Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 52 (2016) 1–11

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

The return of drilling fluid in large diameter horizontal directional

drilling boreholes
Biao Shu a,⇑, Baosong Ma b
a
School of Geosciences and Info-Physics, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410083, PR China
b
School of Engineering, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan), Wuhan, Hubei 430074, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The return of drilling fluid (drilling mud) in large diameter horizontal directional drilling (HDD) boreholes
Received 15 November 2014 is a very important issue related to mud pressure, cuttings transport and pull back force, but this problem
Received in revised form 1 November 2015 has not been fully solved in previous research due to the complexity and uncertainty of downhole con-
Accepted 2 November 2015
ditions. The calculation methods of mud pressure loss in the borehole annulus are briefly introduced and
the equation using a Power Law model is adopted to study the drilling mud return. A typical reaming
hierarchy of a large diameter HDD project has been used to study the return direction of drilling mud
Keywords:
and volumes of drilling mud return to the exit and entry points. The research results disclosed that
Horizontal directional drilling
Drilling fluid
the drilling mud can return to both exit and entry points at the same time, with a large majority of
Drilling mud pressure the drilling fluid returning to the exit point if the reamer is closer to the exit point, and vice versa. A para-
Mud return metric study has been conducted to find out the effect of changing parameters in the calculation equation
Reaming on the drilling fluid return. The drilling mud return for those boreholes with the exit point and entry point
located at different elevations has also been discussed. Finally, different types of reamers and other fac-
tors such as borehole collapse and borehole shape were taken into the consideration of drilling mud
return.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Since the application of horizontal directional drilling (HDD)
has been expanded from the installation of small utility pipelines
and conduits to the installation of large diameter oil and gas trans-
portation pipelines, a lot of research has been conducted to solve
many technical problems encountered in practice. A comprehen-
sive introduction of HDD can be found in Najafi (2004) and
Allouche et al. (2000)’s work, and the corresponding standard for
HDD can be found in ASTM F1962 (ASTM, 2011). As far as the dril-
ling fluid (or drilling mud) is concerned, Baumert et al. (2005) and
Ariaratnam et al. (2007) have introduced the characteristics of the
drilling mud used in HDD and its related technical problems in
detail. The characteristics of the drilling fluid, such as the viscosity
and flow velocity, are closely related to the pullback force of pipeli-
nes (Cheng and Polak, 2007; Slavin, 2010; Slavin et al., 2011; Slavin
and Najafi, 2012), because fluid drag friction is a part of the total
pull force. The drilling mud pressure is a critical factor to the bore-
hole stability (Wang and Sterling, 2007; Zhou et al., 2012; Shu and
Ma, 2015). As it is well recognized that on the one hand, drilling
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: biaoshucn@gmail.com (B. Shu), mabaosong@163.com (B. Ma).
mud pressure should not be too high in order to prevent hydro
fracture (Ariaratnam et al., 2003; Bennett and Wallin, 2008); on
the other hand, drilling mud pressure should not be too low, so
that the mud can flow out of the borehole.
Large diameter HDD projects have been widely utilized in Main-
land China (Ma and Najafi, 2008) as large diameter natural gas
pipeline constructions have been launched nationwide. There are
many useful research that have been conducted for large diameter
(especially larger than 1.0 m) HDD projects, such as the risk evalu-
ation of large diameter HDD projects (Ma et al., 2010), the rota-
tional torque of reamers in rock strata (Lan et al., 2011), the
preparation and recycling of drilling mud (Shu et al., 2011), and
the transportation of cuttings (Shu et al., 2015).
In all of the above research, the return direction and circulation
principle of drilling mud in large diameter HDD boreholes have not
been properly solved yet, partly because the real downhole condi-
tion is very complicated and it is not possible to see exactly what
happens inside of the borehole. It has been seen at the HDD sites
that the drilling mud can return to the exit point, the entry point,
or both. However, there is no research that has been found in the
literature that allows the theoretical prediction of drilling fluid
return direction. Shu et al. (2015) discussed the cuttings transport
mechanism in a large diameter HDD borehole, in which the drilling

