Bennett 2008

Pipelines 2008 © 2008 ASCE
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 08/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Step By Step Evaluation of Hydrofracture Risks for Horizontal Directional

Drilling Projects
David Bennett1, and Kathryn Wallin1

1
Bennett Trenchless Engineers, 90 Blue Ravine Road, Suite 165, Folsom, CA 95630,
T 916.294.0095, F 916.294.0098
Abstract: Hydrofracture associated with HDD projects remains a serious concern for
regulatory and permitting agencies, and the engineers, owners, and contractors that
must obtain permits and regulatory approval for their projects. The cavity expansion
model is the appropriate model for evaluating hydrofracture risks, specifically
maximum allowable drilling fluid pressures, for the majority of HDD projects in
soils. The tensile strength model, not covered in this paper, is more appropriate for
HDD projects in rock, especially those with relatively shallow cover. Estimation of
minimum required drilling fluid pressure to ensure cuttings are transported from the
bore is also required. The solution for minimum required pressure derives from well-
established fluid mechanics principles.
This paper describes the cavity expansion model, presents step by step instructions
for its application, and illustrates the process using example calculations from actual
HDD case histories. This paper is intended to help engineers become comfortable
with the approach, the results predicted, and their significance. Continued research is
also encouraged to measure actual pressures on projects and compare against
predicted minimum required and maximum allowable pressures. More accurate
evaluation of hydrofracture risks, though, is only one step in reducing actual
hydrofracture risks. Coupled with improved evaluation, improvements in practice
regarding management of drilling fluid properties and drilling methods are needed.
Contingency measures such as conductor casing, relief wells, and piezometers should
also be considered for reducing risks on difficult, challenging bores.
Introduction
Inadvertent drilling fluid returns have become an increasingly significant issue for
HDD operations because of environmental concerns. Returns of drilling fluid into
environmentally sensitive areas can negatively impact fish and wildlife habitats, such
as salmon spawning beds and vernal pools. However, drilling fluid is comprised
primarily of water and approximately 1 to 3% bentonite, a naturally occurring clay
Bennett - 1 ASCE Pipelines 2008
Copyright ASCE 2008 Pipelines Congress 2008

Pipelines 2008
mineral, so it is, in most circumstances, a non-toxic, benign fluid. Often, inadvertent

fluid returns are more of an eyesore than an environmental catastrophe. Regardless,
they can be detrimental, and therefore the risk of inadvertent fluid returns should be
reduced through competent design, attention to details, and good practices.
Inadvertent fluid returns are often referred to universally as hydrofractures or “frac-

outs”. However, not all of these instances are actually caused by hydrofracture.
Other sources of inadvertent fluid returns include existing fissures in the soil,
preferential seepage paths along piers, piles, or other structures, and open-graded,
loose gravel or rocks above the bore as shown in Figure 1. Hydraulic fracturing is a
specific occurrence in non-fissured cohesive soils when the pressure of the drilling
fluid exceeds the strength and confining stress of the surrounding soils and the excess
pressure fractures the soil around the bore, allowing the drilling fluids to escape the
annulus. Plastic yielding can occur in cohesive and non-cohesive soils, and
represents the condition where fluid pressures exceed the shear strength and confining
stress of the soil. Plastic yielding results in fluid losses to the surrounding formation.
The phenomenon can be accurately modeled with the cavity expansion model.
Drill Bore
Pipe Hole
Figure 1: Examples of Inadvertent Fluid Returns not Involving Hydrofracture:

Existing Fissures in Soil, Preferential Seepage Paths along Structures, Open-Graded
Gravel
The cavity expansion model was first applied to HDD bores by Luger and Hergarden
in 1988, and is the generally accepted and appropriate model for analyzing many
cases of potential HDD fluid loss/hydrofracture in soils, (Yanagisawa and Panah,
1994; Widjaja, 1983; Delft Geotechnics, 1997; Conroy, 2002; Staheli et al., 1998;
Stauber et al., 2003; and Baumert et al., 2005).
Proper use of any model requires judgment and access to accurate geotechnical data.
Assumptions are required regarding contractor practices, mud properties, pilot and
reamed hole diameters. Some have criticized hydrofracture evaluation results using
the cavity expansion model, when predictions don’t accurately match field
observations. However, the cavity expansion model produces reliable prediction
results for HDD bores in soil when used with judgment, accurate geotechnical
information, and sound drilling practices. When assumptions regarding geotechnical
conditions and drilling practices are invalid, results are likewise unsatisfactory.

