See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/365897016

Research on Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) Trajectory Design and

Optimization Using Improved Radial Movement Optimization

Article in Applied Sciences · November 2022

DOI: 10.3390/app122312207

CITATION READS

1 115

2 authors, including:

Junjie Wei
Central South University
2 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Junjie Wei on 28 September 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 applied
sciences
Article
Research on Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) Trajectory
Design and Optimization Using Improved Radial
Movement Optimization
Liangxing Jin * and Junjie Wei
Citation: Jin, L.; Wei, J. Research on
Horizontal Directional Drilling
(HDD) Trajectory Design and
Optimization Using Improved Radial
Movement Optimization. Appl. Sci.
2022, 12, 12207. https://doi.org/
10.3390/app122312207
Academic Editor: Raffaele Zinno
Received: 13 October 2022
Accepted: 26 November 2022
Published: 29 November 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12207. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122312207
School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410017, China
* Correspondence: jlx871162@csu.edu.cn
Abstract: In practice, the drilling path of horizontal directional drilling (HDD) projects is usually
constructed by trial and error based on a preliminary designing trajectory. This study aimed to pro-
pose and test a method to predesign and optimize the drilling paths automatically, with the view of
improving the efficiency of HDD design preparations. Alternating straight and curvilinear segments
is a commonly used method for designing drilling paths, especially the “straight—curvilinear—
horizontal straight—curvilinear—straight” five-segment arrangement. The catenary method was
proposed to design the drilling path with the advantage of lower friction for the mechanical con-
straints. However, it is difficult to be implemented with technology limitations due to its continuously
changing curvature. In this study, five-segment trajectories were combined with the catenary trajec-
tory to utilize their advantages using the improved radial movement optimization (IRMO) algorithm.
Drilling mud pressure was considered in the processes of the mechanical design to avoid collapse
or possible instability. Two different examples were tested in different scenarios, theoretical and
practical. The results show that the IRMO algorithm has a great potential for automatically designing
and optimizing preliminary drilling paths with low time-consumption and high feasibility.
Keywords: trenchless; horizontal directional drilling; drill path design; improved radial movement
optimization (IRMO) algorithm; mud pressure
1. Introduction
Horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is a trenchless technology applied to install
underground pipelines with minimal impacts on the environment or damage to existing
infrastructure such as roadways and other surface structures [1]. According to the pre-
designed drilling trajectory, a small pilot hole is drilled first, and then the pilot hole is
enlarged by a reamer that replaces the drilling head. The pipes or installations of the well
are pulled back into the reamed hole from the exit toward the entry. Due to its lower
cost, higher flexibility, and weaker surrounding influence, HDD has gradually become
more popular than the conventional excavation methods adopted to install and replace
or repair pipelines in a city [2]. The development of HDD in China has continued in the
past two decades due to the broad market and stable economic growth of China. Up till
November 2020, the longest known HDD in China had reached 5.2 km [3,4]. The geological
conditions of the crossing area are much more complex in longer-distance crossing HDD
practices, which results in more engineering problems and costs. In practice, most of the
HDD drilling paths are determined by seeking or tracking the moving or static drill head
to adjust it from the entry point to the exit simultaneously and iteratively [5]. Scholars
have carried out various studies on improving the accuracy or efficiency of the seeking or
tracking systems [6–9]. However, this method of iterative trial and correction is difficult to
apply in complex practices, such as crossing rivers or buildings which may hinder the sen-
sors. On the other hand, many scholars have focused on the predesign and optimization of
HDD trajectories to ensure suitability and efficiency. For conventional trajectory design, the
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12207 2 of 22

theoretical geometric model of trajectory was mainly developed to ascertain the accurate
position of the wells, such as the “Improved Tangential Method” [10]. Moreover, some
scholars added more factors in the model to realize more complex designs closed to actual
projects [11–13]. In China, Zhou [14] took the drilling rate in meters per hour as the opti-
mization object to establish a dynamic trajectory design optimization model, which could
find the optimal drilling path with the minimum drilling time. Lu [15] focused on complex
underground pipelines and obstacles and presented an optimization method for avoiding
pipelines and obstacles in trajectory design. Niu [16] conducted research on the theory
of the guide strength of the drilling path, which analyzed the contribution of the curved
segment to the drilling path design. When it comes to artificial intelligence applications,
an optimization algorithm is more intuitive and reliable than repetition tests and traditional
human-computer interaction techniques [17]. The drilling path design and optimization
were also developed further by several optimization algorithms. The catenary trajectory
design method was introduced by Wiśniowski [18–20], who tried to fit the five-segment
trajectory with the catenary trajectory to design the drilling path geometrically. The genetic
algorithm (GA) was used to realize the fitting of the two trajectories efficiently. In another
study, the ant colony optimization (ACO) algorithm was used to optimize HDD alignment
by Patino-Ramirez, et al. [21], which ensured the minimal drill path length and the reduced
cost associated with it. Notably, the ACO optimization method added consideration of
mechanical constraints (drilling mud pressure and pipe integrity) and geometric constraints
(remaining in the construction domain) simultaneously in the design.
The artificial intelligence algorithm is an excellent way to figure out a single or multi-
dimensional nonlinear objective optimization problem which the design or optimization of
trajectory can be transferred to. On the basis of previous studies, this paper tested a new
numerical method, using improved radial movement optimization (IRMO) to preliminarily
design and optimize the HDD trajectories and its parameters. According to the theory of
catenary trajectory in previous literature, its shape is closed to the natural stress distribution
of pipelines along the length so as to enable a lower drilling or pullback force during the
process [18–20]. So, a five-segment trajectory was attempted to be realized by fitting with
the catenary trajectory to get the largest similarity in shape. What is more, the drilling mud
pressure is calculated in each iteration step simultaneously for consideration of the well-
bore stability evaluation. The use of the IRMO algorithm can make the whole construction
processing automatic with the intention to reduce the time-consuming manual adjustment.
Section 2 introduces the concepts of the catenary trajectory design and five-segment trajec-
tory design for HDD projects. Then we present the design method based on the geometrical
constraints for the whole construction and each parameter. The objective functions for this
method used in the IRMO algorithm are also summarized. Besides, the mechanical design
is also introduced for the borehole stability consideration based on drilling mud pressure.
Section 3 summarizes the framework and implementation of the IRMO algorithm applied
to the trajectory design. Section 4 presents two design examples to compare and analyze
the results determined by IRMO. The conclusion of this study is presented in Section 5.

2. HDD Trajectory Designs

2.1. Geometric Designs
The catenary trajectory is a chain curve with natural deflection, such as seen with
ropes, cables or chains with uniform weight suspended between two points (Figure 1a). In
petroleum engineering, the well path in the catenary profile has been proved to reduce the
wellbore friction and torque compared to conventional trajectories [22,23]. The method for
planning the catenary well path was proposed in later studies, which avoided a trial-and-
error procedure and provided excellent maneuverability of planning requirements [24]. In
1985, McClendon [25] proposed an HDD trajectory design method based on a catenary
trajectory. However, its gradient curvature made it difficult to be implemented in practice.
Therefore, Wiśniowski et al. [20] proposed a new method that combined the catenary
 a trial-and-error procedure and provided excellent maneuverability of planning
ments [24]. In 1985, McClendon [25] proposed an HDD trajectory design meth
on a catenary trajectory. However, its gradient curvature made it difficult
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12207 3 of 22
to b
mented in practice. Therefore, Wiśniowski et al. [20] proposed a new method t
bined the catenary trajectory with a five-segment trajectory (Figure 1b) to desi
trajectory with a five-segment trajectory (Figure 1b) to design a drill path that was easier to
path that was easier to be using
be implemented implemented using the available technology.
the available technology.

Figure 1. Catenary trajectory

Figure (a) and(a)five-segment
1. Catenary trajectory trajectory
and five-segment trajectory (b). (b).

