Pulling Loads for Polyethylene Pipes in Horizontal Directional Drilling: Theoretical Modeling and Parametric Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper presents an analytical study on the effect of borepath profile, borehole to pipe radius ratio, clearance between pipe and the borehole, and pipe stiffness on the behavior of pipes installed using horizontal directional drilling (HDD). The theoretical model used for the study is presented first. It includes most of the major components of the mechanics of HDD. The borepath is approximated as a series of linear segments and the shape of the pipe in the borepath is found considering pipe stiffness, clearance between the pipe and the soil, and the theory of large deflections of flexible bars. Based on the pipe shape, the contact forces between the pipe and the borepath are calculated. The contact forces cause friction and thus axial pulling force is induced to overcome the frictional forces. The pulling force for the pipe is calculated to equilibrate weight of the pipe and friction between the pipe and the soil and the pipe and the drilling fluid. In order to verify the formulation, the model is used to study the stresses and strains on two pipes that were tested in the field. The developed theoretical model is then used to study the influence of the above parameters on the pulling force applied to the pipe during HDD.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".