Pipelines 2008
The tensile strength model is more appropriate for HDD bores in rock and hard soils
at shallow depth. The cavity expansion and tensile strength models each provide
mechanisms for predicting maximum allowable pressures. Minimum required
pressures for drilling and reaming must also be calculated, and compared against the
maximum allowable pressure to assess hydrofracture risks for a given bore. The
following paragraphs describe the cavity expansion process. The tensile strength
model is not addressed here.
The Cavity Expansion Model
The HDD process requires the introduction and continuous circulation of pressurized
drilling fluid in the bore to stabilize the bore and transport cuttings. When the drilling
fluid pressure in the annulus is less than the pressure required to cause plastic yielding
or hydrofracture, hydrofracture does not occur. Rapid decrease in pressure occurs as
the distance from the bore wall increases. This phenomenon of pressure decay with
distance has been established through many years of laboratory and field studies, and
corroborated with numerical analyses. The Corps of Engineers HDD tests (Staheli et
al., 1998) clearly confirmed the validity of pressure decay with distance from the
bore, by measuring pressures in piezometers (small monitoring wells) at various
distances from the bore. Even at distances of 5 to 10 feet from the HDD bores,
measured groundwater pressure increases did not exceed 2 psi, and the pressure
increases occurred only for brief periods of less than 1 hour. No pressure increases
were measured at distances greater than 10 feet from the HDD bores. These results
tend to confirm what many researchers and practicing engineers have independently
concluded; borehole pressures decay very rapidly with distance from the bore.
When drilling fluid pressures exceed the maximum allowable pressure (pmax) of the
surrounding soil, localized plastic yielding or hydrofracture of the soil surrounding
the annulus occurs. A localized zone of soil yields around the bore. The limiting
radius of yielding occurs at the point where the pressure is equal to pmax, the pressure
required to cause plastic yielding. Beyond this zone, the pressure is less than the
pressure required to cause plastic yielding, and hydrofracture does not occur.
Localized hydrofractures (i.e. those that do not reach the surface) are typically sealed
by the excess groundwater and earth pressures during or soon after the HDD bore is
completed. This healing phenomenon is supported in the technical literature
(Sherard, 1986) and supported by experience in the large scale HDD tests conducted
by the Corps of Engineers and reported elsewhere (Staheli et al., 1998).
The appropriateness of the cavity expansion model is supported by numerous cited

published papers by researchers and practicing engineering professionals in the field
of HDD. The US Army Corps of Engineers Design Manual for Levees (Department
of the Army, EM-1110-2-1913, “Design and Construction of Levees”) states in
Chapter 8 that the Delft (Cavity Expansion) equation in Appendix A of WES CPAR-
GL-98-1 (Staheli et al., 1998) should be used to evaluate the maximum allowable
drilling fluid pressure. Having established the validity of the cavity expansion model,

Pipelines 2008
the next section provides step by step guidance for its application to evaluating HDD
hydrofracture risks.
Evaluation of Hydrofracture Risk Using Cavity Expansion Model:

Step 1 - Calculate Maximum Allowable Pressure
The cavity expansion model, as discussed previously, can be used to calculate

maximum allowable drilling fluid pressure in a bore. This is the first step in the
evaluation of hydrofracture risk. The maximum allowable pressure, as defined by
Luger and Hergarden (1998), can be expressed as:
sin
2 1 + sin
R sin + c cos
p = u +[ (1+ sin ) + c cos + c cot ] 0 + 0 c cot
max 0 R G
pmax
The variables are defined as follows:
pmax = Maximum allowable pressure that a given soil at a given depth can
withstand without hydrofracturing, (lb/ft2)
= Friction angle of the soil
R0 = Bore radius (ft)
G = Shear modulus (lb/ft2)
c = Cohesion coefficient (lb/ft2)
u = Initial groundwater pressure, defined as water·hw (lb/ft2)
Rpmax = Radius of the plastic zone (ft). Typically, a factor of safety is
applied to Rpmax to prevent the plastic zone from reaching the ground
surface.
'0 = Effective stress is also dependent on depth and defined as
(htot – hw) + ’(hw) where
= Total unit weight of soil above groundwater (lb/ft3)
= Effective unit weight of soil below groundwater, equal to – water
(lb/ft2)
water = 62.4 lb/ft3 for fresh water, 64.08 lb/ft3 for salt water
htot = Depth of the bore below ground surface (ft)
hw = Depth of the bore below the groundwater elevation (ft)
The maximum allowable calculated pressure at any point is the pressure required to
create a plastic (failed) zone equal to the depth of soil above the pipeline at that point.
That is, the factor of safety against the plastic zone reaching the ground surface would
be 1.0 for any location along the maximum allowable pressure graph. This allows no
margin for error, thus a more conservative approach is recommended. For sand, a
suggested factor of safety of 1.5 may be used to ensure that the plastic zone does not
exceed 2/3 the height of sand above the bore. For clay, a factor of safety of 2.0
ensures that the plastic zone does not exceed half the height of soil above the bore. A
higher factor of safety is appropriate for clay because the soil’s cohesion may
decrease over time, as the soil is deformed and softened under excessive fluid
pressure. In addition, clay soils may desiccate and crack from the surface to