The catenary trajectory is actually a hyperbolic cosine, whose standard mathematical

The formula is written asis
catenary trajectory theactually
following: a hyperbolic cosine, whose standard math
formula is written as the following: z = a × cosh(x/a) (1)

z =aa= ×Np/q
cosh(x/a) (2)
where, a is a parameter determined by the unit weight of pipeline q (N/m) and pullback
force Np (kgf) [20]. So, the shape of the catenary trajectory is mainly associated with the
crossing pipelines and the capacity of the pulling back equipment. By Equation (3), the
a = Np/q
catenary trajectory can be described in a specific coordinate, where the left point of the
catenary trajectory is set as the origin point. Therefore, the depth of each point on the
where, a is a parameter
catenary trajectory determined bycalculated
(zci ) can be fully the unit withweight ofAspipeline
increments. q (N/m)
shown in Figure 2, A and
and H are the horizontal and vertical distances of the exit and the entry points, respectively.
force Np (kgf) (x[20]. So, the shape of the catenary trajectory is mainly associated
0 , z0 ) is the catenary vertex coordinate.
crossing pipelines and the capacity of the pulling back equipment. By Equatio
xi = i × dx
catenary trajectory can be described zci = (Np/q) ×in a((specific
cosh coordinate,
xi − x0 )/(Np/q ) − 1) − z0 where the left po
(3)

catenary trajectoryAnother is setconcept

as the origin point. Therefore, the depth of each poi
for HDD trajectory design is the segment trajectory method, com-
catenary trajectorybining (zc i) can
the most be fullymethods
conventional calculated with
of straight increments.
and curvilinear AsMostly,
segments. shown the in Fi
geometric profile of segment trajectory (shown in Figure 1b) commonly consists of an entry
and H are the straight
horizontal
segmentand vertical
(L1 ), an distances
entry curved segment (L2of thebending
) with exit and
radius the
(R2 ), aentry
central point
tively. (x0, z0) ishorizontal
the catenary vertex(L3coordinate.
straight segment ), an exit curved segment (L4 ) with bending radius (R4 ),
and an exit straight segment (L5 ) respectively. Based on this combination form, the point
xi = i × dx
zci = (Np/q) × cosh((xi - x0)/(Np/q) - 1) - z0
 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12207 4 of 22

coordinates of each segment can be calculated clearly by geometric constraints. As shown in

Figure 3, once the angle γ and radius R of the curved segments are set, the increments of the
trajectory depth dz and horizontal distance dx can be determined according to Equation (4).
Furthermore, combining the inclination angle θ and length L of the adjacent straight seg-
ments, the depth zi of another adjacent segment can be fully determined with increasing
horizontal distance dx (Equations (5) and (6)).

dx = R × (sinγ − sin(γ − dγ))
(4)
dz = R × (cosγ − cos(γ − dγ))
Figure 2. Graphic representation of catenary trajectory by Equation (3).
ER REVIEW
α = θ+γ (5)
4 of 20
(
xi = i × dx
− L1 × sinθ − R × (cosθ +cosα) (6)
Another concept for HDD
z i trajectory
= L 1 × sinθ + Rdesign−is1)the
× ( cosθ + xi segment tantrajectory
α method, com-
bining the most conventional methods of straight and curvilinear segments. Mostly, the
geometric profile of segment trajectory (shown in Figure 1b) commonly consists of an en-
try straight segment (L1), an entry curved segment (L2) with bending radius (R2), a central
horizontal straight segment (L3), an exit curved segment (L4) with bending radius (R4), and
an exit straight segment (L5) respectively. Based on this combination form, the point coor-
dinates of each segment can be calculated clearly by geometric constraints. As shown in
Figure 3, once the angle γ and radius R of the curved segments are set, the increments of
the trajectory depth dz and horizontal distance dx can be determined according to Equa-
tion (4). Furthermore, combining the inclination angle θ and length L of the adjacent
straight segments, the depth zi of another adjacent segment can be fully determined with
increasing horizontal distance dx (Equations (5) and (6)).
Figure 2. Graphic representation of catenary trajectory by Equation (3).
Figure 2. Graphic representation of catenary trajectory by Equation (3).

Another concept for HDD trajectory design is the segment trajectory method, com-
bining the most conventional methods of straight and curvilinear segments. Mostly, the
geometric profile of segment trajectory (shown in Figure 1b) commonly consists of an en-
try straight segment (L1), an entry curved segment (L2) with bending radius (R2), a central
horizontal straight segment (L3), an exit curved segment (L4) with bending radius (R4), and
an exit straight segment (L5) respectively. Based on this combination form, the point coor-
dinates of each segment can be calculated clearly by geometric constraints. As shown in
Figure 3, once the angle γ and radius R of the curved segments are set, the increments of
the trajectory depth dz and horizontal distance dx can be determined according to Equa-
tion (4). Furthermore, combining the inclination angle θ and length L of the adjacent
Figure 3. The geometric profile of alternating straight and curvilinear segments.
straight segments, the depth zi of another adjacent segment can be fully determined with
Figure 3. The geometric profile of alternating straight and curvilinear segments.
According to Equations (4)–(6) above, the designed alternating straight and curvilinear
increasing horizontal distance dx (Equations (5) and (6)).
segments can be detailed with tiny segments with coordinates. The whole geometry can
be constrained only by four kinds of geometric parameters within the assigned domain,
including the inclined R × of(sinγ
dx =angle – sin(γ
the straight – dγ))
segment θ (clockwise is positive and coun-
(4)
dz = R × (cosγ – cos(γ – idγ))angle of curved segment γ, and
terclockwise is negative), the length of segment L , the
the curved segment radius R. If the central segment of the trajectory is considered to be
horizontal and straight in design, the geometric parameters curve angle γ and deviation
α=θ+γ (5)

xi = i × dx
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12207 5 of 22

angle θ will be united (θ 1 = γ1 , θ 2 = γ2 ), so that the geometrical design parameters of the

five-segment trajectory can be simplified and containing the following:
• Length of entry straight segment, L1
• Inclined angle of entry inclined straight segment, θ 1
• Radius of entry curved segment, R2
• Central straight segment length, L3
• Inclined angle of exit inclined straight segment, R4
• Radius of exit curved segment, θ 2
In practice, the straight segments of drill path, L1 , L3 , and L5 , are generally determined
by the gyratory drilling processes of the drill head, while the curved segments are deter-
mined by the direct jacking [16]. The entry angle θ 1 (for the entry straight segment L1 ) and
exit angle θ 2 (and the exit straight segment L5 ) of the trajectory are commonly restricted in
valid ranges. Patino-Ramirez et al. [21] suggested the ranges could be defined between 5
and 18 degrees for trajectory design, while Wiśniowski et al. [19] recommended it could be
set between 6 and 16 degrees. Another study gave higher acceptable values of deviation
angles between 8 and 30 degrees [26]. Its determination is usually constrained by con-
structability limitations which impart conditions of geometric design. The central straight
segment L3 is commonly the core part of the trajectory, which must satisfy the requirements
of specific burial depths and crossing distance for the engineering. To avoid surface distur-
bance and damage to installed products or pipelines, the minimum depth of cover along
the trajectory should not be less than the minimum allowable H in the standards.
The bending radius (R2 and R4 ) of curved segments mostly depends on the pipeline
strength which is limited by the material properties or diameter. To prevent excessive
bending stress in the pipelines, the radius of the curved segments should be limited to the
minimum bending radius. More details of the minimum bending radius can be found in
the published literatures [16,19,21]. In this study, the bending radius adopted was between
2000 and 3000 m for pipelines with diameter over 1000 mm.
After preliminary investigation, the assigned domains of the locations of entry and exit
points are decided upon for the predesigns. Project risks are evaluated as well, which might
result in more stringent limitations in the predesigns. Based on these limitations, possible
trajectories are designed (fitted) to ensure the maximum similarity with the catenary
trajectory in unifying the plane coordinate system by the least squares method. The sum
of squares SOS is determined as the similarity measurement function to find the best fit
(Equation (7)). zi and zci are the depths of the five-segment trajectory and catenary trajectory
determined by Equations (3)–(6) above. The lower the difference between the depths, the
higher is the similarity of the two trajectories.

Fitness_S = SOS = Σ(∆zi )2 = Σ(zi − zci )2 (7)

According to the six parameters obtained above, the length of the preliminary design
trajectory can be given in Equation (8) with specific geometric constraints.

