MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Estimation of Hydrokinetic Pressure and Fluidic Drag Changes during Pipe Installations via HDD Based on Identifying Slurry-Flow Pattern Change within a Borehole

2017· article· en· W2739169539 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Montazar Rabiei, Yaolin Yi, Alireza Bayat, Roger Cheng, Manley Osbak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaHatch (Canada)
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBoreholeDragSlurryDrill pipeEngineeringFlow (mathematics)Nominal Pipe SizeDirectional drillingMarine engineeringFluidicsPetroleum engineeringDrillGeotechnical engineeringDrillingMechanical engineeringMechanicsAerospace engineeringMaterials sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a new method for hydrokinetic pressure and fluidic drag evaluation of non-Newtonian power-law slurries flowing within a borehole during horizontal directional drilling (HDD) pipe installation operations. The method divides the bore path into three segments, each associated with a different stage of slurry flow pattern. For each stage, assuming the product pipe and drill rod to be placed concentrically within the borehole, a set of coupled equations governing slurry flow within the borehole is derived. Then, to obtain the hydrokinetic pressure and fluidic drag history, the equations are solved at the desired product pipe leading head locations within a given segment. For two actual HDD installations completed in Alberta, Canada, the pullback forces have been collected and are compared against those estimated by the new proposed method and Pipeline Research Council International (PRCI) method. It is demonstrated that the new method can more accurately estimate the pullback forces.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and PracticeSame topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207