Pipelines 2008
significant depths during the dry season. Localized hydrofractures that intersect the
desiccation cracks can then result in drilling fluid returns to the surface. The factor of
safety applied to a particular project should be commensurate with the potential
consequences and the reliability of the input parameter values used in the analysis.
Simplified Method for Calculating Maximum Allowable Pressure in Multi-

Layered Soil Conditions
The pmax equation models uniform soil properties above the bore; however, in reality
there are often multiple layers of soil that the bore will pass through or beneath. It is
not reasonable to assume that the only soils that impact the maximum allowable
pressure are those immediately around the bore hole. How can different, multi-
layered soil conditions be taken into account when calculating pmax?
Clearly the maximum allowable pressure is not additive. For example, the maximum
allowable pressure at 60 feet deep is not equal to twice the maximum allowable
pressure at 30 feet deep. The first step is to calculate the effective stress, ( ’), for
each soil layer and sum them to find the effective stress at the point of interest, which
should be used in the calculation for pmax.
Three other variables change with soil conditions: friction angle ( ), cohesion (c), and
shear modulus (G). The values of these variables can be conveniently estimated as a
weighted average, using the thicknesses of the various layers as the weighting factor.
In the typical situation where stronger, stiffer soils underlie weaker, softer soil layers,
this approach results in more conservative estimates of p, c, and G than are likely
correct for the soil conditions and therefore the value of pmax calculated using this
approach will be conservative, i.e. low. However, for a soil profile of soft clay with a
desiccated, stronger crust near the ground surface, the calculated pmax value will be
higher than the actual value, i.e. not conservative. In reality, the layer surrounding
the bore will have the greatest influence, since the drilling fluid pressures are highest
near the bore. Soil layers further from the bore will have less influence. The
relationship between distance from the bore and influence of layer properties on
maximum allowable pressure cannot be exactly known. Therefore, the weighted
average values of parameters calculated based on proportional layer thickness are
convenient and usually conservative, but are not exact.

Step 2 - Calculate Minimum Fluid Pressure
The drilling fluid pressure required to return the soil cuttings back through the HDD
bore to the surface is a critical factor in evaluating hydrofracture risk. There must be
a considerable difference between the minimum required pressure and the maximum
allowable pressure to significantly reduce the risk of hydrofracture. The minimum
pressure primarily depends on the length, depth, and diameter of the bore, the weight
of the drilling fluid, and the flow rate. The minimum required pressure is a
combination of the drilling fluid head pressure that must be overcome and the

Pipelines 2008
frictional resistance to flow from the bore wall. The following equation is
conservative and can be used to estimate the minimum required downhole pressure
(Ariaratnam et al., 2003):
7.48 h bore µp v y
p min = mud
+ L bore +
2
144 1000 (d bore d pipe ) 200 (d bore d pipe )
The variables are defined as follows:

mud = unit weight of drilling fluid, (lb/gal)
hbore = height of mud column, or the difference in depth from a specific
location in the bore to the surface of the entry pit, (ft)
Lbore = distance from a specific location in the bore to entry point, (ft)
µp = viscosity of the drilling fluid, (cp)
v = velocity of the drilling fluid = Q/A, i.e. flow rate/area of bore
annulus, (ft/sec)
Q = flow rate at the drill bit, (gal/min)
dbore = diameter of bore hole, (in)
dpipe = diameter of drill or product pipe, (in)
y = yield point of drilling fluid, (lb/100ft2) which reflects the ability of
that fluid to suspend cuttings so they can be returned to the surface; it
can be changed by additives to the drilling fluid, such as flocculants.
Note: 7.48 gal/ft3, 144 in2/ft2, 1000, and 200 are conversion factors for the
units above.
Baumert, Allouche, and Moore (2005) suggest that the use of typically assumed
laminar flow values for yield point ( y) leads to overly conservative results. These
authors suggest that lower values of yield point, representative of turbulent flow,
should be used. It may be useful to bracket predictions of minimum required pressure
by assuming laminar flow and turbulent flow values for yield point.
Drilling fluid pressures are often highest during the pilot bore, because of the smaller
annulus and one-way flow path. During pre-reaming and reaming passes, the drilling
fluid can flow out through the entry or exit end, and the annulus is larger, so pressures
are usually lower. However, pressures during pullback can sometimes be high,
because the larger diameter of the product pipe reduces the annular flow path.
Actual drilling fluid weights vary. However, good practice dictates that drilling fluid
properties, including weight, be properly managed to achieve satisfactory results. It
is recommended that mud weights be maintained below 9.5 lb/gallon. Experienced,
competent HDD drillers understand the importance of maintaining proper mud
weights, and will adjust flow rates, drilling speeds, and mixtures as necessary.

Pipelines 2008

Step 3 – Comparison
Once the maximum allowable pressure and minimum required pressure have been
calculated, it is important to compare the two numbers at critical features, such as
locations of low earth cover, crossings beneath utilities, beneath rivers and
environmentally sensitive areas, near embankment toes, or at large distances from the
entry point. It is important to evaluate pmax and pmin at many locations along the bore
and compare the values to get a comprehensive view of hydrofracture risk. The graph
in Figure 2 represents a continuous analysis of hydrofracture risk throughout the bore
length. Notice that as the amount of earth cover changes the maximum allowable
pressure changes as well. Changes in soil or groundwater conditions also result in
changes in maximum allowable pressure.
Figure 2: Graphic Presentation of Hydrofracture Analysis (Step 3)
Drilling fluid pressures can vary greatly with the contractor’s methods and changes in
ground conditions. The minimum required pressure is exactly that: a minimum.
Although the calculations completed in Steps 1 and 2 may indicate that there is little
risk of hydrofracture, an inexperienced or careless operator, or unforeseen soil
conditions can greatly affect that risk. Selection of an experienced, well qualified
contractor can be one of the most important steps in preventing hydrofracture on a
project. In addition a, thorough and accurate geotechnical investigation is a pre-
requisite for success. Since the results of a hydrofracture risk evaluation are so
dependent on the assumptions regarding ground conditions, groundwater levels,
contractor means and methods, and drilling fluid properties, the evaluation should be
conducted using a range of values and assumptions to bracket the limits.

Pipelines 2008

Step 4 – Risk Mitigation
If comparison of the maximum allowable pressure and the minimum required

pressure indicate an unacceptable risk of hydrofracture, the design should be altered
to reduce that risk. Hydrofracture risk can be reduced by altering the geometry of the
bore: shortening the bore, deepening the bore, or selecting better soil strata for the
alignment. Conductor casings can be used to help maintain bore continuity through
rocky, gravelly or loose soils near the surface so that drilling fluids do not escape the
annulus. Once the bore has passed beyond the end of the conductor casing, increased
thickness and typically higher strengths of the soils help reduce hydrofracture risk.
Additional risk mitigation techniques such as relief wells, piezometers, and
monitoring methods are described below. When hydrofracture would have large,
adverse consequences, the contractor and/or owner should monitor for inadvertent
fluid returns and be prepared to quickly contain and clean-up the fluids, if inadvertent
returns occur.
Relief wells, as the name implies, are designed to relieve pressure. Traditionally,
relief wells have been used to relieve seepage pressures at or near the downstream
toes of dams, dikes, and flood control levees. They have also been successfully used
to relieve excess pressures behind tunnel linings and excess pressures created by
HDD drilling fluids on numerous projects. For HDD applications, relief wells can be
installed at locations where excessive drilling fluid pressures may exceed the soil’s
capability to resist hydrofracture. When deployed along the alignment of HDD bores,
locations may be selected that are accessible for containment and clean-up equipment,
making it easier to maintain a clean worksite, while avoiding damage to sensitive
features.
On difficult river crossings, relief wells can be deployed to create a preferential path
for excess drilling fluid pressures, greatly reducing the risks of drilling fluids entering
the river, stream, or wetland. Typically, a relief well is installed along the HDD bore
alignment, with the screened section 5 to 20 feet above the bore crown. The wells
can also be offset from the alignment for ease of access and construction, and to
reduce the risk of being struck by the HDD bore. Depending on depth, diameter,
access, and drilling conditions, relief wells require 1 to 3 days to install and may cost
from $5,000 to $20,000. The extra cost can be a good investment when permitting
and regulatory agencies are reluctant to approve drilling operations in sensitive areas,
as the wells can be very effective in managing and reducing risks of environmental
harm to sensitive resources.
Piezometers are small-diameter monitoring wells that monitor groundwater levels or