Fitness_L = ΣLi = L1 + R2 × θ 1 + L3 + R4 × θ 2 + (A −L1 × sin θ 2 −L3 −R4 × cos θ 2 )/sin θ 2 (8)

2.2. Mechanical Design Considering Drilling Mud Pressure

Taking into account the collapse and instability of the drill paths, we tested, step
by step, the feasibility and rationality of each geometrically possible trajectory based on
drilling mud pressure theory. The engineering geological conditions of the crossing area for
calculation are simplified in this study. The drilling fluid is a non-Newtonian fluid mixed
HDD process. It is necessary to exceed the minimum required mud pressure (MRP) to
maintain the recirculation of the drilling mud. The minimum mud pressure consists of the
static drilling mud pressure Ps and the drilling mud pressure loss Pl [27,28], as shown in
Equation (9) [27,28].
MRP = Ps + Pl (9)
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12207 6 of 22

Simultaneously, the injected pressure of the drilling fluid must be controlled below the
maximum allowable drilling mud pressure (MAP) to avoid cavity shear failure (blowout)
of the drill path [21]. The MAP is calculated by the Delft equation [27,29], which assumes
that the soil surrounding the borehole experiences perfectly elastic deformation and that
the far-field stress around the borehole is isotropic. Once the deformation reaches the
plastic threshold defined by the Mohr–Coulomb criterion (the internal pressure reaches the
limited pressure), shear failure of the borehole will occur as a blowout. Although the Delft
equation has been continuously revised to obtain more accurate analytical solutions [30],
Delft equation-based formulations are still the most commonly accepted formulations and
are therefore adopted in this study, Equation (10) [29].

MAP = Plim (10)

Once the geometrically possible trajectory is determined, the MRP and MAP of the
whole construction can be calculated predictably for the mechanical considerations. For all
of the steps, the maximum allowable pressure (MAP) of the fluid is predicted to avoid the
triggered blowout.

3. Improved Radial Movement Optimization

3.1. Concepts of IRMO
The IRMO algorithm [31–34], which can quickly solve multidimensional objective
functions of nonlinear constraint problems, is a global optimization algorithm that further
improves the data structure of the traditional radial movement optimization (RMO) algo-
rithm [34]. The IRMO algorithm simulates a group of particles [Xi,j ] moving in a gradually
shrinking solution space. In IRMO, one particle position, which contains the information
of variables, represents a solution vector referring to a complete HDD trajectory in this
study. All of the solution vectors form a solution matrix [Xi,j ]. After the expression of the
objective function and the range of the variables are determined, a group of initial particles
are generated randomly in the IRMO algorithm. The position of each particle is evaluated
by the value of the fitness function (the value of the sum of squares SOS or total length L);
therefore, the local optimal solution Rbest (radial best) and global optimal solution Gbest
(global best) can be obtained by one-by-one comparisons. The particle corresponding to the
best value of the function is chosen as the initial center. To avoid the algorithm overreliance
on the central particle and the loss of potential good particles of the previous generation,
which contribute to deviation from the optimization direction of the global optimal solution,
IRMO proposed generating prepositioned particles [Yi,j ]. The fitness values of [Yi,j ] are
compared with those of [Xi,j ], pre-Rbest and pre-Gbest to evaluate the optimal information
that will be updated or persist. As the iteration progresses, the solution space (ranges of
variables) will be narrowed so that the central particle, determined by Rbest and Gbest,
will move toward the optimum. When the positions of the particles are narrowed to the
smallest solution space, the optimum solution is output. The principle of updating the
central particle is shown in Figure 4.

3.2. Implementation of IRMO

According to the studies above, one solution of the five-segment trajectory can be
determined by an M dimensional vector containing six variables: L1 , θ 1 , R2 , L3 , R4 , and θ 2 .
The N trajectories form a standard matrix [XN,M ] with N rows and M columns (M = 6). The
standard matrix [XN,M ] realizes the connection between the IRMO algorithm and the HDD
trajectory optimization (shown in Equation (11)).

L11,1 1 R21,3 L31,4 R41,5 2

 
θ1,2 θ1,6
[XN,M ] = 
 .. .. .. 
(11)
. . . 
L1N,1 θ 1N,2 R2N,3 L3N,4 R4N,5 θ 2N,6
 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12207 7 of 22

After setting the ranges of each variable and the constraint conditions, optimization
begins with the initial matrix [XN,M ] initiated by Equation (12).

Xi,j = Xmin j + (Xmax j − Xmin j ) × rand(0, 1) (12)

where Xmax j is the upper limit of the j-th variable in [Xi,j ], and Xmin j is the lower limit.
The initial central particle cp1 is chosen from the initial [XN,M ] which has the best
fitness value. The central particles cpk will be updated by Rbest and Gbest, as shown in
Equation (13). c1 and c2 are proportional coefficients that affect the convergence speed and
accuracy of the calculation. The values of c1 and c2 are set as 0.5 and 0.4, respectively, in
this study.

cpk = cpk −1 + c1 × (Gbeatk −1 − cpk −1 ) + c2 × (Rbeatk− 1 − cpk −1 ) (13)

Following Equation (14), prepositioned particles [Yi,j ] are generated by the previous
central particles.

Yi,j k = cpk + (Xmax j − Xmin j ) × rand(−0.5,0.5) × wk (14)

wk = 1.009 × exp(−(1/generation + 0.03307)2 /0.2454) (15)

To calculate the fitness values of [Yi,j ]: If the fitness values of [Yi,j k ] are better than those
of [Xi,j k ], the [Xi,j k+1 ] will be updated to [Yi,j k ], otherwise [Xi,j k ] will persist to the next gen-
eration. The determination of inertia weight wk uses a Gaussian function (Equation (15)).
x FOR PEER REVIEW Based on the objective functions given above (Equations (7) and (8)), the design and7 of 20
optimization of the HDD trajectories in this study were implemented by IRMO on MATLAB
2021b. The implementation of the IRMO algorithm for HDD trajectory optimization is
shown in detail in Figure 5.

Figure 4. Principle of updating

Figure the
4. Principle of central
updating theparticle [34]. [34].
central particle

3.2. Implementation of IRMO

According to the studies above, one solution of the five-segment trajectory can be
 Based on the objective functions given above (Equations (7) and (8)), the design and
optimization of the HDD trajectories in this study were implemented by IRMO on
Appl. Sci. MATLAB
2022, 12, 12207 2021b. The implementation of the IRMO algorithm for HDD trajectory optimi-8 of 22

zation is shown in detail in Figure 5.

Figure 5. The implementation ofimplementation

Figure 5. The the IRMO algorithm.
of the IRMO algorithm.

4. Comparison and Analysis

4. Comparison and Analysis
This study aimed to assess the performance of IRMO in trajectory design by two ex-
This study aimed
amplestooriginating
assess thefrom
performance of IRMO
other literature. The firstin trajectory
one design
gives the details of by two ex-
geometric design
amples originating from other literature. The first one gives the details of geometric design
processes which are compared with the genetic algorithm (GA) to highlight the advantages
of IRMO.
processes which are To ensure
compared the stability
with of thisalgorithm
the genetic IRMO method (GA)for practicable consideration,
to highlight the ad- the
parameters are discussed based on twenty times calculation. Therefore, a further optimiza-
vantages of IRMO. To ensure the stability of this IRMO method for practicable consider-
tion, shortening the total length of trajectories, is proposed and tested to overcome the
ation, the parameters are discussed
limitation based
of unstable on twenty
parameter design.times
Anothercalculation.
example testsTherefore,
the IRMOa designs
furtherwith
optimization, shortening
the actualthe totalusing
design length of trajectories,
published is proposed
data from constructed and To
projects. tested tomechanical
test the over-
come the limitation of unstable parameter design. Another example tests the IRMOgeometric
design part, predictions of the maximum allowable drilling mud pressure of the de-
design trajectories are compared with other studies.
signs with the actual design using published data from constructed projects. To test the
mechanical design part, predictions of the maximum allowable drilling mud pressure of
the geometric design trajectories are compared with other studies.
 shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Parameters and range setting.

s of Catenary Trajectory
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12207 [19] Parameters of Five-Segment Trajectory9 of 22
Length of the entry straight segment, L1∈[1, 300] m;
e of exit and entry point: A = 1000 m
Length of the central segment, L3∈[1, 300] m;
of exit and entry point: H =4.1.
−15 Comparison and Analysis
m of Numerical
Radius
The first example [19] oftest
is used to curved segments,
the fitting process of this , R4∈[1,
R2method using300] m;
the IRMO
unit weight: q = 80 kg/m algorithm. The catenary trajectory parameters and five-segment trajectory parameters are
Angle of the entry straight segment, θ1∈[1, 300] °;
ck force: Np = 25,000 kgf shown in Table 1.
Angle of the entry straight segment, θ2∈[1, 300] °;
Table 1. Parameters and range setting.

