Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 (2002) S47–S55
Abstract
This paper presents a new technique to predict forces and deformations of pipes installed underground by horizontal directional
drilling (HDD). The proposed technique consists of several models each describing different aspects of mechanics of HDD. It
allows prediction of the shape of the pipe in the borepath. Based on the pipe shape, shape of the borepath and pipe stiffness, the
contact forces between the pipe and the borepath are calculated. The contact forces cause friction and thus axial pulling force is
induced to equilibrate the frictional forces and the weight of the pipe. The analytical model is used to study the stresses and
strains on two pipes that were tested in the field. The theoretical results are compared with the strains measured in the field.
䊚 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
0886-7798/02/$ - see front matter 䊚 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 8 8 6 - 7 7 9 8 Ž 0 2 . 0 0 0 2 0 - 2
S48 M.A. Polak, A. Lasheen / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 Suppl. 1 (2002) S47–S55
The described analytical method consists of models The model for pipe at the corner utilises the theory
for pipe shapes negotiating curves in the borepath, pipe of large deflections of flexible bars to derive the contact
friction due to weight, fluidic drag and changes of forces between the pipe and the soil. From the geometry
direction. The following assumptions are adopted.
of the pipe and the borepath, the following relationships
1. The borepath consists of straight sections with defined are derived:
angles of inclination for each section. This is a ymaxqc9sltanc (1)
conservative assumption because it creates sharper
deviations, i.e. greater than in reality angles for the where:
pipe.
B dqc E
2. The angles between the horizontal line and the seg-
c9sC ydF (2)
ments are a; positive anticlockwise. ai is the angle D cosc G
for the segment between points ‘i’ and ‘iq1’, Li is
the length for this segment and Li9 is a horizontal Therefore:
projection of the length (Fig. 2). c9ycosc
3. Soil is assumed to be a stiff support for the pipe. It ls (3)
does not deflect or collapse due to the pipe forces tancyymax yl
and the borepath retains its shape during the whole c is the clearance between the pipe and the borepath,
process. c is half the angle between the two line segments of
the borepath, and l is half of the distance between
The developed formulation allows evaluation of the
supports B1 and B2.
bending deformations that result from the pipe being
forced to negotiate angles in the borepath. Based on
these deformations, the frictional forces and the required
pulling forces are calculated.
In order to model the shape of the pipe in the
borepath, a borepath profile is approximated by inter-
secting straight lines with defined angles of inclination
as shown in Fig. 2 (Lasheen and Polak, 2001a,b) When
a pipe passes through a borepath, it must negotiate the
corners. To do so the pipe must deflect and contact the
soil. Normal forces acting on the pipe can be approxi-
mated using three contact points (B1, B2 and B), as
shown in Fig. 3. In the proposed model, the pipe exerts
forces on the soil, which applies equivalent reaction
forces on the pipe at points of contact. Within each
borepath section, the pipe profile can be approximated
as a simple beam supported on points B1 and B2 with a Fig. 3. Model for calculating flexural forces acting on a pipe negoti-
concentrated load at point B. ating an angle in the borepath.
M.A. Polak, A. Lasheen / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 Suppl. 1 (2002) S47–S55 S49
In Eq. (3), ymax yl is determined using the following Where rp and ri are the pipe external and internal
equation (Frisch-Fay, 1962): radii, gp, gw are self-weights of pipe material and the
drilling fluid, respectively. The weights, w and wp are
w z
xy positive if acting downwards.
ymax y 2sinccosf0ycoscFŽp,f0.~
|
sw z
(4)
l xy
y 2cosccosf0qsincFŽp,f0.~ 3.3. Fluidic drag
|
Having calculated l, the normal force P is calculated During HDD, the pipe is pulled with the velocity, vp
from the following equation: while the drilling fluid is flowing in the opposite
EI w z2
direction. The average velocity of the drilling fluid can
Ps 2
cosc0xyy2cosc0cosf0qsinc0FŽp,f.|~ (5) be characterised by the total discharge Q wvolumeytimex.
