Designing and Interpreting Geotechnical Investigations

for Horizontal Directional Drilling

Marc M. Gelinas1 and David C. Mathy2
1

DCM/Joyal Engineering, 484 N. Wiget Lane, Walnut Creek, CA 94598;

Phone: (925) 945-0677; Fax: (925) 945-1294; E-mail: mgelinas@dcmjoyal.com
DCM/Joyal Engineering, 484 N. Wiget Lane, Walnut Creek, CA 94598;
Phone: (925) 945-0677; Fax: (925) 945-1294; E-mail: dmathy@dcmjoyal.com

Abstract
Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) is a trenchless construction method which has
gained rapid acceptance in the pipeline engineering and construction industry. Once
considered a small, specialized segment of the industry, HDD is increasingly being
used for a broad spectrum of pipeline projects, including both pressure and gravity
installations, and under difficult and diverse surface and subsurface conditions.
Like many other trenchless construction methods, the feasibility and operating
parameters for HDD are determined in large part by subsurface conditions along the
pipeline alignment. While the pipeline industry has generally accepted the need for
thorough geotechnical investigations on HDD projects, the quality of geotechnical
reports is quite variable as is the use of geotechnical reports by both design engineers
and contractors. Commonly, geotechnical reports do not provide the basic data
necessary to make critical design and construction decisions. Similarly, designers
and contractors often do not know how to interpret the findings of a geotechnical
investigation and use them effectively for their HDD projects.
This paper presents general guidelines for geotechnical investigations for HDD
projects in soil environments, including a discussion of the subsurface information
that is most useful for design engineers and contractors such as soil grain size
distribution, soil plasticity, soil density/consistency, soil strength, vertical and lateral
variability of soil deposits, presence of natural or man-made obstacles, etc. This
paper also explains how the findings of a geotechnical report can be interpreted and
put to practical use for a HDD project, including an examination of how subsurface
conditions effect bore path design, risk of hydrofracture, drilling fluids design,
drilling rates, tooling selection, etc.
Geotechnical Investigations for HDD Projects
HDD is a newcomer to the pipeline engineering and construction industry when
compared to open-cut and tunneling methods. As a result, design engineers often
have trouble defining the essential scope and content of geotechnical investigations
for HDD projects.

In general, geotechnical investigations for HDD projects must:

1. accurately describe subsurface conditions along the project alignment, and
2. provide engineers and contractors with the geotechnical data they need to
make critical design and construction decisions.
Where time and budget constraints allow, geotechnical investigations for HDD
projects should be completed in four phases, as summarized below:
Table No. 1
Phases of a HDD Project Geotechnical Investigation
Investigation Phase

Typical Tasks

Phase I
Research and
Reconnaissance

collect and organize published information along the pipeline

alignment pertaining to geology, soils, groundwater,
development history, geomorphology, fill, underground
structure conflicts, possible contamination, etc.
establish geologic setting (e.g., depositional environment,
alluvium source material, etc.)
reconnaissance of the pipeline alignment and surrounding
area to verify published geologic information
complete geotechnical test borings, test pits, large diameter
test borings, cone penetration tests, geophysical
investigations, groundwater monitoring wells, etc. along the
pipeline alignment
perform laboratory testing on selected samples
prepare preliminary geotechnical data for the pipeline
alignment
identify the need, if any, for additional subsurface
information
complete supplemental field investigation and additional
laboratory testing where needed
finalize geotechnical data for the pipeline alignment
prepare geotechnical report with specific conclusions and
recommendations regarding HDD
coordinate geotechnical report with final plans and
specifications
respond to contractor requests for information and review
contractor submittals
construction phase field inspections and observations of
HDD progress for consistency of excavated soils with
geotechnical findings

Phase II
Field Investigation and
Laboratory Testing

Phase III
Supplemental Field
Investigation and
Geotechnical Report

Phase IV
Construction

During Phase I, the geologic setting of the project area is researched, major potential
man-made and natural obstacles are identified, and the overall feasibility of HDD is
evaluated. In Phase II, general subsurface conditions along specific alignments are
defined, allowing HDD alternatives to be ranked. In Phase III, subsurface layers are
2

individually characterized, allowing a preferred bore path alternative to be selected

and specific design and construction parameters to be defined in the geotechnical
report. In Phase IV, information is gained during construction which is critical to
adjusting and improving the design and construction process for both the current, and
future projects.
Under ideal circumstances, each phase is completed independently and by the same
geotechnical firm, allowing for continuity of information and analysis. For smaller or
more time and budget constrained projects, the first three phases can be combined
into a single continuous effort. The cost of a geotechnical investigation for a typical
HDD project is generally on the order of 1% to 5% of construction cost, depending
on the project parameters (i.e., alignment length and depth, pipeline diameter,
geologic setting, etc.)
Geotechnical Data for HDD Projects
Regardless of the scope or organization of the geotechnical investigation, it is critical
that design engineers and contractors know how to analyze the subsurface data
provided to them in the geotechnical report, and how to put it to effective use for
design and construction.
When analyzing geotechnical data, it is important to identify and separate the
geotechnical conditions which may stop HDD construction from those which merely
make HDD construction challenging. In order to understand the geotechnical
conditions which may make HDD impossible or challenging, it is important to keep
in mind the fundamental processes involved with this form of construction. In soil
environments, HDD construction can be simplified into three fundamental processes:
1. cutting the native soil formation and mixing the cuttings with drilling
fluids to create a flowable slurry;
2. maintaining a continuous, stable bore hole through which the slurry
can flow; and
3. transporting enough drilled cuttings (suspended in the slurry) from the
bore hole to allow insertion of the product pipeline.
Because the success of HDD projects rely greatly on the ability to create and maintain
a stable bore hole and efficient cuttings slurry; and because HDD projects do not
generally require the construction of shored pits or shafts, the in-situ and disturbed or
remixed characteristics of alignment soils (e.g., soil grain size distribution, soil
plasticity, soil density/consistency, etc.), rather than the in-situ, undisturbed
characteristics of alignment soils (e.g., compressive strength, shear strength,
compressibility, etc.), are of primary importance, as detailed below.
Soil Grain Size Distribution. Soil particles range in size from less than 75m in
diameter (silts and clays) to over 0.3m (12 inches) in diameter (boulders). Soil grain
size distribution data is generally presented in the form of a grain size distribution

