You are on page 1of 50

EVALUATION OF THE ANNULAR SPACE REGION IN

HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILLING INSTALLATIONS














Prepared by
Samuel T. Ariaratnam, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Arizona State University
©2001


2
TABLE OF CONTENTS


ABSTRACT...........................................................................................................5

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION TO HDD.............................................6
1.1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 6
1.2 THE HDD INSTALLATION PROCESS...................................................................... 8

CHAPTER TWO – DRILLING FLUIDS IN HDD.........................................10
2.1 INTRODUCTION TO DRILLING FLUIDS AND ADDITIVES.............................. 10
2.2 GENERAL DRILLING FLUID FUNCTIONS AND PROPERTIES........................ 15

CHAPTER THREE – FIELD EVALUATION................................................20
3.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 20
3.1.1 University of Alberta Farms, Edmonton, Alberta................................................................20
3.1.2 Sil Silica Sand Pit, Bruderheim, Alberta.................................................................................21
3.2 FIELD SETUP.............................................................................................................. 22
3.3 INSTALLATION PROCESS........................................................................................ 23
3.4 POST-INSTALLATION............................................................................................... 24
3.6 DRILLING FLUID FIELD TESTS............................................................................. 27
3.7 CLAY SITE ANALYSIS............................................................................................... 30

CHAPTER FOUR – CONCLUSIONS.............................................................46
4.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 46
4.2 RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH................................................. 48

CHAPTER FIVE - REFERENCES..................................................................49



3
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1-1. Horizontal Directional Drill Rig .............................................................................. 7
FIGURE 1-2. Product Installation Phase........................................................................................ 9
FIGURE 2-1. Schematic of Bentonite Clay Particles.................................................................. 10
FIGURE 3-1. University of Alberta Farms Site (Clay Soil Medium) .......................................... 21
FIGURE 3-2. Sil Silica Sand Pit (Sand Soil Medium) ................................................................ 22
FIGURE 3-3. Typical Field Setup ................................................................................................ 23
FIGURE 3-4. Fluted Reamer Installing 100mm (4 in.) HDPE Pipe ............................................ 24
FIGURE 3-5. Saw Cut to Expose Open Cross-Section................................................................ 25
FIGURE 3-6. Field Mud Testing Kit ............................................................................................ 28
FIGURE 3-9. 100mm (4 in.) Clay Excavation @ 1 week ............................................................ 32
FIGURE 3-10. 200mm (8 in.) Clay Excavation @ 1 week .......................................................... 32
FIGURE 3-11. 300mm (12 in.) Clay Excavation @ 1 week ........................................................ 32
FIGURE 3-12. 100mm (4 in.) Clay Excavation @ 2 weeks......................................................... 33
FIGURE 3-13. 200mm (8 in.) Clay Excavation @ 2 weeks......................................................... 33
FIGURE 3-14. 300mm (12 in.) Clay Excavation @ 2 weeks....................................................... 33
FIGURE 3-15. 100mm (4 in.) Clay Excavation @ 4 weeks......................................................... 34
FIGURE 3-16. 200mm (8 in.) Clay Excavation @ 4 weeks......................................................... 34
FIGURE 3-17. 300mm (12 in.) Clay Excavation @ 4 weeks....................................................... 34
FIGURE 3-18. 100mm (4 in.) Clay Excavation @ 1 year............................................................ 35
FIGURE 3-19. 200mm (8 in.) Clay Excavation @ 1 year............................................................ 35
FIGURE 3-20. 300mm (12 in.)Clay Excavation @ 1 year........................................................... 35
FIGURE 3-21. 100mm (4 in.) Sand Excavation @ 1 day ............................................................ 38
FIGURE 3-22. 200mm (8 in.) Sand Excavation @ 1 day ............................................................ 38
FIGURE 3-23. 100mm (4 in.) Sand Excavation @ 1 week.......................................................... 39
FIGURE 3-24. 200mm (8 in.) Sand Excavation @ 1 week.......................................................... 39
FIGURE 3-25. 300mm (12 in.) Sand Excavation @ 1 week........................................................ 39
FIGURE 3-26. 100mm (4 in.) Sand Excavation @ 2 weeks ........................................................ 40
FIGURE 3-27. 200mm (8 in.) Sand Excavation @ 2 weeks ........................................................ 40
FIGURE 3-28. 300mm (12 in.) Sand Excavation @ 2 weeks ...................................................... 40
FIGURE 3-29. 100mm (4 in.) Sand Excavation @ 4 weeks ........................................................ 41
FIGURE 3-30. 200mm (8 in.) Sand Excavation @ 4 weeks ........................................................ 41
FIGURE 3-31. 300mm (12 in.) Sand Excavation @ 4 weeks ...................................................... 41
FIGURE 3-32. 100mm (4 in.) Sand Excavation @ 1 year ........................................................... 42
FIGURE 3-33. 200mm (8 in.) Sand Excavation @ 1 year ........................................................... 42
FIGURE 3-34. 300mm (12 in.) Sand Excavation @ 1 year ......................................................... 42
FIGURE 3-35. Pocket Penetrometer............................................................................................. 43
FIGURE 3-36. Field Measurements using Pocket Penetrometer ................................................. 44
FIGURE 3-37. Unconfined Shear Strength of Annular Space Over Time................................... 45




4
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2-1. Composition of Drilling Fluids used in Research Project........................................... 19
TABLE 3-1. Field Test Drilling Fluid Properties............................................................................ 29



5

ABSTRACT

Recently, questions concerning the compactive nature of drilling fluids within the annular space
during Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) operations have arisen. To address these concerns, a
field and laboratory study was conducted to provide both a qualitative and a quantitative assessment
of the annular space. The study consisted of installing 61 m (200 ft.) bore lengths of 100 mm (4 in.),
200 mm (in.), and 300 mm (12 in.) SDR 17 High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe in two
different soil mediums: clay and sand. Subsequently, the pipes were excavated with visual and
strength measures of each of the installations taken at time periods of 1 day, 1 week, 2 weeks, 4
weeks, and 1 year after installation to assess the annular space region over time. Additionally,
samples of the drilling fluid were evaluated both in the field and at a laboratory. This paper presents
the results of this research initiative and provides qualitative and quantitative information on
borehole annular space integrity during HDD installations. The study revealed that: 1) the integrity
of the annular space was maintained, as little evidence of voids was present; and 2) the strength
properties increased over time through apparent consolidation, or equalization, with the native soil.