l
This section explains the modelling method used for
where: computing drag forces exerted on a pipe during the
installation process due to the flow of the drilling fluid
1 and the velocity of the pipe (Schlichting and Kestin,
ps , f0swsinc0x1y2 and
y2 1968; Streeter and Wyle, 1975). The method assumes
FŽp,f0.s0.8472qFŽp,f0.y2EŽp,f0.. laminar flow of fluid in the borepath and the concentric
location of the pipe in the borehole. This last assumption
The functions FŽp,f0. and EŽp,f0. are elliptic inte- results in the symmetrical distribution of shear and
grals and can be evaluated using mathematical hand- velocity with respect to the centreline of the borepath
books (Abramowitz and Stequn, 1965). (Fig. 4).
Pipe maximum curvature can be estimated from: Let the pipe axis be selected as z-axis in the cylindri-
M 1 cal co-ordinates, and let r denote the radial co-ordinate
ks s wPlqPtanc0ymaxx (6) measured from the axis outward, as in Fig. 4. The
EI EI
velocity components of the flow in the radial and
tangential directions are zero. The velocity component
3.2. Weight of the pipe in the z-axis direction, denoted by v, depends on r alone.
The pressure is constant in every cross-section. The
One of the causes of frictional forces between the Navier–Stokes equation for the cylindrical co-ordinates,
pipe and the soil is the weight of the pipe. In addition for the z direction is as follows:
to the frictional forces, the pulling force must also
B d 2v 1 dv E dp
overcome the weight of the pipe itself. For the pipe
mC q Fs (9)
resting on the ground outside the borepath, the gravita- D dr
2
r dr G dz
tional weight is used:
dp
wpspŽr2pyr2i .gp (7) Where m is the viscosity of the fluid and is the
dz
Inside the borepath, the pipe is submerged in the energy gradient through the length of the pipe. The pipe
drilling fluid. The submerged weight of the pipe per moves with the velocity nsnp and the drilling fluid
unit length (when pulled empty) is: moves in the opposite direction. The total discharge of
the drilling fluid is Q wm3 ysx. Both vp and Q can be
wspŽr2pyr2i .gpypr2pgw (8) measured in the field. The boundary conditions are ns
S50 M.A. Polak, A. Lasheen / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 Suppl. 1 (2002) S47–S55
dv 1 dp B r2yr2 1 E mvp 1 Fig. 5. Forces acting on the pipe at the corner of the borepath.
tŽr.sm s C2ry p h Fq (11)
dr 4 dz D lnrp yrh r G lnrp yrh r
the pipe (Eq. 4). Considering that RsPycosc (Fig. 3),
The shear stress at the wall of the pipe is:
the following equation can be derived for DTsT2yT1:
1 dp B r2yr2 1 E mvp 1
t ps C2rpy p h Fq (12) B coscqm sinc E
DTsT1C y1F
b
4 dz D lnrp yrh rp G lnrp yrh rp
D coscymbsinc G
The total discharge of the fluid through the pipes is B 1 E
Q and can be calculated as: q4PmbC F (17a)
D coscymbsinc G
p dp B 4 4 Žrpyrh.
rh 2 2 2E
Qs | 2prvŽr.drs Crpyrhy F or
rp 8m dz D lnrp yrh G
DTsT1=C1Žc.qP=C2Žc. (17b)
p vp
q
2 lnrp yrh 4. Calculation of the pulling force
=Žrp2yrh2y2rp2lnrp yrh. (13)
dp The formulas for calculating pulling forces for the
From Eq. (13), we can calculate and substitute pipe, at different points within the borepath, are pre-
dz
back into Eq. (12) to find the shear stress at the wall sented in this section. In the descriptions the following
of the pipe. The force per unit length on the pipe, , is definitions are used:
given by: ● Ti-pulling force. The force required to pull the whole
fdsK=2prtp (14) pipe when the head (point of pulling) of the pipe is
in location ‘i’. From equilibrium, this force is equal
K is a parameter, which accounts for approximations to the axial force at the head of the pipe.
of the fluid model. The choice of the value for K is ● Tji-axial force in the pipe at location ‘j’, when the
explained later in the paper. head is in location ‘i’.
