A RATIONAL METHOD FOR EVALUATING THE RISK OF

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN SOIL DURING HORIZONTAL

DIRECTIONAL DRILLING (HDD)
By Richard M. Stauber, P.E., Klienfielder, Sacramento, CA; Jason Bell, Baroid IDP,
Houston, TX; and David Bennett Ph.D., P.E., Bennett/Staheli Engineers, Sacramento, CA
ABSTRACT
Project owners and regulators are becoming increasing sensitive to damage caused to both the
natural and built environment by hydraulic fracturing of soil during horizontal directional drilling
(HDD). While the implementation of good practice guidelines can lead to a substantial reduction
in damage industry-wide, they cannot provide assurance that the risk of damage due to hydraulic
fracturing on a specific project has been mitigated within practical limits. While the contractor is
generally responsible for final design of the bore profile, a rational preliminary design is the first
step in mitigating hydraulic fracturing. In order to evaluate the risk of hydraulic fracturing, a
demandcapacity analysis procedure was developed. The capacity of the soil to resist plastic
deformation and hydraulic fracturing was calculated using the Delft equation and site-specific
soil strength parameters. Down-hole pressure (pressure demand) was evaluated by determining
the equivalent circulating density (hydraulic loss) of the drilling returns based on the Bingham
plastic fluid model. A parametric study was then performed to determine which factors had a
significant effect on down-hole pressure. These factors fell into two general categories: the
geometry of the annular space as determined by drill rod size, bit size, and bend, and the
rheologic properties of drilling returns. Laboratory analysis of soil samples from two proposed
HDD sites was performed to determine the range of rheologic properties that could be
anticipated to occur assuming good practice guidelines were followed. This information was
combined with standard rod and bit sizes to predict down-hole pressure at specific locations
along the bore path. Using this information, preliminary boreplans were developed that provide
reasonable assurance that the bore could be completed without incident.

INTRODUCTION
Inadvertent return of drilling fluid to the surface due to hydraulic fracturing during horizontal
directional drilling (HDD) can have many negative consequences. These consequences include
the cost of materials and labor involved in clean-ups, downtime for drilling operations, impact to
wetlands and rivers, and impacts to structures including roads, foundations, and utilities. In
some instances the inability to control hydraulic fracturing has led to substantial resistance to the
use of HDD including a moratorium in some jurisdictions.
The industry has actively addressed this issue through the development of good practice
guidelines. The implementation of these guidelines has had a significant effect on the incidence
of hydraulic fracturing. On one project involving many short to medium length crossings, the
incidence of hydraulic fracturing was reduce from over 50 percent to less than 10 percent by
implementing good practices including training personnel, performing geotechnical
investigations, preparing written bore plans, and using good drilling techniques. The impact of
the hydraulic fractures that did occur was greatly reduced through the development and use of
written contingency plans. While the implementation of good practice guidelines has lead to a
substantial reduction in damage industry-wide, it cannot provide assurance that the risk of
damage due to hydraulic fracturing on a specific project has been mitigated within practical
limits.
In an effort to improve on current methods for evaluating the risk of hydraulic fracturing a
demand-capacity analysis was developed. The capacity of an isotropic soil mass to resist
hydraulic fracturing was modeled using the Delft Equation. The pressure demand in the
borehole was calculated using the Bingham plastic fluid model. By comparing the pressure
demand during drilling to the capacity of the soil to resist the pressure a bore profile could be
developed that, in theory, would effectively mitigated the risk of hydraulic fracturing.
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BOREHOLE PRESSURE
At a minimum, drilling fluid pressure is resisted by the weight of the soil above the borehole
(Hair 1991). This lower bound value may be appropriate for some soil conditions were