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2015.11.002
0886-7798/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 B. Shu, B. Ma / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 52 (2016) 1–11
Fig. 1. Flow velocity profile of laminar flow in the HDD borehole annulus.
mud was assumed to return to either the exit point or the entry
point of the drill path to whichever point the reamer is closer.
The assumption was made based on the field observations of sev-
eral large diameter HDD projects. To study the general principle of
drilling mud return for all large diameter HDD boreholes, further
study has been necessary and a proposed procedure is presented
in this paper.
2. Pressure loss of drilling mud in annular space
Under laminar flow, the flow velocity of the drilling fluid at dif-
ferent location within the cross-section of the annulus may be dif-
ferent. However, the flow velocity during turbulent flow in the
annulus is considered to be the same within the cross-section.
Fig. 1 shows the flow profile under laminar flow. The drilling rod
in the annulus during the reaming process is pulled back slowly
by the drill rig, but this pull back velocity is small compared to
the flow velocity of drilling mud. Therefore, the moving velocity
of drill rod has been ignored in the following theoretical
calculations.
There are three commonly used flow models for drilling fluid:
Newtonian flow model, Bingham Plastic flow model and Power
Law flow model. The equation of mud pressure loss for Newtonian
fluid, Bingham Plastic fluid, and Power Law fluid in annulus space
for laminar flow are shown in Eqs. (1), (2), and (3), respectively
(Bourgoyne et al., 1991):
48  l  L  v
P¼ 2
ðD  dÞ
48  L  g  v 6  L  s0
P¼ þ ð2Þ
ðD  dÞ
2 ðD  dÞ
 n
4v ð2n þ 1Þ 4K L
P¼  
ðD  dÞ n ðD  dÞ
Fig. 2. The profile of HDD borehole path.
where P is the mud pressure loss (Pa); l is the viscosity of drilling
mud (Pa s); L is the flow length of drilling mud (m); v is the average
flow velocity of drilling mud (m/s); D is the diameter of borehole
(m); and d is the diameter of drill rod (m); g is the plastic viscosity
(Pa s); s0 is the yield point (Pa); n is the flow index (dimensionless);
and K is the consistency index (Pa sn).
In turbulent flow, the flow velocity at any point of the flow pro-
file is the same, and there is no difference between Newtonian
flow, Bingham Plastic flow and Power Law flow as far as mud pres-
sure loss is concerned. Therefore, the mud pressure loss under tur-
bulent flow can be described with one equation for these different
flow models as shown in Eq. (4) (Bourgoyne et al., 1991):
2  f  q  L  v2
P¼ ð4Þ
Dd
where f is the friction factor (dimensionless).
If the flow velocity is very high and/or the drilling mud is very
thin (low viscosity), turbulent flow may be used for describing the
drilling mud behavior. However, in a large diameter HDD borehole,
the flow velocity is very low and the viscosity is very high and
therefore turbulent flow does not apply and the flow pattern of
drilling fluid in the annular space of a large HDD borehole is usu-
ally considered as laminar flow. In Newtonian flow model, the vis-
cous forces are characterized by the fluid viscosity. Drilling mud is
a mixture of water, bentonite, and possibly additives. Cuttings
from the soil or rock during the drilling process will also be mixed
into the drilling mud and hence change the properties of the dril-
ling mud. Thus most drilling fluids are Non-Newtonian fluids. Non-
Newtonian fluids has an apparent viscosity depends on the shear
rate at which the measurement is made and the prior shear rate
(Bourgoyne et al., 1991). Non-Newtonian are pseudoplastic if the
apparent viscosity decreases with increasing shear rate and are
dilatant if the apparent viscosity increases with increasing shear
rate, while drilling fluids and cement slurries are generally pseudo-
plastic in nature (Bourgoyne et al., 1991). The Bingham plastic and
Power Law rheological models are used to approximate the pseu-
doplastic behavior of drilling fluids and cement slurries
(Bourgoyne et al., 1991). For low-velocity mud flow, the power
law model is more precise in representing the rheological proper-
ties (Moore, 1986; Ariaratnam et al., 2007), and as mentioned ear-
lier, the flow velocity of drilling fluid in the annulus is low,
therefore, in the following study, the Power Law model will be
used to calculate the mud pressure loss.
The effective viscosity of Power Law model fluid is shown
ð1Þ below:
le ¼ K  cn1 ð5Þ
3. Drilling fluid return direction
ð3Þ In this section, the drilling fluid return direction and velocity
were calculated with the theoretical Power Law equation listed
above, under the following assumptions:
 B. Shu, B. Ma / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 52 (2016) 1–11
Table 1
Reamer diameters and drilling mud pump volumes (field data).
Reaming cycle 1 2
Diameter of reamer, m 0.584 0.762
Drilling mud volume, m3/min 1.2 1.4
Fig. 3. Drilling fluid distribution.
(1). The borehole is circular;
(2). There is no drilling mud leakage into the surrounding
ground;
(3). Drilling rod, reamers, and product pipe are all centered on
the center line of the borehole;
(4). The flow path of the drilling fluid is not blocked by reamer,
cuttings, or borehole collapse, so the drilling fluid can choose
to return to either the exit or entry point;
(5). The entry point and exit points are at the same elevation.
These assumptions described an ideal drilling condition in order
to simplify the complicated downhole condition and therefore
make it possible to use the analytical calculation equations intro-
duced above. Clearly, at the pilot borehole drilling stage, drilling
mud can only return to the entry point, therefore this study focus
on the reaming processes and pipeline pull back process.
Fig. 2 shows a typical plot of an HDD profile. The reamer is
pulled back by the drill rig from the exit point to the entry point.
Drill rods are always attached behind the reamer, which can be
used for the next cycle of reaming or for pipeline pull back. The
diameters of the borehole on the front side and back side of the
reamer are Di1 and Di, respectively. In this study, a borehole
length of 1000 m is assumed. Please note that the length of the drill
path is usually only slightly larger than the straight distance
between exit point and entry point for long distance HDD projects,
3
3 4 5 6 7 Pull back
0.914 1.067 1.270 1.422 1.575 1.422
1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.5 2.0
because the entry angle and exit angle are usually less than 10° and
the depth of drill path typically is around 30 m. Therefore, the total
length of the drill path can be approximately assumed to be the
same as the straight distance from the exit point to the entry point
(1000 m). The length between the exit point and the reamer is
marked as L.
Based on real data from maxi-HDD projects, an HDD borehole
with a total length of 1000 m and a final diameter of 1.575 m
(62 in.) is used as a demonstration in this study. The diameters of
the drill rod and pilot bit are 168.275 mm (6.625 in.), and
241 mm (9.5 in.), respectively. The diameters of the sequence of
reamers are 0.584 m (23 in.), 0.762 m (30 in.), 0.914 m (36 in.),
1.067 m (42 in.), 1.270 m (50 in.), 1.422 m (56 in.), and 1.575 m
(62 in.). The volumes of drilling mud pumped into the borehole
through the reamer in the reaming process are listed in Table 1
according to a real maxi-HDD project. A flow index n = 0.459, and
a consistency index K = 2.34 are assumed for the drilling fluid
(Shu et al., 2015). The volume of drilling mud pumped into the
borehole increases as the diameter of reamer increases, in order
to keep the density and flow velocity of drilling mud consistent
for cuttings transport. A pipeline of 1.219 m (48 in.) in diameter
is planned to be installed in this borehole.
The drilling mud volume pumped into the borehole equals to
the total of the mud volume return to the exit point and the entry
point, as shown in Eq. (6).
4 B. Shu, B. Ma / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 52 (2016) 1–11