pressures. Piezometers can be used alone, or as a supplemental measure with relief
wells to acquire data on pressure changes during drilling operations. Piezometers are
constructed and installed using essentially the same methods as for installing relief
wells. However, their small size generally renders them ineffective for relieving
excess pressures. Piezometers require half to one and one half days to install and may

Pipelines 2008
cost $3,000 to $8,000, depending on depth, access, and drilling conditions. One very
effective application is to install piezometers along the HDD bore alignment at
locations between entry and a sensitive or critical feature, to allow any pressure
increases to be detected before reaching that feature. Drilling fluid properties and
drilling practices can then be adjusted as necessary to reduce excess pressures before
drilling beneath the feature.
There are also several simple methods to monitor for inadvertent fluid returns.
Frequently walking along the surface of the alignment can help quickly identify
inadvertent fluid returns when they occur so that they can be efficiently controlled.
Dyes can be added to the drilling fluid to help identify inadvertent fluid returns. The
loss of circulation at the entry pit is one of the best indicators that the drilling fluid is
escaping the bore and may potentially reappear at the surface.
Regardless of the preventative measures used, any project with a significant risk of
hydrofracture should have a contingency plan. This plan should include a procedure
for containing and cleaning up any inadvertent fluid returns and describe materials
that the contractor should have on hand to accomplish containment and clean up.
Typically, contingency materials include sand bags, hay bales or wattles to contain
the fluid, a vac-truck or trailer, shovels, brooms, barrels to contain the fluid, and
submersible pumps to remove the liquid.
Conclusions
1. Hydrofracture and inadvertent drilling fluid returns are a serious concern for
regulatory and permitting agencies. Not all inadvertent drilling fluid returns
are hydrofractures. In fact, true hydrofracture occurs in a small percentage of
inadvertent fluid returns. Adherence to good practices and preparing and
following a surface spill and hydrofracture contingency plan can be very
effective for reducing risks of inadvertent fluid return incidents and reducing
potential consequences.
2. The potential for hydrofracture can be evaluated for many (but not all) real-
world situations, using the cavity expansion model and the step-by-step
procedures illustrated in this paper. Judgment and conservatism are prudent
when using the cavity expansion approach (or any modeling approach). A
thorough and accurate geotechnical investigation is a prerequisite for reliable
evaluation of hydrofracture risks. Certain assumptions must be made
regarding drilling practices and drilling fluid properties. Since engineers who
design HDD bores and evaluate hydrofracture risks cannot control Contractor
means and methods, the evaluation should be conducted using a range of
assumptions to bracket the limits of drilling fluid properties and drilling
practices.
3. If the hydrofracture evaluation indicates high risks of hydrofracture exist at

certain locations or within certain segments of the HDD bore, measures can be

Pipelines 2008
implemented to reduce the risks of hydrofracture, and/or to reduce the

potential consequences of incidents, as described in the paper. Appropriate
measures may include relief wells, piezometers, conductor casings, and
monitoring drilling fluid returns at the drill rig.
4. For HDD projects in rock, or hard clays with shallow cover, the tensile
strength approach (not covered in this paper) may be more appropriate than
the cavity expansion model.
References:
Ariaratnam, Samuel T., Stauber, Richard M., Bell, Jason, Harbin, Bruce C., Canon, Frank, (2003).
“Predicting and Controlling Hydraulic Fracturing During Horizontal Directional Drilling” American
Society of Civil Engineers Conference Proceeding Paper, New Pipeline Technologies, Security, and
Safety.
Baumert, M.E., Allouche, E.N. and Moore, I.D. (2005). “Drilling Fluid Considerations in Design of
Engineered Horizontal Directional Drilling Installations”, International Journal of Geomechanics,
ASCE, December, 2005.
Delft Geotechnics, (1997). “A Report by Department of Foundations and Underground Engineering