horizontal weaknesses or cracks between layers allow the drilling fluid to jack up against the
overlying soil. This condition is common in the San JoaquinSacramento River delta of
California where drilling fluid ponds beneath the peat forming large blisters at the surface.
Installing surface casing through these zones has proven effective in addressing this unusual
form of loss of circulation.
The inherent strength characteristics of many soil formations provide resistance to borehole
pressures that greatly exceed the overburden pressure. An equation that accounts for the strength
characteristics of soil was developed by Delft Geotechnic and published in the USA by the Army
Corps of Engineers (Staheli, et al, 1998). The Delft equation is based on plastic cavity expansion
theory and accounts for the pressure required for plastic deformation and propagation of
fractures from a cylindrical hole through a soil mass. The Delft equation was recently
republished by the US COE along with some examples of its application (Conroy, et al, 2002).
PREDICTED BOREHOLE PRESSURE
Pressure in the annulus of the borehole includes static fluid pressure and friction losses. Static
fluid pressure is a function of the density of drilling returns and elevation from the bore entry
point. Friction losses are a function of the mud flow rate, geometry of the annulus of the
borehole, and mud properties (yield point, plastic viscosity, and density). Frictional losses were
calculated using the procedure outlined in Chapter 9, Rheology and Hydraulics, of the Baroid
Drilling Fluid Manual (Baroid 1997). The Bingham plastic fluid model was used.
The Bingham plastic fluid model has a linear relationship between shear rate and shear stress. It
is the simplest rheological model and assumes true plastic behavior. This model has a yield
stress that must be overcome before the fluid will flow. The slope of the shear stress/rate curve
is the fluids plastic viscosity.
The average velocity of drilling fluid in the borehole annulus (Va) is:
Va (ft/sec) = (0.408 x POGPM)/ (ID2HOLE OD2DP)

where POGPM = pump output in gal/min; ID2HOLE = diameter of hole or inside diameter of casing
in inches; and OD2DP = outside diameter of the drill pipe or drill collar in inches.
For a laminar flow condition, the pressure drop (PDa) in the annulus is then:
PDa = {[(PV x Va)/1000(IDHOLE ODDP)2] + [YP/200(IDHOLE ODDP)]} x L
where PV = plastic viscosity in cP; YP = yield point in lb/100 ft2; and L = length in ft.

CASE STUDY NUMBER 1: VERY DENSE SAND AND SILTY SAND

The project involved construction of an optical fiber steel conduit approximately 5 inches in
diameter from the proposed bore entry point to approximately 3,200 feet offshore to exit the sea
floor bottom beneath the Pacific Ocean. The bore was designed to enter the ground at
approximately 10 to 12 degrees to the horizontal, maintain a minimum depth below the ocean
floor of 100 feet until it was necessary to turn upward, and exit at an angle of 8 to 13 degrees
from the horizontal under about 50 feet (15 meters) of water.
Near surface soils encountered in the exploratory boring generally consisted of loose to medium
dense, fine to medium grained, poorly graded sand from below the asphalt pavement to
approximately 28 feet. Dense to very dense sand, silty sand, and hard sandy silt was encountered
from approximately 28 feet to the total depth explored of 150 feet. Coarse-grained poorly graded
sand with gravel was encountered from a depth of approximately 43 to 50 feet. Divers observed
gravel and cobles at a similar elevation along the bore path suggesting that a continuous layer of
sand, gravel, and cobles could be present.
Evaluation of the maximum allowable borehole pressure was performed at 200-meter intervals
along the proposed bore profile. The profile was assumed to consist of an entry segment at an
angle of 12 degrees extending from the bore entry point to about 225 meters out, a horizontal
section from about 225 to 600 meters out, and an exit segment at an angle of 8 degrees extending
from about 600 meters to the exit point at 915 meters. The initial diameter of the borehole was
assumed to be 8.75 inches and the radius of the plastic zone was set at 2/3rds the distance
(measured vertically) from the drill pipe to the gravel layer. Soil parameters in the plastic zone