For Additional Information Contact:
Dr. Samuel T. Ariaratnam
Associate Professor
Del E. Webb School of Construction
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona 85287-0204
tel. (480) 965-7399; fax (480) 965-4708
Email: samuel.ariaratnam@asu.edu


6
CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION TO HDD

1.1 INTRODUCTION
New underground infrastructure construction is an important aspect for a developing municipal
environment. Installing this new infrastructure using traditional trenching techniques, particularly
open cut construction, can equate to high social costs. These social costs include noise pollution,
traffic disruption, aesthetic factors, and negative public perception. The use of trenchless
technologies can enable installation of pipelines and other conduits under these sensitive areas while
providing minimal disruption in comparison to traditional trenching methods.
Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) is a trenchless technology that has the capacity to
install a wide variety of pipe materials into the ground. This process provides an alternative over the
traditional open cut methodology while providing a number of benefits. For example, the HDD
process can decrease the social costs of installing underground conduit as the operation can be
performed more quickly, require less working space, and can be conducted without disruption to
surface activities (traffic and pedestrian areas). When utilized under a watercourse, the HDD
method can provide reduced environmental impacts and increased productivity in comparison to an
open cut operation (Allouche et al. 2000).
Today, Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) is one of the fastest growing trenchless
construction methods. Currently, there are over 10,000 HDD rigs in operation throughout the
world (Krzys 1999). Smaller drilling rigs (Figure 1-1) are typically used for the installation of
telecommunication residential service cables. Larger rigs are capable of installing pipelines up to
1200 mm (48 in.). With this growth comes an ever-increasing need for gaining a better
understanding of the physical nature of this construction process and its influence on the


7
surrounding medium. While HDD has been employed in North America since the 1970’s, there are
still some municipalities and regulatory bodies that are wary of allowing the process due to negative
perceptions regarding the annular space region. It is hoped that the results of this research will
make these municipalities and regulatory agencies more aware of the capabilities of the HDD
process and curb any concerns regarding the effects on the annular space created during these
operations. Thus, these bodies can consider the use of HDD for new infrastructure development
programs.


FIGURE 1-1. Horizontal Directional Drill Rig

During the summer of 2000, a field research program was conducted in which six HDD
installations were performed at two different locations. The first series of installations were


8
conducted in June 2000 at the University of Alberta Farms in Edmonton, Alberta, in a clay soil
medium. At this location, three SDR 17 High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipes were installed;
one each of 100 mm (4 in.), 200 mm (8 in.), and 300 mm (12 in.) diameters. The second series of
installations was conducted in July 2000 at the Sil Silica sand pit located west of Bruderheim,
Alberta. At this sand location, three SDR 17 HDPE pipes were installed; one each of 100 mm (4
in.), 200 mm (8 in.), and 300 mm (12 in.) diameters. All of these installations were 61 m (200 ft) in
length and the depth of each installation was based on pipe diameter; 600 mm (2 ft) for the 100 mm
(4 in.) diameter pipes, 900 mm (3 ft) for the 200 mm (8 in.) diameter pipes, and 1200 mm (4 ft) for
the 305 mm (12 in.) diameter pipes.

1.2 THE HDD INSTALLATION PROCESS
Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) is a trenchless method of pipe installation. As a trenchless
construction method, there are minimum, if any, excavation requirements to install pipe and conduit
of varying size and depth. This technique allows for great design flexibility as installation paths, or
borepaths, may be curved or straight, with the path changing direction and depth to avoid
subsurface obstacles.
The installation of pipe and conduit utilizing directional drilling is typically completed in a
two-phase operation including the drilling of a pilot hole and its subsequent reaming to install the
product pipe. Installation of conduit and pipe is conducted from the surface, and commences with
the boring of a pilot bore along the path of installation. The pilot bore is launched from the surface
at an angle between 8 and 20 degrees to the horizontal, and then gradually becomes horizontal when
the required depth is reached. The bore can be steered and tracked from the surface using a walk
over or wire line locator system to direct the bore to the exit location (Ariaratnam and Allouche
2000). Once the drill string reaches the surface at the exit location, a reamer is attached to the drill


9
string and pulled back to the entry point (Figure 1-2). This process enlarges the borehole for the
installation of the product line. To achieve the appropriate bore size it may be necessary to perform
several reaming operations. Generally, all reams prior to the actual product installation are referred
to as pre-reams, and the final ream to which the product pipe is attached is refereed to as the back
ream. The product line is installed once the borehole is enlarged to a diameter that comfortably
accommodates the pipe or conduit.


FIGURE 1-2. Product Installation Phase




10
CHAPTER TWO – DRILLING FLUIDS IN HDD

2.1 INTRODUCTION TO DRILLING FLUIDS AND ADDITIVES
Drilling fluid is composed of a carrier fluid (water) and drilling fluid additives (bentonite and/ or
polymers). Bentonite is a naturally occurring clay mineral (montmorillinite) that forms a mud when
mixed with water. When bentonite is mined, the clay platelets (flat plate-like particles), which have
been subjected to high confining stresses, are closely compressed and have very little water between
them. An “aggregate” is a unit of stacked clay platelets. When water enters between some of the clay
platelets, it immediately causes them to disperse, separating the clay platelets as illustrated in Figure
2-1. The dispersion is aided by shearing through good quality mixing equipment. In fact, one cubic
inch of bentonite, if mixed until it is broken down to single platelets, would have enough surface
area to cover 66 football fields.

FIGURE 2-1. Schematic of Bentonite Clay Particles


11
Drilling fluids are characterized by the following properties:
• Viscosity. Viscosity is the resistance of a fluid to flow. Field testing is conducted with
Marsh Viscosity Funnel and Cup. Time in seconds required for a Marsh funnel filled with
fluid to drain one quart of fluid into the cup is the Marsh Funnel Viscosity. Water has a
Marsh Funnel Viscosity of 26 seconds, ± ½ second at 70°F. Typical viscosities for drilling
fluids used in HDD range from 40 seconds in fine soils to 65 seconds in sand and gravel.
Viscosity measurements are important in HDD, but for different reasons than in vertical
drilling. Gel strength and filtration are more import in horizontal drilling than viscosity.
High viscosity may be a by-product of achieving these properties. Because viscosity is
defined as resistance to flow, it is important to consider that in HDD, the objective is to
maintain flow. Therefore it is more important to achieve gel strength, yield, and filtration
control than to just raise viscosity by adding bentonite. The objective is to design a
“skinny” fluid that will act “fat”.
• Gel Strength. Gel strength is the measurement of the electrical attractive forces within the
drilling fluid under static conditions. Gel strength is measured after the fluid has set static
for 10 seconds and again after 10 minutes with either a variable speed viscometer or
shearometer. The viscometer is more accurate, especially if the gel strengths are progressive.
The gel strength is reported in pounds per 100 square feet. The weak static forces that
produce gel strength are also related to the yield point because the attractive forces between
the particles influence both readings. However, gel strength is destroyed once flow is
initiated in the drilling fluid. As gel strength increases and the difference between the 10-
second and 10-minute gel strengths becomes larger, the potential for progressive gel exists.
The development of progressive gels has a direct correlation to the ability to break