Table 2
Percentages of drilling muds return to entry and exit point (calculation results).

Percentage of drilling mud returned to exit point and entry point, %

Reaming cycle 2 3 4 5 6 7
Diameter of D2 Exit D1 Entry D3 Exit D2 Entry D4 Exit D3 Entry D5 Exit D4 Entry D6 Exit D5 Entry D7 Exit D6 Entry
reamer (m) point point point point point point point point point point point point
L=0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0
L = 100 99.8 0.2 99.7 0.3 99.7 0.3 99.7 0.3 99.6 0.4 99.5 0.5
L = 200 99.1 0.9 98.4 1.6 98.1 1.9 98.2 1.8 97.5 2.5 97.3 2.7
L = 300 97.2 2.8 95.0 5.0 94.0 6.0 94.6 5.4 92.4 7.6 91.8 8.2
L = 400 93.0 7.0 87.9 12.1 85.7 14.3 86.8 13.2 82.0 18.0 81.1 18.9
L = 500 84.5 15.5 75.1 24.9 71.3 28.7 73.3 26.7 65.4 34.6 63.9 36.1
L = 600 69.4 30.6 55.5 44.5 50.7 49.3 53.2 46.8 43.9 56.1 42.3 57.7
L = 700 46.4 53.6 32.2 67.8 28.3 71.7 30.0 70.0 23.2 76.8 21.9 78.1
L = 800 21.1 78.9 12.8 87.2 10.8 89.2 11.7 88.3 9.7 90.3 8.0 92.0
L = 900 4.4 95.6 2.4 97.6 2.0 98.0 2.3 97.7 1.6 98.4 1.5 98.5
L = 1000 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100