were defined as follows: angle of internal friction of 36 degrees, cohesion of 0 ksf, shear
modulus of 700 ksf, and saturated unit weight of soil of 125 pcf.
Pressure in the annulus of the borehole includes static fluid pressure and friction losses. Static
fluid pressure is a function of the density of drilling returns and elevation from the bore entry
point. For drilling returns weighing 11 lbs/gallon the static pressure would be 0.57 psi/foot.
Friction losses are a function of the mud flow rate in the annulus, size of the drill pipe and bore
hole, and mud properties (yield point, plastic viscosity, and density). Frictional losses were
calculated using the Bingham plastic fluid model.
A parametric sensitivity analysis was performed for this project to determine the theoretical
range of friction losses. Fresh mud properties were based on Baroid BORE-GELTM mixed at 35
lbs/100 gallons of fresh water. Drill rod dimensions were based on API Double White pipe with
a nominal outside diameter of 5 inches. Borehole diameters were based on commercially
available tri-cone bit sizes. The ranges of parameters used are presented below.
PARAMETER
Plastic Viscosity (cP)
Yield Point (lb/100sq ft)
Mud Density (lb/gal)
Mud Flow Rate (gpm)
Diameter of Drillpipe (in)
Diameter of Bit (in)

LOW END VALUE

7 (for fresh drilling mud)
9 (for fresh drilling mud)
8.5 (for fresh drilling mud)
300
5 (OD of pipe)
7.875

HIGH END VALUE

50 (for heavy drilling returns)
50 (for heavy drilling returns)
11 (for heavy drilling returns)
500
5.188 (OD of upset)
8.750

Calculated friction loss along the drill pipe varied from 0.0185 to 0.1203 psi/foot. Calculated
friction loss along the upsets varied from 0.0201 to 0.1333 psi/foot. Since the length (2.25
inches) and diameter increase (0.188 inches) of the upset on this type of pipe is relatively small,
friction loss around the upset was neglected in borehole pressure calculations.
Calculated bore hole pressure due to static fluid pressure (0.57 psi/foot of elevation below bore
entry point) and friction loss (0.12 psi/foot of drill pipe) was compared to maximum allowable
borehole pressure at 200-meter intervals along the bore profile. The results of this comparison
are presented in the following table.

Table 1: Allowable vs. Predicted Borehole Pressure

Case Study 1, Very Dense Sand and Silty Sand
Bore
Entry
Point

Station
0+200
Meters

Station
0+400
Meters

Station
0+600
Meters

Station
0+800
Meters

Elevation (feet, MLLW)

16

-221

-144

-144

-88

Pipe Length (feet)

NA

686

1342

1998

2654

Depth of Cover (feet)

NA

112

102

102

51

Radius of Plastic Zone (feet)

NA

42

46

50

17

Static Pressure (psi)

78

91

91

59

Friction Loss (psi)

82

161

240

318

Borehole Pressure (psi)

160

252

331

377

Allowable Pressure (psi)

541

541

513

297

The calculated borehole pressure exceeds the maximum allowable pressure at Station 0+800.
This would only occur if the actual drilling return properties and flow rate approached the
maximum values used in the friction loss analysis. For comparison, the borehole pressure at
Station 0+800 based on a Plastic Viscosity and Yield Point of 30 and a flow rate of 400 gpm
would be 245 psi, which is less than the maximum allowable pressure of 297 psi.
CASE STUDY NUMBER 2: HYDROPHILIC CLAY
The project consists of replacing an existing ten-inch diameter natural gas transmission pipeline
with a 24-inch diameter steel pipeline. The HDD bore will enter slightly north of the Interstate
at about station 2+00, continue westward beneath the existing shopping center and business
center complex parking lots, and exit at approximately station 26+00.
Near-surface alluvial deposits are comprised of sandy clay with thin discontinuous silty and
clayey sand and gravel lenses. The sandy clay is stiff to very stiff, moist, contains fine to
medium grained sand and locally, carbonate stringers and nodules. The sand and gravel lenses
contain varied amounts of silt, clay, and 0.5-inch diameter subrounded gravel, are generally
moist to wet, medium dense to dense and medium-to coarse-grained. Density/ stiffness of the
alluvial deposits typically increases with depth. A continuous clay layer was encountered along

