Prediction of flow rates for potable water supply from directionally drilled horizontal wells in river sediments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Horizontal wells installed by directional drilling in the highly permeable river bottom sediments can improve the quality of water delivered to water treatments plants by filtration of suspended solids and dilution with groundwater. Predicting the flow rates available from horizontal wells is an important step in evaluating the technology. A series of three-dimensional finite element models were developed to simulate a horizontal well located beneath a river and a parametric analysis of predicted flow as a function of pipe length, pipe diameter, depth below river bottom, and sediment hydraulic conductivity was conducted to determine optimum horizontal well configurations. The results indicated that the frictional head losses in the well screen have a significant impact on predicted withdrawal rates. Analysis of well length and pipe diameter indicates that for each specific well configuration there exists an optimum length, beyond which little increase in flow occurs. The simulations indicated maximum flows occur when horizontal wells are placed as deep as possible until they are within 0.5 to 2.5 m of an impermeable lower boundary.Key words: directional drilling, water supply, horizontal wells, river filtration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".