Parameters of Catenary Trajectory [19] Parameters of Five-Segment Trajectory

To determine the influence of different algorithm parameters on the fitting result
Length of the entry straight segment, L1 ∈[1, 300] m;
the value
Horizontal of Rof2 exit
distance is used topoint:
and entry manifest
A = 1000 the
m similarity of fit.
Length of theAs shown
central inL3Table
segment, ∈[1, 300] 2,
m; the differenc
Vertical distance of exit and entry point: H = −15 m
in the value of R
Casing unit
2 is quite
weight: minor and is greaterRadius
q = 80 kg/m thanof 0.998 in eachR2 ,case.
curved segments, Them;overlap of th
R4 ∈[1, 300]
Angle of the entry straight segment, θ 1 ∈[1, 300] ◦ ;
Pullback force:
fitted trajectory Np = 25,000
images kgfseries 1, 3, and 5 is relatively high (Figure 6). Moreover,
for th
Angle of the entry straight segment, θ 2 ∈[1, 300] ◦ ;
time resource of each case increases as the calculation becomes more complex.
To determine the influence of different algorithm parameters on the fitting results, the
value of R2 is used to manifest the similarity of fit. As shown in Table 2, the difference in
Table 2. Comparison of goodness of fit for different algorithm parameters.
the value of R2 is quite minor and is greater than 0.998 in each case. The overlap of the
fitted trajectory images for series 1, 3, and 5 is relatively high (Figure 6). Moreover, the time
Series dxresource
[m] of each case N increasesGeneration SOSmore complex.R2
as the calculation becomes Time [ms]
1 50 100 100 10.25 0.9991 765
Table 2. Comparison of goodness of fit for different algorithm parameters.
2 50 50 100 21.01 0.9981 487
Series dx [m] N Generation SOS R2 Time [ms]
3 5 50 100 70.68 0.9991 532
1 50 100 100 10.25 0.9991 765
4 5 2 50
50 50 250 100 57.27
21.01 0.9993 487 1275
0.9981
3 5 50 100 70.68 0.9991 532
5 1 4 50
5 50 250 250 287.22
57.27 0.9995 1275
0.9993 1680
Note: R2 = 1 − SSE/SSR, R52∈(0,1) ; the
1 closer the
50 value of
250R2 is to287.22 0.9995
1, the better 1680
the goodness of fit.
Note: R2 = 1 − SSE/SSR, R2 ∈(0,1); the closer the value of R2 is to 1, the better the goodness of fit.

Figure 6. Solutions of fittings: Series 1, 3, and 5.

Figure 6. Solutions of fittings: Series 1, 3, and 5.
The optimal fitting result shows a lower SOS value searched by the IRMO algorithm
(in Table 3), but more time costing. Compared with the results of the genetic algorithm
The optimal fitting
(GA), theresult shows acanlower
IRMO algorithm SOS
give more valuecalculations
accurate searched byanthe
with IRMOextra
acceptable algorithm
(in Table 3), but more time costing. Compared with the results of the genetic algorithm
time costing.

(GA), the IRMO algorithm can give more accurate calculations with an acceptable extr
time costing.
 Table 3. Comparison of optimal fitting results.

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12207 Method SOS Time [m

10 of 22

I: Searching the entire solution space [19] 370.19 4183

II: GA [19] Table 3. Comparison of optimal fitting results. 366.53 212.55
III: IRMO (this study) Method SOS 287.22 Time [ms] 1680
I: Searching the entire solution space [19] 370.19 4183
II: GA [19] 366.53 212.55
During the 100 iterations, the global optimal SOS tends to a stable convergence w
III: IRMO (this study) 287.22 1680

approaching the approximate 50th generation (shown in Figure 7). The optimal resul
During the 100 iterations, the global optimal SOS tends to a stable convergence when
be improved whenapproaching
the totalthe number
approximateof 50th
iterations
generationis increased.
(shown in Figure 7). The optimal result can
be improved when the total number of iterations is increased.

4000

3500
f(RBest)
3000
f(GBest)
2500
SOS

2000

1500

1000

500
Best SOS：70.68
0
0 25 50 75 100

Generation
Figure 7. The convergence process of searching for the optimal SOS: Series 3 in Table 2.
Figure 7. The convergence process of searching for the optimal SOS: Series 3 in Table 2.
As shown in Table 4, the optimization result of L3 in this study is largely similar to
that of the GA [19]. The other parameter optimization results have θ 1 , θ 2, and R2 that are all
As shown in Table 4, the
smaller than thoseoptimization
of the GA, while R2result
is larger.of
TheLdifference
3 in this study
between the is largely simil
optimization
that of the GA [19].results
Theisother parameter
attributed to the mutual optimization results
influence and restriction of eachhave
parameter.θ1, θ2, and R2 tha
all smaller than thoseTableof the GA,of while
4. Comparison parameterR 2 is larger.
optimization The difference between the optim
results.
tion results is attributed to the mutualLinfluence
Method 1 [m]
and Rrestriction
θ1 [◦ ] 2 [m] θ2 [◦ ]
of each
R4 [m]
parameter.
L3 [m]
GA [12] — −9.3 2473.96 7.44 2378.51 100.78
Table 4. Comparison of IRMO (this study) —
parameter optimization − 8.83
results. 2678.16 6.49 2133.25 100.00

Method TakingLSeries
1 [m]4 in Tableθ 3.1 as
[°]an example,
R2the SOS is calculated
[m] θ2 [°]20 times R
consecutively
4 [m] L3 [
(Figure 8), and the 20 trajectories are shown in Figure 9.
GA [12] — −9.3 2473.96 7.44 2378.51 100
IRMO (this study) — −8.83 2678.16 6.49 2133.25 100

Taking Series 4 in Table 3. as an example, the SOS is calculated 20 times consecut

(Figure 8), and the 20 trajectories are shown in Figure 9.
R PEER REVIEW 11 of 20
OR PEER REVIEW 11 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12207 11 of 22

75
75

Best SOS
70
70
Best SOS

65
65
SOS
SOS

60
60

55
55 Average SOS: 60.3938
AverageSOS:
Standard Deviation SOS:3.61244
60.3938
Standard Deviation SOS: 3.61244
50
500 5 10 15 20
0 5 10 15 20
Search Times
Search Times
Figure 8. The best SOS calculated 20 times by IRMO: Series 4 in Table 2.
Figure
Figure 8. The best SOS calculated SOStimes
8. The best 20 calculated 20 times by
by IRMO: IRMO:4Series
Series 4 in Table
in Table 2. 2.

Figure 9. TrajectoriesFigure Trajectories20

after 9.searching after searching
times 20 times by
by IRMO: IRMO:
Series 4 Series 4 in Table
in Table 2. 2.
Figure 9. Trajectories after searching 20 times by IRMO: Series 4 in Table 2.
The calculations completed by the IRMO showed great stability and accuracy, with
The calculations completed
the standard by the
deviation IRMO
of the SOS beingshowed
3.61244,great stability
consistent and
with the accuracy,
trajectory images. with
In
The calculations
Figure completed by
9, different colors the IRMO
are used showed
to distinguish great
each
the standard deviation of the SOS being 3.61244, consistent with the trajectory images. In stability
segment and accuracy,
of the five-segment with
trajectory.
the standard The fitting
deviation results
of the SOS of each segment are highly similar aswithwell. the trajectory images. In
Figure 9, different colors Theare used
parameter tobeing
collocation
3.61244,
distinguish consistent
each
of the optimal segment
fitting of the
trajectory five-segment
cannot trajec-
be identical here. As
Figure 9, different colors
tory. The fitting results are
of each
the fitting
used
segment
similarity
to distinguish
are
is higher, thehighly
each segment
similar as
mutual influences andwell. of the five-segment
restrictions of each parameter on
trajec-
tory.The
Theparameter
fitting results of will
the others
collocationeach besegment
of are highly
enlarged causing
the optimal differentsimilar
fittingresults. asachieve
To
trajectory well. a high similarity of fitting,
cannot be identical here.
The parameter the results
collocationof the parameters,
of the especially
optimal L
fitting1 , R , and R
2trajectory4 , fluctuate
cannot in abesmall range after
identical here.
As the fitting similarity is higher,
20 calculations the mutual
(Figures influences
10–12), while the fittingand restrictions
results are not much ofdifferent
each parameter
(Figure 9).
Asthe
on theothers
fitting will
similarity is higher,
be enlarged
The results of L3causing
the mutual
, θ 1 , and θ 2different
influences and
To restrictions
results.consistently,
fluctuate relatively achieve a high
especially
of the
each parameter
similarity
length of theof
on thethe
fitting, others willofbethe
results enlarged causing
parameters, different
especially L1,results.
R2, andToR4,achieve a high
fluctuate similarity
in a small rangeof
fitting,
after the results of(Figures
20 calculations the parameters, especially
10–12), while L1, Rresults
the fitting 2, and R4, fluctuate in a small range
are not much different (Fig-
after 20 calculations (Figures 10–12), while the fitting results are not
ure 9). The results of L3, θ1, and θ2 fluctuate relatively consistently, much different
especially the length(Fig-
of
ure 9). The results of L3, θ1, and θ2 fluctuate relatively consistently, especially the length of
 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12207 12 of 22