Table 3 to return through either the exit or the entry point after it has dis-
Percentages of drilling mud return to entry and exit points for reaming cycle 1 charged from the reamer.
(calculation results). The principle used to calculate the values of Q1 and Q2 is that
Percentage of drilling mud returned to the mud pressure losses on both sides of the reamer should be
exit point and entry point, % the same, which can be illustrated with Eqs. (7) and (8).
Reaming cycle 1
P1 ¼ P2 ð7Þ
Diameter of reamer (m) D1 Exit point D0 Entry point
 n
L=0 100 0 4v 1 ð2n þ 1Þ 4K L
L = 200 99.998 0.002  
L = 400 99.985 0.015 ðDi  dÞ n ðDi  dÞ
 n
L = 600 99.91 0.09 4v 2 ð2n þ 1Þ 4  K  ð1000  LÞ
L = 700 99.76 0.24 ¼   ð8Þ
L = 800 99.24 0.76
ðDi1  dÞ n ðDi1  dÞ
L = 900 95.72 4.28
where
L = 950 81.44 18.56
L = 970 57.94 42.06 4  Q1
L = 980 35.77 64.23 v1 ¼ ð9Þ
L = 990 10.74 89.26 pðDi  dÞ2
L = 1000 0 100
4  Q2
v2 ¼ ð10Þ
pðDi1  dÞ2
Q ¼ Q1 þ Q2 ð6Þ P1 and P2 are the mud pressure losses in the annulus when drilling
mud return from the reamer to the exit and entry points, respec-
where Q is the total drilling mud pumped into the borehole through tively (Pa); v1 and v2 are the flow velocity of drilling mud at the back
the reamer, m3/s; Q1 and Q2 are the volumes of drilling mud return and front sides of the reamer, respectively (m/s).
to the back side of the reamer (exit point) and the front side of the Using the pumping volumes and the reamer diameters listed in
reamer (entry point), respectively, m3/s. Fig. 3 shows the distribu- Table 1, the drilling mud volumes returned to the exit and entry
tion of drilling mud in the front and back sides of the reamer. The points can be calculated. The corresponding percentages are listed
open space on the reamer is a channel that can connect the back in Table 2 for reaming cycles 2 through 7. For example, in reaming
and front sides of the reamer and which allows the drilling mud cycle 2, the diameters of borehole at the back and front sides of the

Fig. 4. Percentage of drilling mud return to exit and entry points-reaming cycle 1.
 B. Shu, B. Ma / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 52 (2016) 1–11 5

Fig. 5. Percentages of drilling mud return to exit and entry points-reaming cycles 2 through 7.

