A Review of Field Data for Pilot Hole in Horizontal Directional Drilling

Jay Busey1 and Ali Ameli2

ABSTRACT
Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) is a fast-growing construction method for the installation of
underground utility pipelines. The HDD as an outgrowth of the oil well drilling technology
evolved from drilling contractors’ know-how. Theoretical models, e.g. cavity expansion and
borehole stability were then applied on the method adopting it as an engineering practice. The
technology, methodology and application of the HDD have been described considerably in
some recent publications and video clips. There are also some interesting academic
advancements and model studies among HDD related literature, however, less attention has
been given to the HDD data obtained during construction to interpret field data and bridge
further between theory and practice. This article presents data collected during drilling of pilot
holes for five oil and gas pipelines with an approximate total length of 22777 ft (6942 m).
PREAMBLE
The adoption of HDD has increased over the past decade globally, as telecommunication,
natural gas supply, water supply, sewerage and electricity demands have been installed in the
congested urban areas with the warranted minimal social and environmental impacts on the
surrounding areas. While North America credits for most of HDD revenues (30%), it is reported
that the trend is increasing in China, India, Australia and Japan.
HDD has commonly been defined as a trenchless method of installing underground pipes,
conduits, and cables in a shallow arc along a prescribed bore path by using a surface-launched
drilling rig. The method was developed as an advanced replacement when the traditional open-
cut method is not amenable due to environmental impacts, damage to existing infrastructure
and roads. The HDD is particularly suitable in crossing water bodies such as rivers, lakes and
marshlands with the first river crossing recorded in 1971 for a utility company in California. The
HDD has allowed the installation of pipelines for bores, reported currently having diameters
between 2-inch and 48-inch, with no impacts to the crossing features.
The HDD is an outgrowth of the oil well drilling technology evolved and developed in the USA by
the early 1970s, originally as the drilling contractors’ know-how. Theoretical models, e.g. cavity
expansion, borehole stability and pullback load calculation were then applied on the method
adopting it as an engineering practice. The technology, equipment, application and construction
processes of the HDD projects have been well described in numerous publications and quality
video clips. There are also academic advancements and model studies among HDD related
literature, however, less publications were found giving attention to data obtained during HDD
operations. This article shares the findings and available field data obtained from HDD
operations to encourage the incorporation of field data in future academic research. It could also
assist engineers for future development, design, and inspection considerations.
The data were collected from five HDD projects during production work by contractor and
submitted to the inspection team. The construction operation was carried out by experienced
drilling crews with standard HDD rig types that are currently used in the US practice.

1
President, Critical Crossings Llc,
2
Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Critical Crossings Llc.
Knowledge of the directional drilling process by the reader is assumed, but limited explanations
are provided in this article which may be of value in establishing common bases. This paper is
not based on a preplanned R&D program, which generally studies the variation of a specific
parameter, while other parameters are kept unchanged. As such, although the data could not
answer specific questions, they have the merits of representing the unbiased routine production
work.
Projects
The site work consisted of five ethane and propane 20” diameter pipeline projects with a total of
22861 ft horizontal directional drilling in the Liberty and Jefferson Counties in Texas. Table xxx
summarizes some of project information including the typical ground along the pipeline
alignments. The HDD installation time in terms of 10 hr working shifts are also provided, which
includes an average of 4 shifts per project for mobilization and demobilization.
Tangents Shifts
Pipe
Entry Horizontal Exit
Projects Length Soil Type
Angle Depth Angle
ft º ft º #
Marsh Crossing 6821 SP-SM, CL 10 112 - 137 10 49
I-10 Crossing (Upper) 4046 CH 10 54 - 57 8 21
I-10 Crossing (Lower) 4646 CH 11 110 - 113 8 32
Trinity Crossing (Upper) 3624 CL, SM 10 99 - 128 10 23
Trinity Crossing (Lower) 3724 CH, CL, SM 10 114 - 143 10 20

FIELD ACTIVITIES
The pipeline installation by HDD comprised of three stages.

