Limiting Slurry Pressures to Control Hydraulic Fracturing in Directional Drilling Operations in Purely Cohesive Soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydraulic fracturing during horizontal directional drilling can permit drilling mud to travel to the ground surface, to collect under overlying pavements, or to be released into the riverbed during river crossings. These events can decrease drilling efficiency, damage adjacent infrastructure, and cause environmental damage. Current design equations for maximum drilling pressure focus on shear failure around the borehole drilled to house the new pipe. The present research examines, instead, the potential for tensile fracture of cohesive soils surrounding the borehole. Two-dimensional nonlinear finite element modeling is used to study the effectiveness of closed-form solutions for calculation of the drilling slurry pressures that fracture the surrounding soil. Tangential stresses are calculated for a borehole with a 0.2-m diameter in an undrained clay soil with various K 0 values, construction depths, and drilling slurry pressures. Elastic plate theory is found to provide effective values of ( a) tangential crown and spring line stresses when the soil responds elastically and ( b) the decreases in tangential crown stress that occur as drilling slurry pressures increase. Closed-form plasticity solutions provide good values of tangential stresses once the soil yields. Following yield, increases in mud pressure result in increases in tangential stress, so hydraulic fracture from tension is no longer an issue. The study indicates that mud loss in low-strength clays or those with K 0 close to unity is most likely the result of unconfined plastic flow (blowout). Mud loss for stiff clays and those with other K 0 values is more likely the result of tensile fracture.
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".