reamer are D2 and D1. When the back reaming was just started,
which means the reamer is at the exit point of the drill path
(L = 0), 100% of the drilling mud returns to the exit point; when
the reamer is 300 m away from the exit point (L = 300 m), 97.2%
of drilling mud return to exit point and only 2.8% drilling mud
return to the entry point; when the reamer moves closer and closer
to the entry point, more and more drilling fluids return to the entry
point.
From Table 2, it can be seen that when the reamer is closer to
the exit point, the major percentage of drilling mud returns to
the exit point, on the other hand; when the reamer is closer to
the entry point, major percentage of drilling fluid returns to the
entry point. However, the ‘‘balance point”, where the drilling
Fig. 6. Parallel piping system.
6 B. Shu, B. Ma / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 52 (2016) 1–11
Fig. 7. Drilling mud return to the entry point.
mud volumes returning to the exit and entry points are the same, is
not at the middle of the drill path but somewhat closer to the entry
point. This is because the borehole diameter in the exit point side is
large than that of entry point side. The ‘‘balance point” is also the
point at which the mud pressure loss reaches the maximum value.
The diameter of the reamer in the first reaming cycle is much
larger than that of pilot bit, which make the calculation results
very different from those of other reaming cycles. Therefore, it
has been listed in Table 3 separately. From Table 3, it can be seen
that most of the drilling mud returns to the exit point, even when
the reamer is only 50 m away from the entry point (L = 950 m).
The percentages of drilling mud return to entry and exit points
are plotted in Fig. 4 for reaming cycle 1, and in Fig. 5 for reaming
cycles 2 through 7.
From Fig. 5, it is interesting to see that most of time, a large per-
centage of the drilling mud returns to either the exit point or the
entry point, and there is only a very narrow section where the dril-
ling mud returns to both sides more equally. For example, in ream-
ing cycle 2, when L = 600 m, there is around 70% of the drilling mud
returning to the exit point, and when L = 750 m, the flow has
shifted to around 70% of the drilling mud returning to the entry
point. Therefore, there is only a very short length (L = 600–
750 m), in which section that the volumes of drilling mud return
to both sides are close to equal. Therefore, for simplicity, in certain
studies for large diameter HDD boreholes, it may be enough to
assume that the drilling mud only returns to the exit point or the
entry point to whichever point the reamer is closer.
From the drilling mud volumes returned from both entry and
exit points, the drilling mud pressure loss can be calculated and
Fig. 8. Profile of the location of product pipe and reamer.
then the minimum required drilling mud pressure for the drilling
mud to flow out of the borehole can be obtained. If the drilling
mud pressure used in the practice is larger than the minimum dril-
ling mud pressure, the above calculation procedures still apply. A
parallel piping system can be used to simulate the drilling flow
in the borehole. Fig. 6 shows a parallel piping system, where point
A represents the reamer, Pipe 1 represents the exit point side bore-
hole, and Pipe 2 represents the entry point side borehole. For such
a parallel piping system, the mud pressure loss in Pipe 1 should
equals to that in Pipe 2. If the drilling mud is larger than the min-
imum mud pressure, it can be seen that the drilling mud ‘‘gushing
out” of the entry and exit points, see Fig. 7.
When the product pipe is being pulled back from the exit point
to the entry point through the pre-reamed borehole, drilling fluid
may also pumped into the borehole to clean the deposits in front
of the reamer and thus reduce the pull force. For mud return calcu-
lation, it is again assumed that the product pipe is located at the
center of the borehole. Fig. 8 shows a diagram of the location of
the product pipe and the reamer. Because the annular space
between the borehole and the product pipe at the exit point side
is quite small, while at the same time the annulus between the
borehole and the drill rod at the entry point side is very large, most
of the drilling mud returns to the entry point, as shown in Fig. 9. A
good understanding of the drilling mud return in the pipeline pull
back stage maybe useful for the estimation of pull force caused by
drilling mud resistance.
The research described above has found that the drilling fluid
can return to both entry and exit points at the same time, however,
the percentages of drilling mud that return to these two points
depends on the location of reamer and the borehole diameters at
the front and back sides of the reamer.
4. Parametric study
Examining the equation used for the mud pressure loss, the
possible factors that may affect the drilling mud return include:
pump volume (Q), length of borehole, reamer diameter (D), flow
index (n), and consistency index (K).
4.1. Effect of pump volume and consistency index
A large volume of drilling mud pumped into the borehole
through the reamer means higher mud flow velocity in the annu-
lus; a higher mud flow velocity means a larger mud pressure loss.
However, at the same time, it was found that the percentages of
drilling mud return to exit and entry points did not change at all.
Consistency index pertains to the viscosity of the fluid. The
higher the consistency index, the thicker the mud. The consistency
index depends on the solids content and the viscosity of the liquid
phase. The consistency index increases with solids content and the
concentration of polymer additives. It was also found that the
 B. Shu, B. Ma / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 52 (2016) 1–11 7

Fig. 9. Percentages of drilling mud return to exit and entry points—product pipe pull back.

changing of consistency index (K) does not affect the drilling muds 4.3. Effect of borehole diameter
volumes returning to the exit point and entry point. However, with
the increasing of consistency index, the mud pressure loss Two scenarios were considered to study the effect of borehole
increases, which is indicated by the calculation equation. diameter on the mud return:

4.2. Effect of borehole length
It is obvious that the mud pressure loss increases with the
increase of the borehole length. However, when the borehole
length changed, from 1000 m to 2000 m for example, the shapes
of the curves showing the relative proportions of flow did not
change, see Fig. 10.
(1). scenario 1: Di = 1.575 m (62 in.), Di1 = 1.422 m (56 in.);
(2). scenario 2: Di = 1.575 m (62 in.), Di1 = 1.270 m (50 in.);
The diameter difference in scenario 2 is larger than that in sce-
nario 1. It shows that the balance point of scenario 2 is closer to the
entry point than that of scenario 1, as shown in Fig. 11, and the

Fig. 10. Changing borehole length.