(i) Drilling a small-diameter pilot hole, using a steerable guided drill along a designed
path. A 103/8-inch diameter bit was used for drilling the pilot holes.
(ii) Enlarging the pilot hole to obtain 30” dimeter open holes through (multiple) reaming
operations to support the pipelines.
(iii) Pulling back the 20” diameter steel pipe strings from the exit point until the steel pipe
emerges at the entry pit.

Throughout the above stages the hole was infilled with drilling fluid. This article only reviews the
field data for pilot hole in Stage (i). Information about reaming and pullback operations are
planned to be discussed in separate articles.

Drilling Fluid
To assist the drilling process a bentonite base drilling fluid was used with additives/admixtures
to improve the fluid properties and counteract with unwanted formation characteristics. The
drilling mud constituted imported water, bentonite, soda ash, Na2Co3, (1 viscups per 5 bags of
bentonite), DuoVis (2 viscups per 5 bags of bentonite) to enhance cutting transport and PacL (~
1 viscups per 5 bags of bentonite) to control fluid loss.

Based on data available for 24 tests on clean mud and one on return mud during pilot hole
drilling, some of the drilling mud properties are depicted on Table 1.
 Sample From  Unit Clean Return Target Values
9.0 - 9.5 (clean)
Mud Weight Ib/gal ~ 8.65 9.55 9.9 (return)
63
Funnel Viscosity  s/qt 111 45 - 85
59/45
R600/R300 
14
PV  cP 10 - 14
31
YP  lb/100ft² > 20
29/55
10s/10m/30m Gel  lb/100ft²
16.5
API Fluid Loss  cc/30min 10.0 - 14.0
1/16
inch
Sand  %Vol 0.2% 7.5%
9.8
pH / Temp  8.7
Chlorides  mg/L 102  102 
Hardness (Ca++) mg/L 73  73 
Table 1. Typical Drilling Mud Properties used during Pilot Hole Drilling

IR Monitoring and Walk Over Surveys

The sensitivities of the crossings including potential adverse social and environmental
consequences warranted a close inspection of the alignment to monitor any inadvertent return
(IR) event through a teamwork approach. The crossings included industrial facilities, forests,
residential areas, railways, highways, inaccessible wetlands, ditches and river. The inspection
was carried out at and in both side of the critical crossings through walk over surveys,
unmanned aerial vehicle, wireless devices, and a boat. The monitoring frequency increased
during lost circulations, the occurrence of spikes in annular pressures, and following the IR
remediations. The monitoring activities were continuous or on an hourly basis depending on the
sensitivities around the alignment and its surroundings. For example, there were constant
monitoring at Trinity River or intensified monitoring at railway crossings and where the alignment
crossed the residential areas.
The inspection team reviewed the emergency response plan prior to the start of the work.
Despite using a non-toxic drilling fluid, it was required to contain and cleanup immediately, when
an IR was observed surfacing. The plan required a prompt halt on drilling operation and
activation of the contingency provisions under strict inspection monitoring prior to resumption of
the drilling operation. Vacuum and water trucks were on site at the crew’s disposal.
In the marshland crossing project, the sensitivity of the marchland to potential IRs releasing
non-toxic bentonite mud was not recognized to be an immediate environmental concern. With
lack of access for walk over surveillance, more attention was given to monitoring the drilling fluid
return. The return in the entry pit was in full condition during pilot hole drilling indicating no
noticeable fluid mud escape and hence minimal chance of IR.
In Trinity project one of the challenges were monitoring of potential IRs across the river with an
approximate water edge-to edge width of 300 ft at the crossing. An inspector was stationed at
the shore to conduct continuous observation as the pilot hole crossed under the river and by the
end of operation. The river water contained dark patches of organic ecological origin, not related
to IRs, which could be confused with potential IRs and mislead the inspector. As shown on Fig
1, a small-scale prototype test was carried out on site by artificially adding a sample of the
drilling mud into the river to visualize the potential plume of an inadvertent bentonite mud return.
This was a preparedness to assist the inspector to identify a potential IR.
 Prototype Test
Natural View

Figure 1. A view of drilling mud plume in a prototype test for a contrast with dark patch exposures on
Trinity River (August 2020).