12
circulation once the drilling fluid or slurry has set for a period of time. This higher gel will
result in higher initial pressures needed to get this drilling fluid or slurry to move (less shear
thinning). If this pressure is greater than the pressure required to cause hydrofracture,
circulation loss or frac-out may occur. Adequate gel strength must be maintained to suspend
drilled solids when the fluid is in the static state for the formation being drilled. The drilling
fluid must suspend the solids and keep them in suspension as they are transported out of the
bore. The resulting slurry (fluid and solids) acts like a conveyor belt to remove at least
enough solids to make room for the product. Gel strength is especially important in coarse-
grained soils, and can be important in clays and shales, especially when using large diameter
reamers, which tend to produce large cuttings. The solids will only remain in suspension in
the slurry if the gel strength is adequate.
• Fluid Loss and Fluid Density. Fluid loss is the measurement of filtrate (free water)
passing from the drilling fluid into a porous permeable formation. It is not to be confused
with whole mud loss to the formation (loss circulation). Fluid loss properties are measured
using a standard filter press. A sample of the fluid to be tested is placed in a metal cell and
pressurized (100 psi) for 7.5 minutes. The filtrate that is collected from the filter press in a
graduated cylinder is measured in cubic centimeters (cc). This filtrate quantity is multiplied
by 2 and represents fluid loss. Suspended particles in the drilling fluid will be deposited on
the side of the bore hole or in the case of a fluid loss test on a piece of filter paper. This
filter cake represents the thickness, durability, quality, and slickness of the filter cake. A slick
tough durable filter cake can and often will only be 2/ 32-inches thick when checking a clean
fluid. With experience, it is also an indicator as to the borehole integrity. High fluid loss
properties represent a thicker softer filter cake. This thicker filter cake decreases the annular


13
space in the borehole, thus requiring greater pressure due to drilling fluid and cuttings
traveling in the smaller passage way. The filtrate passing into the formation can also cause
weakening of the formation to the point of collapse. Low fluid loss is an indicator as to the
inhibiting properties of that fluid for clays and shale drilling. Low fluid loss is the key to
borehole integrity. Fluid density is the weight of a gallon of drilling fluid. The density or
mud weight of a fluid is measured using a mud balance. A gallon of water weighs 8.34 lbs.;
any additional weight in this water will come from active or inactive solids. A typical mud
weight for a clean bentonite-polymer HDD drilling fluid will be around 8.5 lbs per gallon or
3% solids by weight. Any additional weight to this fluid above 8.5 lbs per gallon is due to
active or inactive solids from the formation. To convert the density of the fluid or slurry to
solids content, the following equation can be used: (Density - 8.34) X 8 = % solids, where
density is in lbs/ gallon. This calculation assumes a specific gravity of solids of 2.5. The fluid
density value can be used in two ways. First, it can be used to determine if the solids content
is approaching unacceptable levels (9 lbs/ gallon for small to medium rigs and 10 lbs/ gallon
for large rigs). However, the unacceptable level will vary with ground conditions, disposal
requirements, and pumps. These solids, if allowed to build up in the fluid system, can have a
very negative effect on the efficiency of the total drilling system, from breaking the
backbone of the drilling fluid to excessive wear on pumps. If this occurs, the solids content
must be reduced by: 1) additional cleaning (i.e. finer screens, re-circulation within the
cleaning system); 2) reducing drilling penetration rates; and 3) disposing and mixing new
fluids. Secondly, fluid density can be used to measure the effectiveness of solids control
equipment when using a recycling system.


14
• Filtration Control and Filter Cake. These two properties, although closely related to fluid
loss, and to each other, are different. In sand, the filter cake is extremely important. The
cake acts as a sealant, or stabilizer of the fluid that maintains the integrity of the borehole.
However, a good filter cake cannot be obtained without an acceptable filtrate (water loss).
The amount of filtrate in sand is less important than the filter cake quality. In clay, the
opposite is true: filtrate quantity and quality are more important to prevent hydration, i.e. to
keep the water phase from reaching the clay and allowing swelling to occur. In clay, the
filter cake can be viewed as being incidental; however, a good, low filtrate volume cannot be
obtained without a good quality filter cake. Filter cake and filtrate can be determined by a
filter press, with filter cake being reported in 32
nd
s of an inch and filtrate measured in cubic
centimeters.
• Sand Content – Sand content is the percent volume of non-colloidal particles or solids
within the drilling fluid that are larger than 200 mesh or 74 microns. Sand volume is tested
using a Sand Content Test Kit. The results of the test are the percent solids (non-colloidal
material) by volume larger than 200 mesh within the drilling fluid. Sand volume is of great
concern as it adversely impacts efficiency of the circulation system. Unnecessary solids
returning down hole will significantly shorten the life of pumping equipment, mud motor,
etc. The more solids allowed to become entrained in the fluid system, the less efficient that
drilling fluid will be.
• pH – The pH is an expression of acidity or alkalinity of a solution measured between 0 and
14 with 7 being neutral. The pH should be checked with pH strips, paper, or a meter on a
regular basis. Maintaining proper pH in a drilling fluid is critical for the performance of that
fluid. Typical municipal water systems will have a pH around 6.5 to 7. The fluid systems


15
typically used on HDD projects should be maintained between 8 and 9. This will give the
additives the optimum environment for performance. The addition of soda ash is the
simplest means of raising pH. The addition of soda ash renders the calcium (hardness)
insoluble so it does not attach and inhibit the fluid additives.
• Lubricity – Lubricity is defined as the capacity for reducing friction. In HDD installations,
lubricity aids in pipe installation by reducing the friction between the pipe and the soil.
Maximum lubricity is always desired, and can be determined in a laboratory using a lubricity
meter.