8 B. Shu, B. Ma / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 52 (2016) 1–11

Fig. 11. Effect of borehole diameter on the mud return direction.

Fig. 12. Effect of borehole diameter on the mud pressure loss.

mud pressure loss values in scenario 1 are smaller than those in is usually less than 1.0. Three scenarios were considered to study
scenario 2, as shown in Fig. 12. the effect of flow index on the mud return:

4.4. Effect of flow index (1). scenario 1: n = 0.30;

Flow index represents the degree of deviation from Newtonian
behavior of the fluid, within a specified range of shearing rate
(Bourgoyne et al., 1991). The flow index of a Newtonian fluid is
1.0, such as for water or glycerin. The flow index of drilling mud
(2). scenario 2: n = 0.459;
(3). scenario 3: n = 0.60.
The results are shown in Fig. 13. It shows that as the flow index
decreases, the slope of the curve increases, but at the same time

Fig. 13. Effect of flow index (n) on the mud return direction.
 B. Shu, B. Ma / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 52 (2016) 1–11 9

Fig. 14. Effect of flow index (n) on the mud pressure loss.

Fig. 15. The entry point is higher than the exit point.

Fig. 16. The exit point is higher than the entry point.

the ‘‘balance points” are almost at the same location. A curve with
deeper slope means that drilling muds are more inclined to return
to either the exit or the entry point rather than be more evenly dis-
tributed at any specific location. For example, at L = 400 m, there is
around 88% of drilling mud return to the exit point when n = 0.3.
This number reduces to only 80% when n = 0.459, and to 76% when
n = 0.6. The drilling mud pressure loss decreases with the increase
of the flow index values, as shown in Fig. 14.
it is necessary to study how the elevation difference affects the
drilling mud return. When the elevations of entry or exit points
are in the same level, the mud pressures caused by the elevation
from both entry and exit sides are equal. When the elevations of
these two points are different, the mud pressure caused by the ele-
vation difference should be taken in consideration of the drilling
mud return. The following two scenarios are considered in this
study: (1) the entry point is higher than the exit point, and (2)
the exit point is higher than the entry point.