EER REVIEW central segment L3 . The optimization of L3 tends to the lower limit of its initial range (as
12 of 20
shown in Table 1) with no difference in the 20 searches, which indicates that a shorter L3
PEER REVIEW 12 ofof 20
is beneficial to the trajectory fitting. The results of θ 1 and θ 2 fluctuate only in the range
0.5◦ (Figure 10), with standard deviations of 0.29313 and 0.212049, respectively. However,
the optimization results of L1 , R2 , and R4 contrast obviously with the former findings. This
shows that the fluctuations in the fitting are less correlated with L1 , R2 , and R4 .
11
|θ1|
11
10
|θ1θ| 2
10
9 θ2
θ [°]

9
Standard Deviation |θ1|:0.29313
θ [°]

8
8 Standard
StandardDeviation
Deviation|θ1|:0.29313
θ2:0.21249
7
Standard Deviation θ2:0.21249
7
6
6
0 5 10 15 20
0 5 TimesSearch
10 15 20
Search Times
Figure 10. The fluctuations of θ1 and θ2 for 20 calculations.
Figure 10. The fluctuations of θ 1 and θ 2 for 20 calculations.
Figure 10. The fluctuations of θ1 and θ2 for 20 calculations.
3250
R2
3250
3000 R2 R
4
3000 R4
2750
2750
2500 Standard Deviation R2: 96.19034
[m]

2500 Standard
StandardDeviation
DeviationRR2: :96.19034
[m]

172.41077
RR

2250 Standard Deviation R :4 172.41077

2250 4
2000
2000
1750
1750
1500
1500 0 5 10 15 20
0 5 10 15 20
Search Times
Search Times
Figure 11. The fluctuations of R and R for 20 calculations.
2 4
Figure 11. The fluctuations of R2 and R4 for 20 calculations.
Figure 11. The fluctuations of R2 and R4 for 20 calculations.

140
140

120 L3 L3
120
L1 L1
100
100
 1500
0 5 10 15 20
Search Times
Appl.Figure 11.12207
Sci. 2022, 12, The fluctuations of R2 and R4 for 20 calculations. 13 of 22

140
L3
120
L1
100
Length [m]

80

60

40

20 Standard Deviation L3: 0.27055

Standard Deviation L1: 23.25699
0
0 5 10 15 20
Search Times
Figure 12. The fluctuations of L and L for 20 calculations.
1 3
Figure 12. The fluctuations of L1 and L3 for 20 calculations.
Wiśniowski et al. [19] suggested fixing the length of the central segment L3 and
narrowing the ranges of the other parameters to further optimize the five-segment trajectory
Wiśniowski etinal. [19] suggested fixing the length of the central segment L3 and nar
a smaller solution space. The final optimization is clearly to be applied in practice.
rowing the ranges However,
of the other parameters
the optimization to further
result that optimize
he obtained the
is one among five-segment
numerous trajectory
possible results.
In this study, to achieve more precise and stable results of parameters, we narrowed the
parameter limitations according to the volatility ranges and set the Fitness_L(Equation
(8)) as the purpose to search the shortest trajectory to reduce the costs associated with the
length of trajectory. The narrowed ranges are concluded in Table 5, and the parameters of
the IRMO algorithm are: N = 50, M = 6, and generation = 250.

Table 5. The narrowed optimization ranges of trajectory parameters.

The Narrowed Optimization Ranges of Trajectory Parameters

Length of the entry straight segment, L1 ∈[60, 110] m;
Length of the central straight segment, L3 ∈[100, 120] m;
Radius of curved segments, R2 ∈[2500, 3000] m, R4 ∈[1800, 2400] m;
Inclination angle of the entry straight segment, θ 1 ∈[−10, −8] ◦ ;
Inclination angle of the exit straight segment, θ 2 ∈[6, 8] ◦ ;

After searching 20 times by IRMO in the narrowed optimization ranges above, the total
length of the trajectory is obviously shortened (Figure 13) compared with Figures 6 and 9,
although the fitting degree is lower.
The values of the shortest length searched 20 times are shown in Figure 14. The
standard deviation is only 0.05813, in which the maximum decrease is 16.92 m, the mini-
mum decrease is 10.62 m, and the average decrease is 14.53 m. The Figure 15 shows the
convergence of the total length when the iteration of the IRMO is set as 250. The global
optimum tends to be stable as well.
 After searching 20 times by IRMO in the narrowed optimization ranges above
total length of the trajectory is obviously shortened (Figure 13) compared with Figu
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12207 14 of 22
and 9, although the fitting degree is lower.

Figure 13. The shortest total length trajectories after searching 20 times by IRMO.

The values of the shortest length searched 20 times are shown in Figure 14. The stan
ard deviation is only 0.05813, in which the maximum decrease is 16.92 m, the minimu
decrease is 10.62 m, and the average decrease is 14.53 m. The Figure 15 shows the conve
gence of the total length when the iteration of the IRMO is set as 250. The global optimu
tends to be stable as well.
13. The shortest total length trajectories after searching 20 times by IRMO.
Figure 13. TheFigure
shortest total length trajectories after searching 20 times by IRMO.
1030.0
1027.5
The values of the shortest length searched 20 times
Total Length are shown in Figure 14. The st
before optimization
1025.0
ard deviation
1022.5
is only 0.05813, in whichOptimized total Length
the maximum decrease is 16.92 m, the minim
decrease
1020.0 is 10.62 m, and the average decrease is 14.53 m. The Figure 15 shows the con
Length [m]

gence of the total length when the iteration of the IRMO is set as 250. The global optim
1017.5
1015.0
tends to be stable as well.
1012.5
Max:16.92m
1010.0
1030.0
1007.5 Optimized average：14.53m
1027.5 Min:10.62m
1005.0 Standard deviation：0.05813
12, x FOR PEER REVIEW Total Length before optimization 14 of 2
1025.0
1002.5
Optimized total Length
1022.5
1000.0
0 5 10 15 20
1020.0
Length [m]

1017.5
Figure Search
14. Optimal length of trajectories Times 20 times.
by searching
1015.0 Figure 14. Optimal length of trajectories by searching 20 times.
1012.5
1010 Max:16.92m
1010.0
1009
1007.5 Optimized average：14.53m
Min:10.62m
1005.0
1008 f(Rbest)
Standard deviation：0.05813
1002.5
1007 f(Gbest)
Length [m]

1000.0
1006 0 5 10 15 20
1005 Search Times
1004
1003
1002
1001
1000
0 50 100 150 200 250
Generation
15. The convergence progress of searching optimal length after 250 iterations.
Figure 15. TheFigure
convergence progress of searching optimal length after 250 iterations.