To create the optimal drilling fluid, each of the above factors must be considered. The
native soil exerts the greatest influence on the selection of drilling fluid mixture. Once the native soil
has been properly identified and characterized, the proper drilling fluid can be formulated.

2.2 GENERAL DRILLING FLUID FUNCTIONS AND PROPERTIES
The principal functions of drilling fluids used in HDD are:

• Transporting drill cuttings to the surface by suspending and carrying them in the fluid stream
flowing in the annulus between the bore wall and the drill pipe/ product.
• Cleaning build-up on drill bits or reamer cutters by directing fluid streams at the cutters.
• Cooling the downhole tools and electronic equipment.
• Lubricating to reduce the friction between the drill pipe/ product and the bore wall.
• Stabilizing the bore, especially in loose or soft soils by building a low permeability filter cake,
and exerting a positive hydrostatic pressure against the bore wall. The filter cake along with
positive hydrostatic pressure reduces collapse of the bore and prevents formation fluids (i.e.


16
groundwater) from flowing into the bore or drilling fluids from exiting the bore into the
formation (loss of circulation).
• Providing hydraulic power to downhole mud motors.

When the drilling fluid is pumped into the hole, the fluid, just like water, attempts to flow
through the sand or gravel. However, the bentonite platelets will start to plaster or shingle off the
wall of the borehole and form a filter cake that seals off the flow of fluid from the bore into the
native soil. The ideal filter cake is slick and tough, forms quickly during construction of the
borehole, reduces migration of drilling fluid into the formation, and reduces intrusion of ground
water and soil into the bore. Optimum filter cake thickness should range between 1/ 32 and 3/ 32 in.
The water that does manage to filter through the cake is referred to as the “filtrate”. Filter
cake quality can be improved to reduce the amount of filtrate entering the surrounding soil. This
can be accomplished by one of two methods: 1) adding more bentonite (more platelets); or 2) using
certain polymers in conjunction with bentonite to tighten the filter cake. It is more effective to use a
bentonite/ polymer mix because it is less viscous, more pumpable, and flowability in the annular
space will be maximized due to the shear-reducing properties of the fluid (i.e. more slurry will flow).
In addition to providing a filter cake layer, the drilling fluid must provide suspension
characteristics or “gel strength”. The drilling fluid has to be able to support, suspend and carry the
cuttings. If the fluid cannot suspend the drilled material, that material will quickly settle out of
suspension and pack around the drill pipe or around the product line being pulled. Even if the fluid
has a high viscosity (i.e. thick fluid) it may have very low carrying capacity (i.e. gel strength). Proper
control of gel strengths is an important factor in avoiding excessive downhole pressures. Gel
strength is usually checked with a clean fluid. When solids are added to this fluid, the drilling fluid
properties change drastically. The yield value of a drilling fluid (not the gel strength) is the


17
measurement of the drilling fluid’s internal resistance to flow and thus the carrying capacity of the
fluid when it is moving. Gel strength and yield value are more important in horizontal drilling than
viscosity. Because plain water has low viscosity and no gel strength or yield. Polymers by
themselves have high viscosity but low gel strength and yield. Therefore, bentonite is required to
provide the necessary carrying capacity for cuttings from coarse soils.
At times, additives such as detergents are added to the drilling fluids to counteract some of
the formation characteristics such as swelling and stickiness. Other additives are used to adjust the
pH of the fresh water constituent of drilling fluid.
For HDD, the proper drilling fluid mixture is heavily dependent upon the soil encountered.
It must be formulated for the anticipated geological conditions. For simplicity, soil conditions may
be defined as either a coarse soil (sand and gravel) or a fine soil (clay, silt and shale). When drilling
through sand and gravel, a drilling fluid needs to serve two important functions: stabilization of the
borehole and suspension and transportation of cuttings. When drilling through clay, the same
functions need to be performed; however, an additional requirement of the fluid is to retard swelling
and reduce sticking of the soil to the downhole tooling and product line being installed. Geological
conditions may vary between fine and coarse soils; consequently different combinations of drilling
fluid additives will be needed to perform the required functions under actual conditions. In general,
for coarse soils bentonite should be used, while for fine soils polymers (possibly added to a
bentonite base) are recommended. When drilling through sands and gravel, drilling fluids may
migrate out of the bore into the native soil formation. Bentonite and lost circulation materials
reduce fluid losses into the formation.
To create the optimal drilling fluid, each one of the above factors must be considered.
Undoubtedly, the native soil will decide first and foremost what type of drilling fluid is required.


18
Once the native soil is properly identified, the right type of drilling fluid can be chosen and then
quantified for optimal performance.

2.3 DRILLING FLUID COMPOSITION
The drilling fluid mixtures that were utilized during the installations in this research are presented in
Table 3-1. A representative from Baroid Industrial Drilling Products (IDP), who was present during
all stages of each installation, conducted all of the drilling fluid designs. Additionally, all of the
drilling fluid was supplied by Baroid IDP. For each batch, a cup of soda ash (approximately 1 lb.)
was also added into the mixture to ensure that the pH of the make up water remained at an optimal
level of 8 to 10. At this level, the Bore-Gel

reacts better with the make up water and the overall
drilling fluid is able to optimally perform its necessary functions. Bore-Gel

was the primary
component, along with water, that was utilized for the installations. Bore-Gel

is comprised mainly
of sodium bentonite, which provides the primary function of stabilizing the borehole and removing
the cuttings. EZ-Mud
®
is a liquid polymer that is used as a borehole stabilizer and prevents reactive
clay from swelling. Con Det
®
is a wetting agent that aids in the cleaning of the drill bit and
counteracts the sticking tendencies of clays. No-Sag

is a gel strength enhancer that enables better
suspension of cuttings and increases the carrying capacity for solids suspension. The constituents of
the drilling fluid are all products that are produced by Baroid IDP. These products (and many
others) are key components used by directional drilling contractors to maximize drilling
performance for a wide range of HDD projects.