3.4. Forces resulting from the change of direction Let us consider a simple profile shown in Fig. 2. The
calculations are made for pulling forces at points 1 to
4. The total pulling force consists of the components
Fig. 5 shows a segment of a pipe ABC that changes
described below.
its direction from A to C. The pulling forces at end C
and at end A do not act on a straight line. An equili-
brating force exists and acts on the soil at the contact 4.1. Pulling forces due to weight of the pipe outside the
corner point B. The coefficient of friction between the borepath
pipe and the borepath is mb. The equation of equilibrium
in the direction of AC is: The frictional force resulting from pipe weight outside
T2coscsŽT1q2Rmb.coscq2PmbqNTmb (15) the borepath and the weight of the pipe create a
component Tig of the pulling force. At point ‘i’ it is
Equilibrium in the direction normal to AC: equal to:
NTsŽT1qT2.sinc (16) B iy1 E
TigsŽwpmgcosa0qwpsina0.CLy 8 LkF (18a)
Where PR are the forces due to flexural stiffness of D ks1 G
M.A. Polak, A. Lasheen / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 Suppl. 1 (2002) S47–S55 S51
Table 1
Sample analyses of the fluidic drag forces for the pipe in the borehole
Test Hole Pipe Ratio: Viscosity Pipe Discharge Pressure Shear Fluidic
radius radius holey (Nys m2) speed (m3ys) gradient (Nym2) drag
(m) (m) pipe radius (mys) (Nym2 m) wkNymx
Ks1
Pull 1 0.17145 0.1016 1.7 0.02 0.01183 y1.73Ey03 1.65135 y0.0687 y0.000044
Pull 2 0.1524 0.1016 1.5 0.02 0.02633 y1.73Ey03 y5.00882 y0.15055 y0.000096
Pull 2, influence of different parameters on shear stress
influence of pipe speed
0.1524 0.1016 1.5 0.02 0.10533 y1.73Ey03 y8.18255 y0.2762 y0.000176
0.1524 0.1016 1.5 0.02 0.26333 y1.73Ey03 y14.5300 y0.5275 y0.000337
influence of viscosity
0.1524 0.1016 1.5 0.04 0.02633 y1.73Ey03 y10.0176 y0.3011 y0.000192
influence of pipe radius
0.1524 0.0508 3 0.02 0.02633 y1.73Ey03 y0.80559 y0.06348 y0.000020
influence of borehole radius
0.1270 0.1016 1.25 0.02 0.02633 y1.73Ey03 y39.7169 y0.5486 y0.000350
0.1097 0.1016 1.08 0.02 0.02633 y1.73Ey03 y1208.99 y5.0462 y0.003220
0.1068 0.1016 1.05 0.02 0.02633 y1.73Ey03 y4665.98 y12.2956 y0.007849
Table 3
Theoretical predictions for Pull 1 and Pull 2
the model, a simplified approach was taken by introduc- relatively small component of the pulling force. For
ing the coefficient K)1 in Eq. (14). In the analyses of example, for a 203-mm (8 inches) pipe pulled through
the pulling force presented in this paper K was taken as a hole 1.5 times larger (pull 2), the fluidic drag is
10, however, further research is needed to determine the 0.000096 kNym. For a 90-m pull this means a total
frictional forces resulting from fluidic drag. pulling force from fluidic friction of 0.0086 kN for Ks
It is worth noting that the value of K has little 1 and 0.086 kN for Ks10. These constitute 0.11% and
practical meaning for the calculations presented in this 1.1% of the total pulling force, respectively (the total
work. All calculated values of shear stress result in a pulling force is approx. equal to 8 kN, Table 3).
Another interesting observation regarding the fluidic
Table 4 drag is that increasing the pipe velocity by a factor of
The effect of changing borepath profile for pull 2 predictions 10, results in the increase in the drag force by a factor
Point x y Bending Pulling Stress Axial
of 3.4 (y0.00034yy0.0001s3.4, Table 1). Also,
strain force wkPax strain increasing viscosity by a factor increases the drag force
w%x wkNx w%x by the same factor (Table 1).