A set of trajectory parameters before and after optimization is compared in Table

The results after optimization of θ1 and θ2 are smaller than before, while the results afte
 A set of trajectory parameters before and after optimization is compared
The results after optimization of θ1 and θ2 are smaller than before, while the r
optimization
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12207 of R2, R4, L1, and L3 are larger. Moreover, the length of 15the of 22 exit s

ment L5 is exhibited, which demonstrates that the optimization effect of the tot
mainly contributed by the exit straight segment L5.
A set of trajectory parameters before and after optimization is compared in Table 6.
The results after optimization of θ 1 and θ 2 are smaller than before, while the results after
Table 6. The trajectory of R2 , Rparameters
optimizationdesign 4 , L1 , and L3 arebefore
larger. and
Moreover,
afterthe length of the exit straight
optimization.
segment L5 is exhibited, which demonstrates that the optimization effect of the total length
is mainly contributed by the exit straight segment L5 .
L1 [m] θ1 [°] R2 [m] θ2 [°] R4 [m] L3 [m] L5 [m] Total L
Table 6. The trajectory design parameters before and after optimization.
94.76 −8.87 2699.64 6.44 2063.20 100.00 289.06 10
◦ [◦ ]
95.64 L1−8.00
[m] θ1 [ ] 3000
R2 [m] θ2 6.16 R4 [m] 2330.27
L3 [m] L5104.96
[m] Total131.18
Length [m] 10
Before 94.76 −8.87 2699.64 6.44 2063.20 100.00 289.06 1013.45
After 95.64 −8.00 3000 6.16 2330.27 104.96 131.18 1001.04
Figures 16–21 show the convergence of six parameters over 250 iteration
ing. The iterative convergence
Figures of the parameters
16–21 show the convergence of six parameters carried by theincentral
over 250 iterations searching. parti
The iterative convergence of the parameters carried by the central particle and the average
average of each generation
of each of particles
generation of particles are givenare
in thegiven in the figures
figures simultaneously. simultaneous
We note that the
that the convergence of the central particle and average is relatively more
convergence of the central particle and average is relatively more stable (the fluctuation is stab
smaller). This means that for the IRMO algorithm, if the searches for the global optimal
tuation is smaller).
value have This means
unstable that (possibly
fluctuations for thefalling
IRMO intoalgorithm, if the
the local optimum), thesearches
central fo
optimal value have
particle unstable
could maintain thefluctuations
optimal position to (possibly falling
avoid the result becoming intostuckthein a local
local opt
optimum (the optimum eventually coincides with the convergence of the central particle).
central particle could maintain
To highlight the optimal
the optimization positionwe
trends of parameters, totagged
avoid thetheupperresult
limit andbecomi
lower limit (Table 5) in the following figures for each
a local optimum (the optimum eventually coincides with the convergence of parameter. In Figures 16 and 17,
both θ 1 and θ 2 are trending to a lower value of their ranges, which means that the lower
particle). inclination of entry or exit straight segments is more conducive to optimizing the total
length of the five-segment trajectory.

10.5

upper limit
10.0

9.5 Global Best |θ1|

Centre |θ1|
|θ1| [°]

9.0
Average |θ1|
8.5

8.0
lower limit

7.5
0 50 100 150 200 250
Generation
Figure 16. The convergence progress of inclination of entry straight segment: θ 1.

For the curved segments, R2 and R4 , perform the different convergence trends in
iteration. As shown in Figure 18, the final R2 is neither close to the upper limit of its
searching range nor the lower limit. Meanwhile, the values of R4 converge to the upper
FOR PEER REVIEW
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12207 16 of 22
FOR PEER REVIEW

limit to obtain the optimum total length (Figure 19). It could be considered that R2 plays
Figure 16. Thea more influential role
convergence in the length
progress optimization. of entry straight segment: θ1.
of inclination
For the length of entry straight segment L1 , an obvious convergence can be observed to
Figure 16. Theitsconvergence progress of inclination of entry straight segment: θ1.
upper limit, especially after 100 generations. However, the length of the central straight
8.5 segment L3 finally trends to nearly 110 m.

8.5
upper limit
8.0 upper limit
8.0 Global Best θ2
7.5 Global
7.5 Centre θBest
2
θ2
Centre θ2θ
2 [°]

7.0 Average 2
θ2 θ[°]

7.0 Average θ2
6.5
6.5
6.0
6.0 lower limit
lower limit
5.5
5.5 0 50 100 150 200 250
0 50 100 150 200 250
Generation
Generation
Figure 17. The convergence progress of inclination of exit straight segment: θ2.
17. The convergence progress of inclination of exit straight segment: θ 2.
Figure 17. TheFigure
convergence progress of inclination of exit straight segment: θ2.
3100
3100 upper limit
3000
upper limit
3000
2900
2900
2800
2 [m]

2800
R2 R[m]

2700 Global Best R2

2700 Global Best R2
Centre R 2
2600 Centre R
2600 Average 2R2
2500 Average R2
2500 lower limit
2400 lower limit
2400 0 50 100 150 200 250
0 50 100 150 200 250
Generation
Generation
Figure 18. The convergence progress of radius of entry curved segment: R2.
Figure 18. The convergence progress of radius of entry curved segment: R2.
Figure 18. The convergence progress of radius of entry curved segment: R2.

upper limit
2400 upper limit
2400
 0 50 100 150 200 250
Generation
Figure 18. The convergence progress of radius of entry curved segment: R2.17 of 22
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12207

upper limit
2400

2200
R4 [m]

Global Best R4
2000 Centre R4
Average R4
1800
lower limit
0 50 100 150 200 250
x FOR PEER REVIEW 1
Generation
Figure 19. The convergence progress of radius of exit curved segment: R4.
Figure 19. The convergence progress of radius of exit curved segment: R4.
130
120
upper limit
110
100
L1 [m]

90 Global Best L1
Centre L1
80
Average L1
70
60
lower limit
50
0 50 100 150 200 250
Generation
20. The convergence progress of length of entry straight segment: L1.
Figure 20. TheFigure
convergence progress of length of entry straight segment: L1.
It is hard to say what are the relations between the lower limit or upper limit with
the optimization of R2 and L3 (Figures 18 and 21), but it could be concluded that the
140 determinations of R2 and L3 are not of as much importance as the others. To some extent,
Global Best
their influence on the optimal results is weaker. Therefore, L3 to pay more
it is advisable
attention to optimizing other parameters, including L1 R4 , θ 1 , and θ 2 , in actual projects.
130 Centre
On the other hand, the optimization result of L3 (104.96 m) isL
larger than the fitting result
3
(100.00 m) (Table 6), which is conducive to the trajectory in practice if there needs to be
upper limit
a longer horizontal crossing. Average L3
120
L3 [m]

110
 0 50 100 150 200 250
Generation
Figure 20. The convergence progress of length of entry straight segment: L1.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12207 18 of 22

140
Global Best L3
130 Centre L3
upper limit Average L3
120
L3 [m]

110

100
lower limit
90

80
0 50 100 150 200 250
Generation
Figure 21. The convergence progress of length of central straight segment: L3.
Figure 21. The convergence progress of length of central straight segment: L3.
This process of length optimization could certainly reduce the total length of the whole
construction, especially when considering the cost associated with the length. As another
To highlight theit optimization
possibility, trendscanofbeparameters,
also proves that the trajectory we tagged
designed and optimized the upper
with the purpose
of minimal total length as in the ACO method [21]. However, for the IRMO method, the
lower limit (Table 5) in the following figures for each parameter. In Figures
outputs of the design parameters are more specific with six parameters available which may
both θ1 and θhelp
2 are thetrending to a lower
engineers’ judgement. However,value
in thisof theirtheranges,
example, maximumwhich
optimizedmeans
length that

inclination of istoentry
only a fraction of the total length. Its practical value may need to have more practices
or exit straight segments is more conducive to optimizin
be proved in further study. However, it may provide valuable advice for determining
length of the five-segment
certain parameters whentrajectory.
those parameters are volatile during fitting.