19
TABLE 2-1. Composition of Drilling Fluids used in Research Project
Pipe Designation
# of
Batches
Water
Bore-
Gel
™ ™™ ™

EZ-
Mud
® ®® ®

Con Det
® ®® ®

Other
100mm (4”) – Clay 1 900gal 150lbs 2L 2L -
200mm (8”) – Clay 2 900gal 150lbs 2L 2L -
300mm (12”) – Clay 2 900gal 150lbs 4L 2L
2 lbs No-Sag


100mm (4”) – Sand 1 900gal 250lbs - - -
200mm (8”) – Sand 1 900gal 250lbs - -
2.5 lbs No-Sag


300mm (12”) – Sand 2 900gal 250lbs - -
5 lbs No-Sag




20
CHAPTER THREE – FIELD EVALUATION

3.1 INTRODUCTION
Field testing was performed at two different locations in order to evaluate the annular space region
in both a cohesive and a cohesionless soil medium. This involved the installation of 61m (200 ft.)
bore lengths of 100 mm (4”), 200 mm (8”), and 300 mm (12”) SDR 17 High Density Polyethylene
(HDPE) pipe in two different soil mediums: clay and sand. Field locations were chosen based on
the consistency of soil conditions (i.e. homogeneous), topography of the site, and the ability to leave
the pipe in the ground for a period of one year to conduct long term analysis. The two locations
utilized for this research were the University of Alberta Farms in Edmonton, Alberta and the Sil
Silica sand pit in Bruderheim, Alberta.

3.1.1 University of Alberta Farms, Edmonton, Alberta
The University of Alberta Farm site, shown in Figure 3-1, was chosen as it provided the cohesive
soil medium for this research. The upper 4 m (12 ft.) of the soil at this site consists of uniform
lacustrine Lake Edmonton Clay with a unit weight of approximately 18 kN/ m
3
(Zhang 1999).
Laboratory testing of soil samples revealed a moisture content of approximately 27%. There were
three installations performed at this location including 100 mm (4 in.), 200 mm (8 in.), and 300 mm
(12 in.) diameter SDR 17 HDPE pipes, which were each installed over a distance of 61 m (200 ft.).
These installations were performed on June 13 and 14, 2000.


21

FIGURE 3-1. University of Alberta Farms Site (Clay Soil Medium)

3.1.2 Sil Silica Sand Pit, Bruderheim, Alberta
The sand site is located in one of Sil Silica’s sand pits in Bruderheim, Alberta (Figure 3-2). The site
was not completely level; however, it contained a homogeneous medium of consistently fine sand,
satisfying the cohesionless requirement, from the surface to beyond the testing depths. The
classification of the soil is medium grained sand to silty sand with an approximate unit weight of 18
to 19 kN/ m
3
(Zhang 1999). Laboratory testing revealed a moisture content of approximately 5%.
The installations were performed over a period of two days from July 11to 12, 2000. Similar to the
clay site, three installations of 61 m (200 ft.) each were conducted including 100 mm (4 in.), 200 mm
(8 in.), and 300 mm (12 in.) diameter SDR 17 HDPE pipes.



22

FIGURE 3-2. Sil Silica Sand Pit (Sand Soil Medium)

3.2 FIELD SETUP
Field setups at both sites were performed in a similar manner as illustrated in Figure 3-3. The
overall length of each borehole and subsequent product line was approximately 61 m (200 ft).
Laterally, the pipes were spaced 5 m (15 ft.) apart from the centerline of one installation to the
centerline of the next. This 5 m (15 ft.) spacing was maintained to accommodate a surface heave
monitoring study that was being conducted simultaneously with this research program. Both sites
were surveyed prior to installation and during this time, survey stakes were placed at the beginning,
intermediate, and end points of each installation. The survey stakes were utilized to ensure that the
bore path proceeded in a straight line and were necessary for the ground surface monitoring that
was being conducted during the installation process. The placement of the drilling rig and the layout


23
of the installation lines was determined by the access location for each site and to accommodate the
support equipment and product pipe being installed.

FIGURE 3-3. Typical Field Setup

3.3 INSTALLATION PROCESS
Each installation was conducted using generally accepted drilling practices to ensure that the data
collected reflected not only good drilling practice but also captured the techniques utilized by the
majority of contractors. To this extent, the contractor used fluted reamers (Figure 3-4) in both the
clay and sand soils. Reamers were sized according to the rule of thumb practice of having reamers
1.5 times the diameter of the product pipe being installed (DCCA 1998). Subsequently, on the 100
mm (4 in.) pipe installation a 150 mm (6 in.) reamer was used in a one-pass installation, a 300 mm
(12 in.) reamer was used on the 200 mm (8 in.) product pipe with a one-pass installation, and a 450
mm (18 in.) reamer on the 300 mm (12 in.) pipe with a pre-ream using the 300 mm (12 in.) reamer.
5 m (15 ft.)


24

FIGURE 3-4. Fluted Reamer Installing 100mm (4 in.) HDPE Pipe

Both the clay and sand installations were excavated at sections along the borepath in
intervals of 1 day, 1 week, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 1 year after installation to visually assess the
integrity of the annular space. The annular space region, which is comprised of drilling fluid mixed
with native soil, is defined as the region between the outside diameter of the installed pipe and the
wall of the borehole. The analysis of the annular space region commenced once the installations of
the HDPE pipes were completed. These observations were imperative in trying to gain a better
understanding of the annular space region over time.

3.4 POST-INSTALLATION

Once the installation of a pipe is achieved, it remains untouched until the next day. Because the 100
mm (4 in.) and 200 mm (8 in.) pipes were installed in one day, they were both excavated the


25
following day after the installation of the 300 mm (12 in.) pipe. It was felt that the 1 day excavation
for the 300 mm (12 in.) pipe was not necessary because an indication of the state of the annular
space could be observed sufficiently enough through the 100 mm (4 in.) and 200 mm (8 in.)
installations. After the initial 1 day excavation, the pipes were excavated collectively 1 week, 2
weeks, 4 weeks, and 1 year post-installation. The cross-section excavations were conducted along
the horizontal section of the borepath near the exit pit side and continued towards the entry pit on
subsequent excavations. All the excavations were done using a backhoe with hand digging
employed around the perimeter of the pipes. The backhoe excavated to about 0.3 m (1 ft.) below
the depth of installation and then the hand shovel was used to expose the pipe. Once the area was
excavated, a saw was used to cut through the exposed pipe, subsequently leaving an open cross-
section to analyze as illustrated in Figure 3-5.


FIGURE 3-5. Saw Cut to Expose Open Cross-Section


26
People have hypothesized about the short-term and long-term post installation state of the
annular space yet very few have actually conducted research in this area. Subsequently, this research
involved the evaluation and assessment of:
• The placement of the pipe in relation to the annular space.
• Any existence of voids in the annular space.
• The state of the annular space in terms of strength, texture, and composition.