A senior inspector was stationed in the drilling control room to observe the steering activities,
monitoring the mud return at the entry location, and collecting data provided by the resident
surveyor during pilot drilling. The senior inspector kept real time communication with the line
inspectors along the alignment to inform any encounter of excessive annular pressure, lack of
drilling mud return at the entry or exit pit, or other evidence suggesting loss of drilling fluid. This
would assist the line inspectors to check occurrences of hydrofracturing and mud surfacing.
The joint number and joint length entered were input into a spreadsheet prepared in-house by
the inspection team based on the design profile. This provided an estimate of the location of the
drill bit for an independent check on the drilling software.
The inspection activities were documented, and a summary reported to Client at the end of the
shift after a feedback by the geotechnical engineer in the inspection team.
PILOT HOLE
The pilot hole was advanced with a bottom hole assembly (BHA) consisting of a drill bit attached
to a jetting tool. The jetting tool was attached to a non-magnetic drill collar (monel)
accommodating the downhole steering probe. Straight drilling is achieved by advancing the
BHA with rotation. Directional control is maintained by orienting the slight bend in the jetting
assembly in the desired direction of travel, while the jetting action cut the soil allowing the
advancement of the BHA without drill string rotation.

Terminology

Some of the terminologies, relevant to this study, are defined below for clarity:

 Entry tangent: sloped segment of the HDD path starting from entry point
 Exit tangent: sloped segment of HDD path ending at the exit point
 Horizontal tangent: deepest segment of HDD path between the entry and exit tangents.
 BHA length: the length of the bottom-hole assembly.
 Survey: A point where the down-hole probe takes a reading
 Inclination: the angle between the probe and the vertical axis at a particular survey point.
  Azimuth: the angle between the projection of the probe and magnetic north on a
horizontal plane at a survey point.
 Pilot hole length: Often called Measured Depth and it is the distance of down-hole probe
from the punch in along the drilled path.
 Distance from entry: the distance of probe from the punch in point, measured along the
alignment’s projection on the horizontal surface. The crew may call this distance
“Away”, which is more meaningful when the horizontal projection of the alignment is a
straight line.
 Bit to probe: the distance between the leading edge of drilling bit to the down-hole
Probe.

Steer Directional and Tracking Data

TrueGyde or Enrock software was used to collect two sets of data i.e., directional data and so-
called tracking data.
Directional data were recorded by taking periodic readings of inclination and azimuth of the
down-hole probe as drilling progressed, typically after drilling each joint (rod). Based on the
position of the previous survey, any position in the bore is calculated from joint length,
inclination and azimuth of the current survey.
Tracking data were obtained from a magnetic coil that induces a known magnetic field at the
ground surface through a copper-wire surface grid.
The directional and tracking data for two HDD alignments at I-10 crossings are depicted on Fig
2. The joints used for the projects in this study were approximately 31.6 ft long. Figure 2
shows that the directional and tracking data do not coincide exactly. The maximum variations for
the HDD alignments studied are tabulated in Table 2. The variations are demonstrated with
horizontal (along x-axes) and vertical (along z-axis) components as depicted in the following
sketch.