the alignment at a depth of 30 to 50 feet. This layer is anticipated to be where the bore will be
drilled.
Laboratory testing was performed on three soil samples obtained at a depth of about 40 feet.
Average soil parameters were selected for use in calculations and include an angle of internal
friction of 14 degrees, a cohesion of 1,400 psf, a shear modulus of 175,000 psf, a moist unit
weight of 120 pcf, and a buoyant unit weight of 58 pcf.
Rheologic testing was performed on a representative clay sample to evaluate the Plastic
Viscosity, Yield Point, and Gel Strength of drilling fluid mixed with varying amounts of soil.
The drilling fluid consisted of 20 pounds of premium grade Wyoming Bentonite per barrel (42
gallons) of drilling fluid. A summary of the test results is presented in the following table. Note
the dramatic increase in viscosity, yield point, and gel strength between 30 and 40 lbs/bbl of
native drill solids.
Table 2: Rheologic Test Results
Case Study 2, Hydrophilic Clay
PROPERTY
Weight
Funnel Viscosity
600 rpm reading
300 rpm reading
Plastic Viscosity
Yield Point
10 second gel
10 minute gel

UNIT
Lbs/gal
Sec/qt
lbs/100sf
lbs/100sf
cP
lbs/100sf
lbs/100sf
lbs/100sf

NATIVE DRILL SOLIDS (lbs/bbl)

none
20
30
40
8.6
9.4
9.8
10.2
48
66
136
>240
33
49
60
>200
23
35
42
>200
10
14
18
>50
13
21
24
>100
11
24
31
>200
32
62
78
>200

A preliminary HDD bore profile was developed for use in the hydraulic fracturing analysis of the
east alignment. The profile is based on an entry angle of 12 degrees, a cover depth of 40 feet
beneath the parking areas, and an exit angle of 8 degrees. The radius on the entry side is based
on an angular change of 1 degree per 30-foot long section of drill pipe. The radius on the exit

side is based on an angular change of 1 degree per 30-foot long section of drill pipe. The
preliminary design bore profile is presented in Figure 1.

F ig u r e 1 : P r e lim in a r y B o r e P r o file
C a s e S tu d y N u m b e r 2 , H y d r o p h ilic C la y
(N o t fo r C o n s tr u c tio n )
50
40

Elevation (feet)

30
20
10
0
-1 0
-2 0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

S ta tio n (fe e t)
S u r f a c e E le v a t io n ( f e e t )

B o re

E le v a tio n (fe e t)

Specific information about the equipment to be used for an HDD installation is required to
describe the geometry of the annulus and determine volume flow rates. One of the bidding
contractors was contacted to determine the type of equipment that might be used on the project.
The contractor indicated that he would use a 150,000-lb custom built track mounted HDD drill
rig with a 30-foot stroke and maximum torque of 48,000 ft-lbs. The rig was set up for 5-inch
nominal diameter S-grade drill pipe with 6 5/8-inch tool joints, and a pilot bit with an outside
diameter of 9 5/8 inches. The positive displacement mud pump would have a nominal capacity
of 200 gpm, a typical operating pressure of 500 psi, and a maximum operation pressure of 1500
psi.

Table 3: Summary of Information Used in Hydraulic Fracturing Analysis

Case Study 2, Hydrophilic Clay
Units

SOIL PROPERTIES
Particle Size distribution (percent)
Maximum particle size
Atterberg Limits
Soil Density Moist/Buoyant
Angle of Internal Friction
Cohesion
Estimated shear modulus
DRILL RIG CONFIGURATION
Pullback
Torque
Mud pump nominal output
Pump pressure, operating /maximum
Drill pipe diameter, outside
Tool joint diameter, outside
Drill bit diameter