During the visual examination of the annular space, a geotechnical in-situ test was performed
to assess the unconfined shear strength of the annular space and native soil. It should be noted that
shear strength tests were only performed in the clay site, as this property is never evaluated in
cohesionless soils such as sand. The in-situ tests were preferred over the laboratory tests due to the
fact that a change in environmental conditions (i.e. pressure, moisture content) and the disturbance
of the samples when extracted, handled, and subsequently tested can greatly influence the test
results.

3.5 MOISTURE CONTENT
Moisture content is defined as the ratio of the weight of the water to the weight of the solid particles
in a soil medium. To obtain moisture content, the sample is first weighed and then placed in a hot
oven overnight. The next day, the dried out sample is again weighed and the moisture content is
calculated as a percentage. The moisture content in sands generally lie between 10% and 30%,
while in clay it can range from less than 5% to over 300%. The importance of moisture content in a
soil mass cannot be understated as it can have a significant effect on some of the characteristics and
behavior of a soil. For example, in fine-grained soils such as clay, high moisture content can greatly


27
reduce the shear strength. At every excavation, five samples were collected from each installation to
determine moisture content of the annular space and the respective soil medium.
The moisture content of the clay averaged 27%, while the annular space averaged 38% up to
4 weeks after installation. Analysis of the annular space from the 1 year excavation revealed a
decrease in moisture content to 32%. This indicates that equalization of the annular space and the
native clay seemed to have occurred as evident by the 6% reduction in moisture content exhibited in
the annular space.
The moisture content of the sand averaged 5%, while the annular space averaged 22% up to
4 weeks after installation. Similar to the clay site, the analysis of the annular space from the 1 year
excavation revealed a decrease in moisture content to 12%. It appears that, over time, an
equalization of the annular space and the surrounding soil medium occurs, thereby increasing the
strength properties of the annular space.

3.6 DRILLING FLUID FIELD TESTS
Samples of the drilling fluid/ slurry were taken and analyzed at the same locations for each
installation as follows:
1. The first sample was taken directly out of the mixing tank. Approximately 10 minutes after all
mixtures had been added. This is denoted as the Initial sample and is a composition of only the
drilling fluid (I).
2. The second sample was taken from the entry pit approximately 3 rod lengths into the
installations. This sample is a combination of drilling fluid and the native soil (slurry) and is
denoted as Returns-Entry Pit-Drilling (RED).
3. The third sample was taken from the exit pit. This is a sample of the slurry once the drill head
penetrates through the exit pit. This sample is denoted as Returns-eXit Pit-Drilling (RXD).


28
4. The fourth sample was taken from the exit pit during backreaming once 5 rods were pulled in.
This sample is known as Returns-eXit Pit-Backreaming (RXB).
5. The final sample was taken just prior to the completion of the installation and is denoted as
Returns-Entry Pit-Backreaming (REB).

Each sample was analyzed using a Field Mud Testing Kit illustrated in Figure 3-6 to analyze
the properties of the drilling fluid and slurry (i.e. returns) for density, funnel viscosity, pH, sand
content, gel strength, and filtration/ filter cake.


FIGURE 3-6. Field Mud Testing Kit

A summary of the drilling fluid properties from the field test is presented in Table 3-1. The
results reveal that the density of the drilling fluid in clay remained relatively constant at an average


29
value, 8.8 lbs./ gal., slightly higher than water. In sand, the average density, 12.3 lbs./ gal., was
consistently higher in the slurry samples than that of the initial samples as expected. The viscosity
increased slightly as the installations progressed with average values of 47.1 secs/ qt. and 55.9 secs/ qt
in clay and sand, respectively. The pH values varied between 8 and 10 for each of the sites. In clay,
the sand content was minimal, whereas consistently high readings, over 20%, were exhibited in the
sand site as expected.

TABLE 3-1. Field Test Drilling Fluid Properties
Pipe Size Soil Time Density Funnel Viscosity pH SandContent Gel Strength Filtrate CakeThickness
(inches) (lb/gal) (Secs/Qt) (%) (lb/100ft2) (cc/7.5min) 32nd'sof aninch
4" clay 9:45(I) 8.6 39.2 10 0 0 4.8 2
4" clay 11:52(RED) 8.6 40.1 10 1.5 0 4.2 2
4" clay 1:30(RXD) 8.6 41.3 10 1 0 4.1 2
4" clay 1:45(RXB) 8.6 44.3 10 0.1 0 3.8 4
4" clay 2:10(REB) 9.6 40 8 4 0 9 8
8" clay 3:30(I) 8.6 36.3 10 0 0 4 4
8" clay 4:25(RED) 8.6 36.7 10 1 0 4.2 2
8" clay 5:07(RXD) 8.4 55.1 10 1.5 4.7 3.6 2
8" clay 5:20(RXB) 8.8 48.7 10 0 6 6.2 6
8" clay 6:00(REB) 9.5 70 10 2.5 3 4.3 4
12" clay 11:35(I) 8.6 39.9 10 0 0 4 2
12" clay 12:05(RED) 8.7 38 10 0.25 0 3.6 2
12" clay 12:50(RXD) 8.7 52.4 10 0.5 0 2.8 2
12" clay 2:05(RXB) 8.7 63.6 10 0.75 6 2.6 2
12" clay 3:30(REB) 8.7 60.8 10 0.75 4.5 2.6 2
4" sand 9:50(I) 8.4 46 10 0 5 4.1 2
4" sand 10:35(RED) 13.7 128 8.5 20 19 3.8 14
4" sand 12:10(RXD) 11.7 54 9 20 6.5 4 4
4" sand 12:35(RXB) 12.4 56 9 20 7.5 4.2 8
4" sand 12:55(REB) 12.9 62 9 20 7.5 4.4 8
8" sand 2:08(I) 8.45 44 10 0 0 4.8 4
8" sand 2:25(RED) 13.1 46 9 20 1.5 3.2 8
8" sand 3:40(RXD) 13.05 48 9 20 2 3 8
8" sand 4:30(RXB) 12.5 63 9 20 3 2.9 4
8" sand 5:15(REB) 12.9 68 9 20 3 3 4
12" sand 10:00(I) 8.45 31 10 0 0 4.8 2
12" sand 10:20(RED) 9.8 35 9 20 0 3.6 2
12" sand 12:55(RXD) 9.5 37 9 20 0 4 4
12" sand 4:05(RXB) 13.5 63 9 20 0 2.2 6
12" sand 5:00(REB) 12.9 58 9 20 0 2.8 8