The variations between the tracking and directional data does not seem to corelate with the
length and depth of the alignments but should depend on the accuracy of magnetic coil
installation and data collection on site by the operators.
For the directional data, determining the position of a new survey relative to the previous survey
is associated with errors in the joint length, inclination, and azimuth. The tracking data have thus
been regarded to provide a more accurate positioning than directional data as the tracking data
for each survey would be independent of the position measurement of the previous survey. For
the I-10 crossings in which the as-built exit coordinates were available, the as-built exit point
was closer to the directional profile than the tracking profile. Thus, the accuracy of tracking data
over directional data in terms of distance from the entry and elevations could not be verified.
The bit usually entered the exit pit prior to emerging on the ground surface and the as-built exit
point coordinates were not available for other alignments.
 30

Directional - (Upper)l Tracking (Upper)

0 Directional (Lower) Tracking (Lower)

-30
Elevations, ft

-60

-90

-120
0

316

632

948

1264

1580

1896

2212

2528

2844

3160

3476

3792

4108

4424

4740
Station, ft

Figure 2. Directional vs Tracking Data for the Upper and Lower HDD Alignment at I-10 Crossing

HDD Path Max Depth of Max Variations

Length HDD Alignment
(x) (z)

ft ft ft ft

Marshland Crossing 6821 137 30 5.6

I-10 Crossing Upper 4046 57 20 2.9

Lower 4646 113 10 2

Trinity Crossing Upper 3624 128 50 8.5

Lower 3724 143 55 8.8

Table 2. Max Variations in Directional and Tracking Profiles of the HDD alignments
 Deviations of As-Builts from Design Profile
The HDD design alignment, directional data, tracking data and the as-built pipe profiles were
compared for one of the alignments i.e., the Marshland crossing project as shown on Fig 3. The
as-built pipe profile was obtained by an independent contractor using high accuracy 3D
mapping. The maximum horizontal and vertical deviations from the design profile for each
segment of HDD alignment, obtained from a large-scale diagram, are tabulated in Table 3. The
deviations from the design profile reflects the accuracy of steering operations by the driller
during pilot hole drilling, reaming and pullback operation.

20

Design
Pilot
-20 (Directional)
Pilot
(Tracking)
-40 Pipe As-Built
Elevations, ft

-60

-80

-100

-120

-140
500
0

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

Length of HDD Path, ft 7000

 Figure 3. HDD Design and As-Built Profiles

Pilot Hole (centerline) Pipeline (centerline)

Directional Profile Tracking Profile

Design Profile

Horizontal Tangent

Horizontal Tangent
Entry tangent

Entry tangent

Entry tangent
Exit Tangent

Exit Tangent

Exit Tangent
Horizontal
Table 3. Deviations of the As-Built Profiles from Design Alignment

Max xmax
Horizontal 0 10 17 22 30 40 30
Deviation, ft

Max Vertical zmax

0 2 3.1 3 3 6.2 4.5 6 1.2 4
Deviation, ft

Annular Pressures
annular pressure is the drilling fluid pressure in the annulus between the outer skin of the
bottom hole assembly and the ground formation. The annular pressure is measured by the
pressure sensor located behind the jetting assembly within the BHA.
The annular pressure data, retrieved from the drilling software for the two parallel alignments
located in the same vertical plane at the I-10 crossing project are exhibited on Figure 4. The
pilot hole as-built profiles using directional data are also shown.
 360 20
340 -10
Upp
320 er -40
300 Low -70
er
280 -100
260 -130
240 -160
220 -190
Pressure, psi

200 -220

Elevation, ft
180 -250
160 -280
140 -310
120 -340
100 -370
80 -400
60 -430
40 -460
20 -490
0 -520
0

316

632

948

1264

1580

1896

2212

2528

2844

3160

3476

3792

4108

4424

4740

Pilot Hole Length, ft

 Figure 4. Exhibit of Annular Pressure in Pilot Holes UPDATE

The annular pressure readings for I-10 crossing were recorded every 30 seconds. The annular
pressure readings recorded during drilling of a joint, i.e., at each 31.6 ft, are depicted as a
column on Figure 4. The number of the pressure readings for each joint depends on the speed
of drilling.
The maximum pressures during drilling of each joint for the lower profile are depicted on Figure
5. The as-built pilot hole path and the ground surface profile are also shown. CHANGE THE
DIAGRAM
The maximum allowable annular pressures are primarily calculated in the HDD design stage,
using one of the cavity expansion formulae, e.g., Delft Geotechnics formula (1977). A
comparison can be made between the maximum allowable pressures and the maximum
pressures incurred during drilling in further studies.
 600 60
30
550 0
-30
500
-60
-90
450
-120
-150
Max Annular Pressure, psi