Profile 1 1 0 0 0.76 106 0.02
(pull 2) 2 11.52 y1.94 0.49 2.03 283 0.04 6. Predictions using the proposed model
3 25.00 y1.945 0.00 3.45 480 0.07
4 65.00 y1.945 0.00 6.16 858 0.12 The presented mechanical formulations were com-
5 72.00 y1.95 0.20 6.64 924 0.13 bined into a predictive model. The model was used for
6 90.68 0 7.73 1076 0.15
Profile 2 1 0 0 0.76 106 0.02 the analyses of the pipes tested in the field (Gelinas et
2 11.52 y1.94 0.92 2.03 283 0.04 al., 2000). During the tests, the only measured variables
3 25.00 y1 0.25 3.86 537 0.08 were longitudinal strains at four locations around the
4 65.00 y3 0.68 7.34 1022 0.15 perimeter of the pipe (at 0, 90, 180 and 2708 from the
5 72.00 y1.95 0.04 8.64 1203 0.17 crown). From these strains, the strains due to axial
6 90.68 0 9.52 1326 0.19
Profile 3 1 0 0 0.76 106 0.02 pulling force and strains due to bending were calculated
2 11.52 y1.94 0.69 2.03 284 0.04 (using the input data given in Table 2, see Table 3).
3 40.00 y1 2.72 4.51 628 0.09 The comparison is made between field measured and
4 45.00 y3 2.79 11.10 1545 0.22 calculated strains. The predicted flexural deformations
5 72.00 y1.95 0.08 19.46 2710 0.39 compare well with the field data. The predicted axial
6 90.68 0 20.59 2868 0.41
Profile 4 1 0 0 0.76 106 0.02 strains are smaller than the experimental ones. This can
2 11.52 y1.94 0.69 2.03 283 0.04 be attributed to several factors the most important one
3 25.00 y1.5 0.06 3.62 504 0.07 being that the presented analyses are simplified because
4 65.00 y2.5 0.20 6.65 926 0.13 only three straight lines approximate the drill path and
5 72.00 y1.95 0.02 7.30 1016 0.15 thus not all forces due to bending deformations are
6 90.68 0 8.12 1131 0.16
Profile 5 1 0 0 0.76 106 0.02 included in the calculations (the borepath profile for
2 5.00 y1.94 2.18 1.64 228 0.03 pull 2 is shown as profile 1 in Fig. 8). The value for
3 25.00 y1.945 0.00 6.83 951 0.14 Young modulus was taken as 700 MPa, which represents
4 65.00 y1.945 0.00 9.50 1322 0.19 a short-term modulus for high-density polyethylene. In
5 85.00 y1.95 1.78 10.83 1508 0.22 the tests, the effective modulus was likely to be less
6 90.68 0 14.57 2029 0.29
than this adopted value. Also, a simplifying assumption
S54 M.A. Polak, A. Lasheen / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 Suppl. 1 (2002) S47–S55
Table 5
The effects of different parameters for pull 2, profile 1 predictions
of linear elastic behaviour of polyethylene was used in pipe is forced to negotiate smaller angles in the borepath.
the presented calculations. Also, an increase in the number of angles increases the
The developed method was used for a sensitivity pulling force. Smaller angles also result in larger strains
study of the pulling force, stress and strain predictions due to bending deformations.
to different parameters influencing mechanism of HDD. Table 5 shows the influence of Young’s modulus and
The conditions for pull 2 were used as a base and the borepath vs. pipe size. When the calculations were
different parameters were varied, one at a time. Table 4 done using a smaller Young’s modulus (300 MPa), there
presents calculations for different borepath profiles. The was an increase in the predicted axial strains. However,
analysed profiles are shown in Fig. 8. The model the total pulling force decreased slightly (from 8.04 to
predicted the increase in the pulling forces when the 7.72 kN). This shows that rational modelling for poly-
M.A. Polak, A. Lasheen / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 Suppl. 1 (2002) S47–S55 S55