30
3.7 CLAY SITE ANALYSIS
At each cross-sectional excavation, photographs were taken to capture the insitu state of the annular
space over time. Figures 3-7 to 3-20 illustrate the annular space region of the three installed pipes at
various time intervals. As observed, the HDPE pipe is generally centered within the annular space
region with no evidence of voids. Additionally, clay, being a cohesive soil, enables the drilling fluid
to remain within the boundaries of the annular space thereby permitting the fluid to setup/ solidify.
Insitu analysis of the unconfined shear strength of the drilling fluid revealed that the properties
increase over time within the annular space region. This is explained in greater detail in Section 3.9.
Comparing Figures 3-9, 3-10, and 3-11 to Figures 3-18, 3-19, and 3-20, one can see that the
visual annular space actually decreases over time and is relatively non-existent in the 1 year
excavations. It appears that, over time, the amount of water present in the annular space decreases
and the texture of the annular turns into a more solid state. This may be attributed to equalization
between the annular space region and the native soil formation. As well, there is no evidence of the
existence of voids in any of the cross-sections as confirmed by the photographs.


31



FIGURE 3-7. 100mm (4 in.) Clay Excavation @ 1 day


Figure 3-8. 200mm (8 in.) Clay Excavation @ 1 day


32


FIGURE 3-9. 100mm (4 in.) Clay Excavation @ 1 week



FIGURE 3-10. 200mm (8 in.) Clay Excavation @ 1 week


FIGURE 3-11. 300mm (12 in.) Clay Excavation @ 1 week



33



FIGURE 3-12. 100mm (4 in.) Clay Excavation @ 2 weeks


FIGURE 3-13. 200mm (8 in.) Clay Excavation @ 2 weeks


FIGURE 3-14. 300mm (12 in.) Clay Excavation @ 2 weeks



34


FIGURE 3-15. 100mm (4 in.) Clay Excavation @ 4 weeks


FIGURE 3-16. 200mm (8 in.) Clay Excavation @ 4 weeks


FIGURE 3-17. 300mm (12 in.) Clay Excavation @ 4 weeks


35


FIGURE 3-18. 100mm (4 in.) Clay Excavation @ 1 year


FIGURE 3-19. 200mm (8 in.) Clay Excavation @ 1 year


FIGURE 3-20. 300mm (12 in.)Clay Excavation @ 1 year


36
3.8 SAND SITE EVALUATION
For the pipe installations in sand, it was difficult to determine whether voids existed in the annular space.
Because of the disturbance created when excavating and cutting up the pipe, the slurry in the fragile and
very liquefied annular space tended to flow out of the cross-section that was just created. Once the slurry
stopped flowing and the annular space was intact, a clear and evident sign of a slight void was present in
the 100 mm (4 in.) installations as shown in Figures 3-21, 3-23, 3-26, and 3-29. In each excavation, the
voids always occurred beside the pipe and never below or above. It is difficult to assess whether these
voids existed before the cross-sections were excavated or whether they resulted from the disturbance that
was created when the cross-section was made. Some questions were answered once closer inspection of
the annular space with the void was made. When examining the void, it was evident that the void was not
local to that cross-section but in fact spread continuously through the formation. This void was
predominant found only in the 100 mm (4 in.) installation indicating that this may be an isolated incident
caused by the actual soil medium encountered. Additionally, these voids may have been formed due to
the fluid permeating into the surrounding cohesionless sand formation. The 1 year excavation of the
100 mm (4 in.) pipe, Figure 3-32, revealed no presence of voids whatsoever in the annular space.
Therefore, the presence of voids is not thought to be a problem during HDD installations in sand;
however, any short-term voids that may be presence will more than likely be eliminated through
redistribution of the soil with the annular space over time. It is important to recognize that more solids
are present in the annular space region and provide support to the installed product pipe.
Additionally, the presence of small voids are not a cause for alarm as the surrounding native soil
retains its compactive effort, which is difficult to achieve using traditional open-cut trenching
methods of pipe installation.
Figures 3-21 to 3-34 illustrate the annular space region of the three installed pipes at various
time intervals. In comparison to the clay installations, the analysis revealed that the HDPE pipe
tended to settle in the upper region of the annular space. This is a result of buoyant forces acting on


37
the pipe in the cohesionless sand resulting in the pipe “floating” upwards. In such installations,
particularly when crossing under a water coarse, it is often the practice to weigh down the pipe by
filling it with water.




38


FIGURE 3-21. 100mm (4 in.) Sand Excavation @ 1 day


FIGURE 3-22. 200mm (8 in.) Sand Excavation @ 1 day


39



FIGURE 3-23. 100mm (4 in.) Sand Excavation @ 1 week


FIGURE 3-24. 200mm (8 in.) Sand Excavation @ 1 week


FIGURE 3-25. 300mm (12 in.) Sand Excavation @ 1 week


40



FIGURE 3-26. 100mm (4 in.) Sand Excavation @ 2 weeks


FIGURE 3-27. 200mm (8 in.) Sand Excavation @ 2 weeks


FIGURE 3-28. 300mm (12 in.) Sand Excavation @ 2 weeks



41



FIGURE 3-29. 100mm (4 in.) Sand Excavation @ 4 weeks


FIGURE 3-30. 200mm (8 in.) Sand Excavation @ 4 weeks


FIGURE 3-31. 300mm (12 in.) Sand Excavation @ 4 weeks


42



FIGURE 3-32. 100mm (4 in.) Sand Excavation @ 1 year


FIGURE 3-33. 200mm (8 in.) Sand Excavation @ 1 year


FIGURE 3-34. 300mm (12 in.) Sand Excavation @ 1 year


43
3.9 POCKET PENETROMETER
A pocket penetrometer was used in analyzing the shear strength of the annular space. The
instrument, illustrated in Figure 3-35, is small and readily available. As well, using the penetrometer
to obtain unconfined shear strength readings (measured in kg/ cm
2
) is relatively easy, as it entails
physically pushing the instrument into the annular space stratum to a calibration mark and recording
the subsequent reading. It should be noted that the pocket penetrometer was only utilized at the
clay site because it is only applicable in fine-grained soil. When evaluating the results of the
penetrometer tests, it is important to note that the soil is not completely uniform throughout.
Subsequently, it may exhibit different shear strength characteristics at various planes and for
different moisture contents. Therefore, it is important to note that this may or may not reflect the
true shear strength of the native soil in all directions. As well, because it is not uniform, the shear
strength characteristics through time may be influenced by the plane being sampled.