5. Effect of the elevation difference between entry and exit

point 5.1. The entry point is higher than the exit point

In Section 3 and 4, the elevations of entry and exit points are
assumed to be the same. However, a more difficult situation to
study is that of a non-level grade, with entry and exit points at dif-
ferent elevations, leading to a natural tendency for the fluid to
drain to the lower of these openings (Slavin et al., 2011). Therefore,
Fig. 15 shows a drill path with the entry point higher than the
exit point. Before the reaming process starts, the drilling mud is
static in the borehole, and there should be no drilling mud in sec-
tion AB. Then the reamer starts to be pulled back from the exit
point to the entry point. All the drilling mud pumped out of the
10 B. Shu, B. Ma / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 52 (2016) 1–11
Fig. 17. Reamers used in clayey soils.
reamer returns back to the exit point until the reamer reaches a
critical point C (see Fig. 15). At point C, the mud pressure loss at
the exit point side equals to the mud pressure loss at the entry
point side plus the mud pressure caused by the elevation
Fig. 18. Reamers used in rock layers.
difference. This can be illustrated with Eq. (11). Once the reamer
passes the point C, the drilling mud will return to both exit point
and entry point.
Pex ¼ Pen þ Pe ð11Þ
where Pen is the mud pressure loss from the reamer to the entry
point (Pa); Pex is the mud pressure loss from the reamer to the exit
point (Pa); Pe is the mud pressure caused by elevation difference
(Pa).
Pe can be calculated by Eq. (12).
Pe ¼ qgh ð12Þ
where q is the density of drilling mud (kg/m ); g is the gravitational
3
acceleration (9.8 m/s2); h is the elevation difference (m).
The drilling mud pressure loss value is small compared to the
mud pressure caused by elevation difference. Therefore the eleva-
tion difference can significantly affect the drilling mud return dur-
ing reaming processes. If the elevation h is large enough, the
location of the critical point C may be very close to the entry point,
or there may be no drilling fluid return to the entry point during
the whole reaming process until the reamer reaches the entry
point.
5.2. The exit point is higher than the entry point
Before the reaming starts, there is no drilling mud in section DE
(see Fig. 16). Once the reaming starts, drilling mud will fill the
borehole including section DE, and the drilling fluid may start to
flow out from the entry point due to the mud pressure caused by
elevation difference h. At the same time, drilling mud also flows
out from the exit point. After the reamer passes another critical
point F, at which point the mud pressure loss at the entry point
side equals to the mud pressure caused by the elevation difference
(see Eq. (13)), all the drilling mud will only return to the entry
point. If the elevation difference h is large enough, the location of
the critical point F can be very close to the exit point, and it is even
possible that no drilling mud return to the exit point during the
whole reaming process except right at the exit point.
Pen ¼ Pe ð13Þ
6. The effect of reamer shape and other factors
There are many different kinds of reamers used in the reaming
processes of horizontal directional drilling. The selection of ream-
ers mainly depends on the geological conditions. The reamers used
in soil layers usually include the fly cutter type, compaction (or
barrel) type and flow channel type, see Fig. 17. Reamers used for
rock layers are shown in Fig. 18. The fly cutter type reamer, flow
channel type reamer, and those reamers used in rock layers have
 B. Shu, B. Ma / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 52 (2016) 1–11
Fig. 19. Pear shape borehole.
very open channels that connect the borehole at the front and back
sides of the reamer, therefore, drilling mud can flow to the exit and
entry points freely. For the compaction type reamer, the front side
and back side of the reamer are more separated by the reamer
because of the lack of such flow channels, so when the drilling
mud is jetted out from the nozzles of the reamer, it may hard for
the drilling fluid to return to the back side of the reamer (exit
point). However, when drilling in soil conditions, the borehole
cross section sometimes is not circular but a pear shape due to
the subsidence of the reamer in soft soils (Zhou et al., 2012), see
Fig. 19. The overcut on the top of the borehole provides a flow
channel for drilling mud.
The downhole condition is much more complicated than the
assumptions made in Section 3. Firstly, the drilling mud may leak
into the ground during the reaming and pipeline pull back pro-
cesses, therefore not all of the drilling mud pumped into the bore-
hole is able to return to the ground surface. Secondly, borehole
collapse during construction may block the flow path of the drilling
mud. Thirdly, when drilling in very clayey soils, the reamer may be
wrapped up by the clayey cuttings which then block the flow chan-
nel of the drilling mud. All these factors can affect the return of
drilling mud. Therefore, sometimes, it is possible to see that the
drilling mud does not return to the ground surface exactly as the
theoretical calculation predicts.
7. Discussion and conclusions
The drilling mud return is closely related to the estimation of
borehole mud pressure, the transportation of cuttings and possibly
the pull force of pipeline. This study focuses on the drilling mud
return of large diameter HDD boreholes. It shows that the drilling
mud can return to both exit and entry points of the drill path at the
