of structured abstracts:
- Background (place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study);
- Methods (describe briefly the main methods);
- Results (summarize the article's main findings);
- Conclusion (indicate the main conclusions or interpretations).
Comment 3. Keywords need to be modified. Please use words not combinations of words or phrases.
Comment 4. In the Introduction section, an enhanced literature review is required. For this study, the authors have used only 4 literature sources. It seems insufficient for such type of research. It will be great if the authors show some description in context – Why it is important to conduct this study? Can the expected result be used or implemented worldwide? If yes, then how? What limitations?
Comment 5. The aim and the tasks must be highlighted at the end of the Introduction section.
Comment 6. The novelty of the paper must be highlighted in the conclusions section and give more details in the paper.
Comment 7. It is necessary to provide a description of further research.
Comment 8. You should consider the suggested research in your paper when enhancing the literature review and provide more newest research not out of date:
Moisyshyn, V., Voyevidko, I., & Tokaruk, V. (2020). Design of bottom hole assemblies with two rock cutting tools for drilling wells of large diameter. Mining of Mineral Deposits, 14(3), 128-133. https://doi.org/10.33271/mining14.03.128
Ivanova, T. N., Biały, W., Korshunov, A. I., Jura, J., Kaczmarczyk, K., & Turczyński, K. (2022). Increasing Energy Efficiency in Well Drilling. Energies, 15(5), 1865. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15051865
Ihnatov, A. (2021). Analyzing mechanics of rock breaking under conditions of hydromechanical drilling. Mining of Mineral Deposits, 15(3), 122-129. https://doi.org/10.33271/mining15.03.122
Comment 9. There are too many out-of-date references and most of them are published in Russian.
Comment 10. In general, the presented article must be seriously rewritten.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We thank you for the time spent on reading our manuscript and for the corrections suggested. Our comments are given below.
Comment 1. We hope that the revised version of the article is more in line with the title.
Comment 2. The abstract was modified to take into account these recommendations.
Comment 3. Keywords consisting of 2-3 words are used in many MDPI Applied Sciences publications to provide a more accurate search for scientific papers.
Comment 4. The Introduction section was completely reworked with account to these recommendations. However, the main overview of the sources is contained in the following sections of the article.
Comment 5. The revised Introduction contains these items.
Comment 6. The novelty of this review is complex modeling of multiphysical processes in well drilling. We consider the most important parts of the drilling process – the drill string, drill bit, drilling fluid, heat and mass exchange, and approaches used for modelling each of them separately. Afterwards we consider the combined modelling when two or more processes are modelled and at last present our own experience in modelling all processes at once.
Comment 7. Further research is to make more accurate complex multiphysical models, that consider all the physical processes in the well and their impact on each other. Suggestions on the further research are added to the Conclusions section.
Comment 8. The proposed research papers were added to the review.
Comment 9. The review mentions some “out-of-date” references (less than 20 issued before 1990, with 140 references in the whole bibliography) that contain fundamental research results in corresponding topics.
Comment 10. It was done. The new parts of the paper are highlighted by yellow.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has been significantly improved. All of my comments are well taken care of in the revised manuscript. Therefore, I am satisfied with the revision made by the authors, and would like to recommend it for publication in its current form.
Reviewer 3 Report
I am satisfied with the corrections provided by authors.