FIGURE 3-35. Pocket Penetrometer

For each cross-sectional excavation that occurred in clay, the pocket penetrometer was used
to determine the unconfined shear strength. Comparisons were subsequently made between the


44
different pipe installations to assess the change in shear strength over time. The pocket
penetrometer field test was performed at various locations in the annular space surrounding each
installation, as illustrated in Figure 3-36. Figure 3-37 reveals that the unconfined shear strength of
the annular space material increases over time. For example, the initial readings for the three
installations were between 0.1 kg/ cm
2
and 0.25 kg/ cm
2
, which converged to 0.6 kg/ cm
2
to 0.7
kg/ cm
2
recorded at the 1 year excavation. The existing clay medium exhibited unconfined shear
strengths between 0.8 and 1.1 kg/ cm
2
from measurements taken approximately 300 mm (12”) away
from the installed pipe. This increase may be explained by the consolidation of the surrounding soil
medium within the annular space over time and the slow hydration of the native clay in the slurry,
thereby increasing the strength properties around the installed pipe.


FIGURE 3-36. Field Measurements using Pocket Penetrometer



45


0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
24 hrs. 1 Week 2 Weeks 4 Weeks 1 Year
Time of Digup
U
n
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
d

S
h
e
a
r

S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
k
g
/
c
m
2
)
100 mm (4 in.) 200 mm (8 in.) 300 mm (12 in.)

FIGURE 3-37. Unconfined Shear Strength of Annular Space Over Time



46
CHAPTER FOUR – CONCLUSIONS

4.1 INTRODUCTION
The findings of a field and laboratory study conducted to provide both a qualitative and a
quantitative assessment of the annular space region during Horizontal Directional Drilling
installations are presented. Observations of the annular space region at various time intervals after
installation indicate that small voids may initially be present in cohesionless soils due to the
permeation of fluid into the surrounding native material. However, it is important to realize that
more solids are present in the annular space region thereby providing support to the installed
product pipe. No voids were detected in any of the installations in the cohesive soil.
The shear strength of the annular space is dependent on the characteristics of the native soil
and its reaction with water. As was evident when comparing the clay and sand installations, the state
of the clay annular space was far more mature than the sand installation. It also exhibited strength
and cohesive characteristics while the annular space in sand was fluid-like. In addition, the sand
installations did exhibit initial voids, which is another sign of non-cohesion. Measures of the
unconfined shear strengths of the annular space in the clay soil medium indicate that it reaches
about 70-80% of the native soil after 1 year. This is an important consideration since these
measures are difficult to obtain using open cut methods.
Even within the same soil site, or even the same installation, there are differences between
every cross-section. Because the soil naturally exhibits different stratums or pockets of
compositions, strengths, and moisture content, the annular space reflects this as well. The annular
space was discovered to change in shape, texture, composition, shear strength, and moisture content
from cross-section to cross-section. In all cases, the diameter of the annular space region decreased


47
over time to the point that it equalized (or consolidated) with the native soil. The moisture content
of the clay averaged 27%, while the annular space averaged 38% up to 4 weeks after installation.
Analysis of the annular space from the 1 year excavation revealed a decrease in moisture content to
32%. The moisture content of the sand averaged 5%, while the annular space averaged 22% up to 4
weeks after installation. Similar to the clay site, the analysis of the annular space from the 1 year
excavation revealed a decrease in moisture content to 12%. It appears that, over time, an
equalization of the annular space and the surrounding soil medium occurs, thereby increasing the
strength properties of the annular space.
The primary and most important function of the post-installation annular space is to behave
like the native soil and provide security to the installed pipe. Insitu tests and visual assessments
validate this notion, as all of the pipes that were installed remained secure with no evidence of any
potential movement. It should be noted that surface points placed along the installations revealed
that no ground settlement occurred at the surface during installation. Also, no ground settlement
was observed over time.
Much information may be obtained from field studies of construction processes such as the
research described in this report. The final results should provide owners, contractors,
manufacturers, engineers, and others interested in directional drilling with a better understanding of
the influence that HDD installations have on the surrounding medium. The six pipes installed and
the twenty-eight cross-sections that were excavated and analyzed support the opinion that the
annular space does provide the necessary attributes for the short-term and long-term success of a
pipe installation using horizontal directional drilling.



48
4.2 RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Recommendations for future research include expanding the scope of research to include other soil
mediums, pipe diameters, and pipe material. Additionally, it would be beneficial to try assessing the
annular space using different mixtures of drilling fluid and at different depths of installation.
Evaluation of the annular space at 2 year, 3 year, etc. after installation to assess the unconfined shear
strength over a longer time horizon is recommended. This could provide additional validation of
the long-term integrity of the installed pipe. Furthermore, more elaborate strength tests or other
geotechnical in-situ or laboratory tests to measure properties of the annular space could be utilized.
Assessment of the annular space in installations made below the water table is suggested for
comparison with the results presented in this research.



49
CHAPTER FIVE - REFERENCES

[1] Allouche, E.N., S.T. Ariaratnam and J.S. Lueke (2000). “Horizontal Directional Drilling:
Profile of an Emerging Industry,” Journal of Construction Engineeringand Management, ASCE,
Vol. 126, No. 1, January/ February, pp. 68-76.
[2] Ariaratnam, S.T. and E.N. Allouche (2000). “Suggested Practices for Installations Using
Horizontal Directional Drilling,” PracticePeriodical on Structural Design and Construction, ASCE,
Vol. 5, No. 4, November, pp. 142-149.
[3] Directional Crossing Contractors Associations (DCCA), (1998). “Guidelines for a Successful
Directional Crossing Bid Package,” Directional CrossingContractors Association, Dallas, Texas,
pp. 90-94.
[4] Krzys, B. (1999). “HDD Rig Count” Directional DrillingMagazine, Vol. 7, No. 6, Peninsula,
Ohio, December, p. 6
[5] Zhang, D.J.Y. (1999). PredictingCapacity of Helical ScrewPiles in Alberta Soils. M.Sc. Thesis,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering., University of Alberta, Edmonton,
Alberta.





50
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The financial support to conduct this research project from the Vermeer Manufacturing Company
and Baroid IDP is hereby acknowledged. Additionally, the authors would also like to acknowledge
T.C. Backhoe Services Ltd. of Sherwood Park, Alberta for their professionalism and diligence during
the research project.