For the curved segments,

4.2. Comparison RDrill
of an Actual 2 and PathRDesign
4, perform the different convergence tren

ation. As shown in Figure

Another 18,containing
example the final R2 is neither
mechanical design, theclose to of
drill path thetheupper
Maxi-HDD limit
Qin of its
River crossing project in China [4], was tested to support this method of predesigning
range nor thetrajectory.
lower limit. Meanwhile,
The crossing the values
project, including of R
two parallel HDD4 converge
crossing with to1016
themmupper l
tain the optimumdiametertotal length
and 1750 m driven(Figure
length, was19). Itatcould
located beplain
an alluvial considered
where the Yellowthat
RiverR2 pla
and the Qin River intersect. Consisting of a 7◦ entry angle, 8◦ exit angle, 2290 m entry
influential roleandin the
exit length
radius optimization.
of curved segments, 1015 m horizontal segment, 33.50 m maximum burial
For the length of entry straight
depth and 29.78 m minimum segment
burial depth belowLthe
1, an obvious
riverbed, the drillconvergence
path was carefullycan be
designed manually for preventing blowout, as shown in Figure 22.
to its upper limit, especially
According after 100
to the engineering generations.
data However,
provided in the literature [4], thethe length of t
geometrical
straight segmentdesignLparameters
3 finallyare limited in
trends tothenearly
ranges given
110inm.Table 7. The minimum bending radius
limitation was given differently for two cases, 2000 m and 2300 m, to illustrate its effects on
It is hardtrajectory
to saydesign.
what are the relations between the lower limit or upper
In terms of mechanical design, heavy loam is used to evaluate the maximum allowable
the optimization of R2 and L3 (Figures 18 and 21), but it could be concluded that
mud pressure, including 1.57 g/cm3 dry density, 20.0 kPa cohesion, 15.0◦ friction angle, and
minations of R 2 and
0.74 L3 are
coefficient not earth
of lateral of aspressure.
muchThe importance
MAP predictedas the
at the others.
location To some ex
of minimum
burial depth is 1.63 MPa, which is very close to the real pressure of about 1.7 MPa [4].
influence on the optimal results is weaker. Therefore, it is advisable to pay mor
All segments of the trajectory were tested for the pressure predictions through the whole
to optimizingprocess
otherofparameters,
geometric design.including L1 R4, θ1, and θ2, in actual projects. On
hand, the optimization result of L3 (104.96 m) is larger than the fitting result
 ameter and 1750 m driven length, was located at an alluvial plain where the Yellow River
and the Qin River intersect. Consisting of a 7° entry angle, 8° exit angle, 2290 m entry and
exit radius of curved segments, 1015 m horizontal segment, 33.50 m maximum burial
depth
Appl. Sci. 2022, and 29.78 m minimum burial depth below the riverbed, the drill path was19carefully
12, 12207 of 22
designed manually for preventing blowout, as shown in Figure 22.

Figure 22. The drill path

Figure 22.profile
The drillof Maxi-HDD
path Qin River
profile of Maxi-HDD crossing
Qin River project
crossing project [4].
[4].

Table 7. Parameters and range setting.

According to the engineering data provided in the literature [4], the geometrical de-
Parameters of Catenary Trajectory
sign parameters are limited in the ranges given Parameters of Five-Segment
in Table Trajectory
7. The minimum bending radius
limitation
Horizontal distance ofwas given
exit and Length
entrydifferently
point: for oftwo
the entry straight
cases, 2000 segment,
m and L1 ∈[1,
2300 100] m,
m; to illustrate its effects
A = 1750 m Length of the central segment, L3 ∈[1000, 1500] m;
on trajectory design.
Vertical distance of exit and entry point: H = −1 m Radius of curved segments,
case 1: R2 &R4 ∈[2000, 3000] m;
Casing unit weight: q = 100 kg/m case 1: R2 &R4 ∈[2300, 3000] m;
Pullback force: Np = 1,000,000 kgfrange Inclination angle of the entry straight segment, θ 2 ∈[−18, 5] ◦ ;
Table 7. Parameters and setting.
Inclination angle of the exist straight segment, θ 4 ∈[5, 18] ◦ ;

meters of Catenary Trajectory Parameters of Five-Segment Trajectory

As shown in Figure 23 and Table 8, although the fitting similarity is largely reduced
Length
from the last example of the
(mostly entry
due to thestraight
differencesegment,
of parametersL1∈[1,
ranges),100]
bothm;
cases of
tance of exit and entry point: A
trajectory m Length
= 1750design by IRMO ofshow
the acentral segment,
great similarity with L 3∈[1000,
the 1500]
actual design. Them;parameter
design results arrive at similar trends as the previous conclusions. With the different
ance of exit and entry point: H = −1 m
minimum bending radius,ofthecurved
entry straight
case 1: R2&R4∈[2000, 3000] m;
segment (L1 ) is designed with nearly 50 m
Radius segments,
ing unit weight: q = 100 kg/m difference while the other parameters are not much different 2&R4∈[2300,
case 1:inRdesign. It proves 3000]
that them;
back force: Np = 1,000,000 kgf fitting Inclination angle of the entry straight segment, θ2∈[−18,
similarity has less influence on the design results than we thought. The design 5] °;
parameters could be designed suitably by fitting with the catenary trajectory. What is more,
there is no needInclination
for extra lengthangle of thedue
optimization exist straight
to the segment,
tiny differences 4∈[5,
in theθtotal 18] °;
length
of the designs caused by strict limitations, especially for the central segment length L3 .

Table 8. Comparison of parameter design results.

Minimum Burial
L1 [m] θ1 [◦ ] R2 [m] θ2 [◦ ] R4 [m] L3 [m] Total Length [m]
Depth [m]
Actual design — −7 2290 8 2290 1015 29.78 —
Case 1 (IRMO) 100 −7.49 2000 6.04 2000 1000 31.90 1752.99
Case 2 (IRMO) 50.65 −8.00 2300 7.07 2300 1000 31.24 1752.26
 ence while the other parameters are not much different in design. It proves that the fitting
similarity has less influence on the design results than we thought. The design parameters
could be designed suitably by fitting with the catenary trajectory. What is more, there is
no need for extra length optimization due to the tiny differences in the total length of the
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12207 20 of 22
designs caused by strict limitations, especially for the central segment length L3.

Figure 23. Comparison of IRMO design and actual design.

Figure 23. Comparison of IRMO design and actual design.
5. Conclusions
Table 8. Comparison
1. of parameter
With design
the application results. algorithms, specifically the IRMO algorithm, the
of intelligence
design and optimization of HDD trajectories could obviously improve the efficiency
and accuracy in this study. All the calculationsMinimum Burial
and optimizations wereTotal
tested Length
on
L1 [m] θ1 [°] R2 [m]a 2.30 GHz
θ2 [°]computerR 4 [m]
(CPU: Intel i5-6300L3 [m] HQ), and the total time of fitting and length
Depth [m]
optimization was stabilized within 60 s, which shows great potential for shortening
[m]
— −7 2290 the manual 8 adjustment2290 time required1015 in actual projects. 29.78 —
) 100 −7.49 2.
2000 This study proposed and
6.04 tested a new1000
2000 method to design the HDD trajectory combining
31.90 1752.99
five-segment trajectory with catenary trajectory. With two processes, the five-segment
) 50.65 −8.00 2300 trajectory7.07 2300 with a 1000
could be designed great similarity to the 31.24 1752.26
catenary trajectory, and
simultaneously with the shortest length, thereby reducing the associated costs. Both
processes were verified through data from the literature or from actual projects. It was
5. Conclusions
proved that the catenary trajectory has great potential to design a traditional drilling
1. With the application
path withofprecise
intelligence
and achievablealgorithms,
parameters. specifically the IRMO algorithm, the
3. Six concise parameters (L , L , R
design and optimization of HDD trajectories couldθobviously
1 3 2 , R 4 , θ 1 , and 2 ) were concluded
improvehereinthe
to design
efficiency
trajectories and be optimized by the IRMO algorithm. According to the analysis of
and accuracy inthethis study.itAll
parameters, was the
found calculations
that the limits and optimizations
of L3 and R2 have fewer were
impactstested
on the on a
2.30 GHz computer (CPU:
optimization IntelTherefore,
results. i5-6300the HQ), and theranges
optimization totaloftime of fitting
the other and length
four parameters
should be set carefully during the trajectory design.
optimization was stabilized within 60 s, which shows great potential for shortening
4. By improving the structure data of the radial movement optimization, the obtained
the manual adjustment
IRMO algorithm timehadrequired in actual
a great ability to solve projects.
the extremum value of the multidimen-
2. This study proposed and tested
sional nonlinear a new
objective method
function. to design
Benefitting therefined
from the HDDparameter
trajectory combin-
matrix
and efficient data structure, the authors believe
ing five-segment trajectory with catenary trajectory. With two processes, the five-IRMO has further potential in more
complex trajectory design such as 3D construction or in avoiding obstacles.
segment trajectory
5. could
It should be designed
be emphasized thatwith a great similarity
the importance to the
of the accuracy catenary
and trajectory,
viability of the
and simultaneously
results bywith the shortest
algorithm are mostly length,
based on thereby
the set ofreducing the associated
the constraints and validatedcosts.
Both processesranges
wereofverified
input parameters
through which
data largely
fromrely theonliterature
the experienceor of trained
from engineers.
actual projects.
This method hopes to provide more advice in terms of geometrical parameters and
It was proved drilling
that the mudcatenary trajectory
pressure for current practice has great potential
preparations with a to design
large a traditional
consideration of
drilling path with precise
site and and achievable
soil property factors. There parameters.
are more factors, such as geology, rock properties,
and drilling rigs that should be discussed in further study to ensure the mechanical
design. What is more, the mechanical advantages of the five-segments trajectory
similar to the catenary trajectory also need more experimental studies to be verified.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12207 21 of 22