Prepared for O’Donnell Associates of Sugarland, TX.”
Conroy, P., Latorre, C., and Wakeley, L., (2002). “Guidelines for Installation of Utilities Beneath
Corps of Engineers Levees Using Horizontal Directional Drilling”, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Technical Report, ERDC/GSL TR-02-9, June 2002.
Luger, H.J., and Hergarden H.J.A.M., (1988). “Directional Drilling in Soft Soil: Influence of Mud
Pressures”, International Society of Trenchless Technology, NoDig Conference.
Sherard J. L., (1986). “Hydraulic Fracturing in Zoned Earth and Rockfill Dams”, University of
California, Berkeley, Inst. Trans & Traffic Engin., Rept TE 73-1.
Staheli, K., Bennett, R.D., O’Donnell, H., Hurley, T., (1998). “Installation of Pipelines Beneath Levees
Using Horizontal Directional Drilling”, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Technical Report, CPAR-GL-
98-1, April 1998.
Stauber, R.M., Bell, J., Bennett, R.D., (April 2003). “A Rational Method for Evaluating the Risk of
Hydraulic Fracturing in Soil During Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD)”, North American Society
for Trenchless Technology NoDig 2003 Conference Proceedings.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (April 2000). “Engineer Manual, EM1110-2-1913, Engineering and
Design; Design and Construction of Levees”, 30 April 2000. (Chapter 8, Special Features, Section 8-
8, Installation Requirements).
Widjaja H., (1983). “Scale and Time Effects in Hydraulic Fracturing”, Dissertation Submitted in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. at the University of California, Berkeley.
Yanagisawa and Panah, (1994). “Two-Dimensional Study of Hydraulic Fracturing Criteria in Cohesive
Soils”, Soils and Foundations Journal 34(1), 1-9.

Pipelines 2008

Bennett 2008

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bennett 2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pipelines 2008 © 2008 ASCE

Step By Step Evaluation of Hydrofracture Risks for Horizontal Directional

David Bennett1, and Kathryn Wallin1

Bennett - 1 ASCE Pipelines 2008

Copyright ASCE 2008 Pipelines Congress 2008

mineral, so it is, in most circumstances, a non-toxic, benign fluid. Often, inadvertent

Inadvertent fluid returns are often referred to universally as hydrofractures or “frac-

Figure 1: Examples of Inadvertent Fluid Returns not Involving Hydrofracture:

Bennett - 2 ASCE Pipelines 2008

Copyright ASCE 2008 Pipelines Congress 2008

model is not addressed here.

The Cavity Expansion Model

The appropriateness of the cavity expansion model is supported by numerous cited

Bennett - 3 ASCE Pipelines 2008

Copyright ASCE 2008 Pipelines Congress 2008

Evaluation of Hydrofracture Risk Using Cavity Expansion Model:

The cavity expansion model, as discussed previously, can be used to calculate

Bennett - 4 ASCE Pipelines 2008

Copyright ASCE 2008 Pipelines Congress 2008

Simplified Method for Calculating Maximum Allowable Pressure in Multi-

Layered Soil Conditions

Evaluation of Hydrofracture Risk Using Cavity Expansion Model:

Bennett - 5 ASCE Pipelines 2008

Copyright ASCE 2008 Pipelines Congress 2008

The variables are defined as follows:

Bennett - 6 ASCE Pipelines 2008

Copyright ASCE 2008 Pipelines Congress 2008

Evaluation of Hydrofracture Risk Using Cavity Expansion Model:

Figure 2: Graphic Presentation of Hydrofracture Analysis (Step 3)

Bennett - 7 ASCE Pipelines 2008

Copyright ASCE 2008 Pipelines Congress 2008

Evaluation of Hydrofracture Risk Using Cavity Expansion Model:

If comparison of the maximum allowable pressure and the minimum required

Piezometers are small-diameter monitoring wells that monitor groundwater levels or

Bennett - 8 ASCE Pipelines 2008

Copyright ASCE 2008 Pipelines Congress 2008

3. If the hydrofracture evaluation indicates high risks of hydrofracture exist at

Bennett - 9 ASCE Pipelines 2008

Copyright ASCE 2008 Pipelines Congress 2008

implemented to reduce the risks of hydrofracture, and/or to reduce the

Delft Geotechnics, (1997). “A Report by Department of Foundations and Underground Engineering

Bennett - 10 ASCE Pipelines 2008

Copyright ASCE 2008 Pipelines Congress 2008

You might also like