same time, while the percentages depend on the reamer hierarchy,
location of the reamer, and flow index. The location of the balance
point, at which the volumes of drilling mud returning to the exit
and entry points are equal, is not at the middle of the drill path
but typically somewhat closer to the entry point. It is important
to realize that during the pipeline pull back stage, most of the dril-
ling muds return to the entry point, because this may be useful to
understand the fluidic drag portion of the total pull force. By using
the calculation procedures introduced in this study, the minimum
mud pressure for drilling mud can be estimated, which may be
helpful to prevent hydro-fracture during HDD construction.
11
In practical situations, the exit and entry points may be at dif-
ferent elevations which can affect the drilling mud return signifi-
cantly. When the location of entry point is higher than the exit
point, most of the time, the drilling mud only returns to the exit
point and vice versa. It is possible that all the drilling mud only
returns to the exit point or the entry point during the whole ream-
ing process if the elevation difference is large enough.
In summary, even though the complexities and uncertainties of
the borehole condition in practice make the mud return problem
complicated, the calculation procedures, based on a simplified
borehole condition, introduced in this study are useful principally
as a theoretical starting point for understanding the mud returns to
be expected on the job site. Further research are suggested to study
the downhole fluid dynamic, and the mud pressure loss when the
drilling muds try to cross the reamer and flow from the front side
to the back side of the reamer.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the China Petroleum Pipeline Bureau for pro-
viding the first author of this paper an on-site research opportunity
and access to many maxi-HDD jobsites.
References
Allouche, E.N., Ariaratnam, S.T., Lueke, J.S., 2000. Horizontal directional drilling:
profile of an emerging industry. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 126 (1), 68–76.
Ariaratnam, S.T., Harbin, B.C., Stauber, R.L., 2007. Modeling of annular fluid
pressures in horizontal boring. Tunn. Under. Space Technol. 22 (5–6), 610–619.
Ariaratnam, S.T., Stauber, R.M., Bell, J., Harbin, B., Canon, F., 2003. Predicting and
controlling hydraulic fracturing during horizontal directional drilling. In:
Proceeding of ASCE Pipelines 2003 Conference, ASCE.
ASTM, 2011. F 1962-11 Standard Guide for Use of Maxi-Horizontal Directional
Drilling for Placement of Polyethylene Pipe or Conduit under Obstacles,
Including River Crossings. West Conshohocken, PA.
Baumert, M.E., Allouche, E.N., Moore, I.D., 2005. Drilling fluid considerations in
design of engineered horizontal directional drilling installations. Int. J.
Geomech. 5 (4), 339–349.
Bennett, D., Wallin, K., 2008. Step by step evaluation of hydrofracture risks for
horizontal directional drilling projects. In: Proceeding of Pipelines Conference
2008, ASCE, Atlanta.
Bourgoyne Jr., A.T., Milheim, K.K., Chenevert, M.E., Young Jr., F.S., 1991. Applied
Drilling Engineering. Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), Richardson, TX.
Cheng, E., Polak, A.M., 2007. Theoretical model for calculating loads for pipes in
horizontal directional drilling. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 22 (5–6), 633–
643.
Lan, H.T., Ma, B.S., Shu, B., Wu, Z.Y., 2011. Prediction of rotational torque and design
of reaming program using horizontal directional drilling in rock strata. Tunn.
Undergr. Space Technol. 26 (2), 415–421.
Ma, B.S., Najafi, M., 2008. Development and applications of trenchless technology in
China. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 23 (4), 476–480.
Ma, B.S., Najafi, M., Shen, H., Wu, L.H., 2010. Risk evaluation for maxi horizontal
directional drilling crossing projects. J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 1 (2), 91–97.
Moore, P.L., 1986. Drilling Practices Manual, second ed. PennWell, Tulsa, OK.
Najafi, M., 2004. Trenchless Technology – Pipeline and Utility Construction and
Renewal, First Edition. McGraw-Hill Company Inc., New York.
Slavin, L.M., 2010. Parametric dependency and trends of HDD pull loads. J. Pipeline
Syst. Eng. Pract. 1 (2), 69–76.
Slavin, L.M., Najafi, M., Skonberg, E.R., 2011. Maxi-HDD pull loads for nonlevel grade
for polyethylene pipe. J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 2 (2), 64–69.
Slavin, L.M., Najafi, M., 2012. Effect of pipe stiffness on maxi-HDD pull loads. J.
Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 3 (1), 22–31.
Shu, B., Ma, B.S., Zeng, C., Lan, H.T., 2011. Preparation and recycling of drilling mud
in large scale horizontal directional drilling projects in Mainland China. ICPTT
2011, 2049–2059. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41202(423)215.
Shu, B., Ma, B.S., Lan, H.T., 2015. Cuttings transport mechanism in a large diameter
HDD borehole. J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 6 (4), 04014017.
Shu, B., Ma, B.S., 2015. Study of ground collapse induced by large-diameter
horizontal directional drilling in a sand layer using numerical modeling. Can.
Geotech. J. 52, 1562–1574.
Wang, X., Sterling, R.L., 2007. Stability analysis of a borehole wall during horizontal
directional drilling. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 22, 620–632.
Zhou, P., Jiao, R., Ma, B., et al., 2012. Analysis of borehole wall stability in horizontal
directional drilling. In: Proceeding of ICPTT 2012. ASCE.