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, L.J. and J.W.; methodology, J.W.; software, J.W.; validation,
J.W.; formal analysis, J.W.; investigation, J.W.; resources, J.W.; data curation, J.W.; writing—original
draft preparation, J.W.; writing—review and editing, L.J.; visualization, J.W.; supervision, L.J.; project
administration, L.J.; funding acquisition, L.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are openly available in published
literature, reference number [3,12].
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Yan, X.; Ariaratnam, S.T.; Dong, S.; Zeng, C. Horizontal directional drilling: State-of-the-art review of theory and applications.
Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2018, 72, 162–173. [CrossRef]
2. Allouche, E.N.; Ariaratnam, S.T.; Lueke, J.S. Horizontal directional drilling: Profile of an emerging industry. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
2000, 126, 68–76. [CrossRef]
3. Lu, H.; Behbahani, S.; Azimi, M.; Matthews, J.C.; Han, S.; Iseley, T. Trenchless Construction Technologies for Oil and Gas Pipelines:
State-of-the-Art Review. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2020, 146, 03120001. [CrossRef]
4. Yan, X.; Ma, B.; Zeng, C.; Liu, Y. Analysis of formation fracturing for the Maxi-HDD Qin River crossing project in China. Tunn.
Undergr. Space Technol. 2016, 53, 1–12. [CrossRef]
5. Bennett, D.; Ariaratnam, S.T. Horizontal Directional Drilling: Good Practices Guidelines; North American Society for Trenchless
Technology: Bothel, DC, USA, 2008.
6. Jaganathan, A.P.; Shah, J.N.; Allouche, E.N.; Kieba, M.; Ziolkowski, C.J. Modeling of an obstacle detection sensor for horizontal
directional drilling (HDD) operations. Autom. Constr. 2011, 20, 1079–1086. [CrossRef]
7. Liu, T.; Wang, B.; Cui, Y.; Luo, X. Trajectory error analysis and optimization in horizontal directional drilling. J. Tsinghua Univ. Sci.
Technol. 2011, 51, 592–596. (In Chinese) [CrossRef]
8. Shi, T.; Wu, J.; Hu, Y.D.L. The Attitude Measurement of Horizontal Directional Drilling Equipment Based on Quaternion and
Extended Kalman Filtering Method. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1654, 012099. [CrossRef]
9. Wang, R.; Wang, B.; Kang, J.; Liu, T. Attitude measurement and error compensation for horizontal directional drilling. J. Tsinghua
Univ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 50, 215–218. (In Chinese) [CrossRef]
10. Eren, T.; Suicmez, V.S. Directional drilling positioning calculations. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2020, 73, 103081. [CrossRef]
11. Daniel, J.; Penn, C.; Antonangelo, J.; Zhang, H. Land Application of Urban Horizontal Directional Drilling Residuals to Established
Grass and Bare Soils. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10264. [CrossRef]
12. Krechowicz, M. Comprehensive risk management in horizontal directional drilling projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2020, 146,
04020034. [CrossRef]
13. Saruev, L.; Shadrina, A.; Saruev, A.; Vasenin, S.; Pakharev, A. Prospects for development of technology and facilities of pilot bores
horizontal directional drilling for trenchless laying of pipelines. Bull. Tomsk. Polytech. Univ. Geo Assets Eng. 2019, 330, 89–97.
14. Zhou, C. Research of Horizontal Directional Drilling Trace Optimization abd Software Design in No-Dig Engineering. 2004.
Available online: https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CMFD9904&filename=2004086050.nh (accessed on
8 October 2022). (In Chinese)
15. Lu, Q. Research on Trajectory Design and Control Technology of Horizontal Directional Drilling. 2004. Available online:
https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CMFD0506&filename=2005143742.nh (accessed on 8 October 2022).
(In Chinese)
16. Niu, H. Research on the Optimum Design of 3D Pilot-Hole Trace in HDD. 2008. Available online: https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/
detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CMFD2008&filename=2008095745.nh (accessed on 13 April 2022). (In Chinese)
17. Liu, S.-J.; Zhou, X.-M.; Zhang, J.-W.; Xie, Z.-D. The optimization algorithm for application in directional drilling trajectories of
energy field. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 1212–1217. [CrossRef]
18. Wiśniowski, R. Selected Aspects of Directional Wells Construction Design with the Use of Numeric Methods; AGH: Kraków, Poland, 2002.
19. Wiśniowski, R.; Łopata, P.; Orłowicz, G. Numerical Methods for Optimization of the Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) Well
Path Trajectory. Energies 2020, 13, 3806. [CrossRef]
20. Wiśniowski, R.; Skrzypaszek, K.; Łopata, P.; Orłowicz, G. The Catenary Method as an Alternative to the Horizontal Directional
Drilling Trajectory Design in 2D Space. Energies 2020, 13, 1112. [CrossRef]
21. Patino-Ramirez, F.; Layhee, C.; Arson, C. Horizontal directional drilling (HDD) alignment optimization using ant colony
optimization. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2020, 103, 103450. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12207 22 of 22

22. Aadnoy, B.; Toff, V.; Djurhuus, J. Construction of Ultralong Wells Using a Catenary Well Profile. In Proceedings of the IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, Miami, FL, USA, 21–23 February 2006. [CrossRef]
23. Teodoriu, C.; Asgharzadeh, A. A Novel Model for Catenary Drilling and Drill String Induced Stresses. Polar Arct. Sci. Technol. Pet.
Technol. 2017, 8. [CrossRef]
24. Liu, X.; Samuel, R. Catenary Well Profiles for Ultra Extended-Reach Wells. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, USA, 4–7 October 2009. [CrossRef]
25. McClendon, R. Directional drilling using the catenary method. In Proceedings of the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New
Orleans, LA, USA, 5–8 March 1985; OnePetro: Richardson, TX, USA, 1985.
26. Wen, J. A Novel and High-Efficiency Reaming Assembly for Underground Pipelines Pulling Back Laying in Horizontal Directional
Drilling. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Energy, Environmental and Civil Engineering(EECE 2019),
Wuhan, China, 23 June 2019.
27. Bourgoyne, A.T.; Millheim, K.K.; Chenevert, M.E.; Young, F.S. Applied Drilling Engineering; Society of Petroleum Engineers:
Richardson, TX, USA, 1986; Volume 2.
28. Shu, B.; Zhang, S.; Liang, M. Estimation of the maximum allowable drilling mud pressure for a horizontal directional drilling
borehole in fractured rock mass. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2018, 72, 64–72. [CrossRef]
29. Keulen, B.; Arends, G.; Mastbergen, D.R. Maximum Allowable Pressures during Horizontal Directional Drillings Focused on
Sand. Geomechinics 2001. Available online: https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:ad91dad8-b958-481b-82d8-c739
5d1a3874?collection=education (accessed on 20 November 2022).
30. Xia, H.W. Investigation of Maximum Mud Pressure within Sand and Clay during Horizontal Directional Drilling. Ph.D. Thesis,
Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada, 2009.
31. Jin, L.; Feng, Q. Improved radial movement optimization to determine the critical failure surface for slope stability analysis.
Environ. Earth Sci. 2018, 77, 564. [CrossRef]
32. Jin, L.; Feng, Q.; Pan, Z. Slope Stability Analysis Based on Morgenstern-Price Method and Improved Radial Movement Optimiza-
tion Algorithm. China J. Highw. Transp. 2018, 31, 39–47. [CrossRef]
33. Pan, Z.F.; Jin, L.X.; Chen, W.S. Improved radial movement optimization algorithm for slope stability analysis. Rock Soil Mech.
2016, 37, 2079–2084. [CrossRef]
34. Rahmani, R.; Yusof, R. A new simple, fast and efficient algorithm for global optimization over continuous search-space problems:
Radial Movement Optimization. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2014, 248, 287–300. [CrossRef]

View publication stats