Numerical Modeling of the Annular Failure Pressure during HDD in Noncohesive Soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the critical issues that engineers, contractors, and owners encounter during horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is inadvertent return of drilling fluid (frac-out or hydraulic fracture) to the ground surface when the annular pressure in the borehole exceeds the yield shear or tensile strength of the soil. In this study, numerical modeling using ABAQUS software (version 6.13) was employed to estimate the failure pressure in several case studies following the limit pressure solution. In the next step, a large-strain cavity expansion solution was used to estimate the failure pressure, which was then compared to the estimations based on numerical modeling following the limit pressure solution. A parametric study using numerical modeling was conducted to examine the influence of the geotechnical parameters of the soil medium on the limit pressure. The parametric study showed that overburden depth, friction angle, and elastic modulus of the soil have a significant impact on the limit pressure. The ratio of limit pressure according to analytical and numerical solution resulted in coefficients of limit pressure in different geotechnical conditions and can be used to estimate the failure pressure in noncohesive soils using the large-strain cavity expansion solution.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".