Clay Silt Sand Gravel

43 39
18
0
2.5 mm (#8 sieve)
LL 54, PI 39
120/58
14
1400
175,000

pcf
degrees
psf
psf

Custom built

Units

150,000
48,000
200
500/1,500
5
6 5/8
9 5/8

lbs
ft-lbs
gpm
psi
inches
inches
inches
Units

DRILLING RETURN PROPERTIES

Fluid Weight
Yield Point
Plastic Viscosity

percent

10.0 to 10.2
30 to 50
30 to 100

lbs/gal
lbs/100sf
cP

Evaluation of the maximum allowable borehole pressure and the predicted borehole pressure was
performed at intervals along the proposed bore profile for the east alignment. The initial diameter
of the borehole was assumed to be 9.625 inches and the radius of the plastic zone was set at
the distance (measured vertically) from the drill pipe to the ground surface. The results of the
analysis are presented in the following figure. Where the two curves intersect, the factor of
safety for hydraulic fracturing is 1.0. The first curve shown in the Figure 2 assumes a mud
weight of 10 lbs./gal., a yield point of 30 lbs/100sf, and a viscosity of 30 cP. Fracs-out is
expected to occur near the bore exit point. The second curve demonstrates the effect of an
increase in viscosity to 50cP, a yield point of 100 lbs/100sf, and a mud weight of 10.2 lbs./gal.
Frac-out is expected to occur in the middle of the bore profile.

C o m p a r is o n o f P r e d ic te d to M a x im u m A llo w a b le P r e s s u r e
P la s tic V is c o s ity o f 3 0 c P , Y ie ld P o in t o f 3 0 lb s /1 0 0 s f
M u d W e ig h t o f 1 0 lb s /g a l
160
140

Pressure (psi)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

S ta tio n (fe e t)
P r e d ic t e d P r e s s u r e ( p s i)

A llo w a b le

P r e s s u r e ( p s i)

C o m p a ris o n o f P re d ic te d to M a x im u m A llo w a b le P re s s u re
P la s tic V is c o s ity o f 5 0 c P , Y ie ld P o in t o f 1 0 0 lb s /1 0 0 s f
M u d W e ig h t o f 1 0 .2 lb s /g a l
200

Pressure (psi)

175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

S ta tio n (fe e t)
P re d ic te d P re s s u re (p s i)

Figure 2:

A llo w a b le P re s s u re (p s i)

Comparison of Predicted to Maximum Allowable Pressure

20 Pounds of Wyoming Bentonite per Barrel of Drilling Fluid
with Approximately 30 and 40 Pounds per Barrel of Native Drill
Solids

CONCLUSIONS
With sufficient geotechnical information it is possible to calculate a maximum allowable
borehole pressure curve for a given HDD bore profile. Real time information regarding the
actual pressure in the borehole could then be compared to allowable values to potentially
mitigate hydraulic fracturing. Devices to measure borehole pressure are currently under
development. Until reliable pressure transducers are readily available other methods are needed
to predict borehole pressure. One such method, the Bingham plastic fluid model, was illustrated
in this paper.
Plastic Viscosity, Yield Point, and density, can be readily measured in the field using a field
rheometer and mud balance. Borehole pressure can then be calculated and compared to the
maximum allowable borehole pressure. Specifications could require that the contractor maintain
calculated borehole pressures below the maximum allowable pressure, or maintain rheologic
properties within specified limits.
Prior to specifying such a requirement the design engineer or geotechnical engineer should
confirm that the requirements are reasonable. Onerous requirements may result in increased
project costs without any reduction in the risk of hydraulic fracturing. One method to determine
a reasonable range of rheologic properties for use in analysis as well as specifications is to
perform rheologic testing on soil samples obtained during the geotechnical investigation.
Differing amounts of soil can be added to typical base drilling fluids to simulate a variety of
solids contents. The range of rheologic properties can then be evaluated and selected values used
in design of the bore profile and preparation of specifications.
REFERENCES
Baroid (1997) Drilling Fluid Manual, Chapter 9, Rheology and Hydraulics, Haliburton, Houston,
TX
Conroy, P.J., et al (2002) Installation of Fiber-Optic Cables Under Flood Protection Structures
Using Horizontal Directional Drilling Techniques ERDC/GSL TR-02-08, US Army Corps of
Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Geotechnical Engineering Research
Program, May, 2002

Hair, John D. (1991). Analysis of Subsurface Pressures Involved with Directionally Controlled
Horizontal Drilling. Proceedings of the ASCE Pipelines Conference, March 25-27, Denver, CO.
Staheli, K. etal, (1998) Installation of Pipelines Beneath Levees Using Horizontal Directional
Drilling, Technical Report CPAR-GL-98-1, Construction Productivity Advancement Research
(CPAR) Program, Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg,
MS