400
-180
350 -210
-240

Elevations, ft
300 -270
-300
250 -330
-360
200 -390
-420
150 -450
-480
100 -510
-540
50 -570
-600
0 -630
1580

2212

2528

2844

3476

3792
0

316

632

948

1264

1896

3160
Pilot Hole Length, ft

Annular Pressure: Depth Ratio

It is important that drilling pressures be sufficiently high to maintain borehole stability, mud
fluidity and as far as possible full circulation of drilling mud carrying the cuttings. On the other
hand, the annular pressure should be limited to mitigate the risk of hydrofracturing, unnecessary
pressure build-ups and inadvertent drilling fluid returns to ground surface.
There is no way to precisely determine the maximum safe pressure for passage through a
particular zone. Broadly, the annular pressure should be less than the pressure that can be
supported by the overburden to prevent hydraulic fracturing or so called frac-out in the ground.
In discussions on pressure and hydrofracturing, the HDD and grouting process can be
compared, although the two processes have different design intents and different end products.
The hydrofracture phenomenon due to the annular pressure in the bottom hole assembly in
HDD projects is analogous to that due to the grout pressure in a grouting stage for ground
improvement applications.
In grouting practice, there are two school of thoughts of “low pressure” and “high pressure”. In
the “high-pressure” approach the fractures can be opened promoting more grout takes and
yielding a greater improvement in the ground. The “low pressure” approach is based on the
thought that the high-pressure induced fractures could damage the ground and so-called wound
the patient before healing. The low-pressure approach in grouting would therefore be in line
with expectation of no hydrofracturing in the HDD practices.
In the low-pressure approach as an empirical rule of thumb, the maximum safe grouting
pressures have been established as 0.5 psi/ft for the overburden soil thickness and 1 psi/ft for
depth into rock (USACE, 2017). This means that the pressure applied to the grouting stage (like
the annular pressure in the HDD bottom hole) will be less than the weight of the overlying
materials, thus preventing lifting. Broadly, per the USACE and the Bureau of Reclamation in
numerous past dam grouting projects, the use of grouting pressures ranged from 0.5 to 2.0 psi/ft
of depth. The above rules of thumb guidelines are simplified and have not been applied
consistently. The specific parameters e.g., ground water level, sloping ground, discontinuities
and defect connections that cause lower in-situ ground stresses should also be considered.
Based on the field monitoring of the above five HDD projects, the annular pressures:
overburden depth ratios between 0.5 and 2.5 did not initiated any IRs. The range is depicted on
the psi/ft plots in Figures 6 to 8. For depth calculations, the directional data was used. This
should not be considerably different if the tracking data was used. The psi/ft using tracking data
proved to be within +/- 5% of those using directional data, when calculated for I-10 Crossing.
More studies would be desirable to establish HDD-specific rule of thumbs on pressure-depth
relations.
The locations, where IRs were encountered are listed in Table 4 and marked in the psi/ft
diagrams. The IRs were surfaced in the entry and exit tangent zone and often inside the
specified workspace, within 200 ft of the entry or exit locations. IRs in the workspace could be
prevented if the job specific specifications required casing installation.

Project # of IRs Distance of IRs from Entry, ft

Observed
Entry Tangent Horizontal Tangent Exit Tangent

I-10 Upper HDD 2 200 3961

(Aug 2020)

Lower HDD 7 60, 560 4498, 4506, 4514,

4522, 4530
(Jul 2020)

Trinity Upper HDD 1 30

(Sep 2020)

Lower HDD 0 -
 (Aug 2020)

Nederland§ (Aug 2020) 7 40, 50, 450, 6622, 6672

850, 900

§
Casings were installed from the entry to 520 ft after the occurrence of IR at Station 450 ft.
Table 4. Locations of IRs encountered during construction.

Generally, the I-10 and Trinity crossings passed through clayey soils and the Nederland
crossing in predominantly sand materials.
The design documents were not available for a discussion on I-10 crossings. The Trinity
crossing was credited for an extensive geotechnical study prior to the design stage. The
hydraulic fracture analysis for Trinity crossings had predicted that the HDD alignments be at
minimum 30 feet under the Trinity River to utilize soil strata that can resist the downhole fluid
pressures at the required minimum Factor of Safety of 2 throughout the extents of the horizontal
directional drills. Due to the high risk of hydraulic fracture, the designer recommended that pilot
hole intersect method be considered to minimize the risk for hydraulic fracture and inadvertent
fluid returns due to the substantial elevation differential between the entry and exit sides. The
client chose to drill the entire alignments with a single pilot hole in one stage by increasing the
depth of the HDD alignments under the river to more than 100 ft.

The hydraulic fracture analysis for Nederland crossing was carried out based on limited
geotechnical information. It was predicted that the HDD alignment needed to be a minimum
depth of 96-feet below the grade to maintain the required Factor of Safety of 2 throughout the
extents of the horizontal directional drill, including the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) Critical Zone. Still due to the high risk of hydraulic fracture, the designer
recommended that a pilot hole intersect be considered to minimize the risk for hydraulic fracture
and inadvertent fluid returns due to the substantial overall drill length and existence of
predominantly weak soil strata. However, due to logistic complexities associated with intersect
pilot, the client decided to increase the depth (thickness of overburden) of the HDD alignments
to ~ 138 ft without considering the intersect option. The psi/ft ratio varied from 0.5 to 2 with an
average of 0.9. The client chose
 6 30
0
5 -30
-60
psi/ft (Upper) psi/ft (Lower)
4 -90
-120

Elevation, ft
3 -150
psi/ft

-180
2 -210
-240
1 -270
-300
0 -330
316

632

948

1896

2212

2528

2844

3160

3476

4108
0

1264

1580

3792

4424

4740
Distance from Entry, ft
 Ratio of Max Annular Pressures: Overburden Depth - Trinity River Crossings
7 70
40
10
6 -20
-50
-80
5 -110
-140
-170
4

Elevations, ft
-200
-230
psi/ft

-260
3
-290
-320
2 -350
-380
-410
1 -440
-470
-500
0 -530
0

316

632

948

1264

2528

3160

3476
1580

1896

2212

2844

3792
Pilot Hole Length, ft

Figure 7. Max Annular Pressure: Overburden Depth Ratio (Trinity Crossing)

 Annular Pressure:Depth Ratio for Pilot Hole

5 50

4
-50

-100
3

Elevation, ft
-150
psi/ft

2
-200

-250
1

-300

0 -350
1580

1896

2212

3160

3476

3792

4108

5056

5372

5688

6004
0

316

632

948

1264

2528

2844

4424

4740

6320

6636

6952
Pilot Hole Length, ft

Figure 8. Max Annular Pressure: Overburden Depth ratio (Nederland)

FINAL REMARKS
The objective of this paper is to state the importance and usefulness of field data in HDD
projects that have not received much attention. The article does not state what is right or wrong
but tries to promote the field data analysis as a rich source for academic and research studies.

REFERENCES
Engineering and Design – Grouting Technology (2017). Manual No. 1110-2-3506. US Army
Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC 20314-1000.

Discussions - This could be attributed to potential hole collapse during drilling in sandy soils causing annular pressure build ups and leading to inadvertent returns. The as-built is more near to the
directional profile in this case. Both directional and tracking are approximates but tracking is more accurate on a joint by joint cases. Chris says