curve, which graphically presents the percentage composition (by weight) of the
various diameters of soil particles in a particular sample.
In HDD, drilling fluids are used much like a conveyor belt. Soil particles are
mechanically cut from the formation, suspended within the drilling fluid, and
transported out of the bore hole. Particles which are too large or heavy to be
suspended in the drilling fluid can sometimes be physically displaced by the reaming
tools or the product pipe itself, but can also collect to form an impenetrable blockage
within the bore hole. As a result, detailed knowledge of the grain size distribution of
bore path soils is critical to evaluating the overall feasibility and efficiency of HDD
construction.
Soils which contain oversize materials (i.e., materials greater than 76mm [3 inches] in
diameter) such as cobbles and boulders present an obvious, high risk for HDD: their
size and weight makes them virtually impossible to remove from the bore hole. The
risk posed by cobbles and boulders increases along with their quantity within the
formation. Where contact with cobble and boulder containing soils cannot be
avoided, large diameter borings or test pits should be completed to obtain an accurate
understanding of the frequency and distribution of these materials within the soil
layer, and therefore the level of risk they present.
Soils containing greater than 50% gravel size or larger particles (i.e., soils which
generally classify as gravels under the USCS/ASTM D2487) also present a high risk
for HDD. In general, most drilling fluid manufacturers agree that soil particles of
coarse gravel size or larger (19mm [ inch] or larger) cannot be suspended within an
efficient drilling fluid. Drilling fluids designed to accommodate coarse gravel or
larger particle sizes tend to be too viscous to be practical. Therefore, drilling within
gravel soils may only be feasible if the grain size distribution indicates that a high
percentage of the formation is of suspendable size (i.e., smaller than 19mm [ inch])
and if the formation contains sufficient fines to provide bore hole stability and
prevent loss of drilling fluid into the surrounding soils. Fines are that portion of the
soil passing a No. 200 sieve (i.e., smaller than 75m in diameter).
Soils containing 30 to 49% gravel size or larger particles (i.e., soils which generally
classify as gravelly sands, silts, or clays) present a risk for HDD, but one that is often
mitigable. As with gravel soils, HDD may be feasible if the grain size distribution
indicates that a high percentage of the formation is of suspendable size (i.e., smaller
than 19mm) and if the formation contains sufficient fines to provide bore hole
stability and prevent loss of drilling fluid into the surrounding soils.
Soil Plasticity. Soils containing predominantly silt and clay size particles (i.e., 50%
or more of the particles are smaller than 75m in diameter) are classified according to
their plasticity. Plasticity is defined by a soils Atterberg limits, which correspond to
the water contents between which a soil exhibits plastic behavior. Above their liquid
limit, soils exhibit liquid behavior. Below their plastic limit, soils exhibit semi-solid
or solid behavior. The difference between the liquid and plastic limit is the plasticity

index. Atterberg limits for fine-grained soils are generally presented on a plasticity
chart, and sometimes are also included on the logs of borings.
For HDD, the plasticity of fine-grained soils is important as it relates to the soils
tendency to react (swell) when in contact with water, which is present in HDD
drilling fluids. The tendency of fine-grained soils to swell effects HDD in two
general ways:
1. It can cause the bore hole to constrict, effectively choking the bore
hole, reducing the drilling fluid flow area and making insertion of the
product pipeline difficult.
2. It can cause cuttings drilled from the formation to swell during transport
out of the bore hole, thickening the cuttings slurry, increasing bore hole
pressures, and increasing the likelihood of a bore hole blockage.
The swelling tendencies of fine-grained soils are generally affected by the soils insitu water content, plasticity, density, degree of overconsolidation and overburden
pressure. In general, saturated soils or soils below the water table do not swell; soils
which are dry or desiccated are most likely to swell. Highly plastic soils (i.e., soils
classifying as Fat Clay or Elastic Silt under the USCS/ASTM D2487) also have a
generally higher tendency to swell than low to medium plasticity soils (i.e., soils
classifying as Lean Clay or Silt under the USCS/ASTM D2487). Fine-grained soils
with a higher dry density have a generally greater tendency to swell than soils with a
lower dry density. Fine-grained soils which are overconsolidated and under relatively
high overburden pressure also have a tendency to swell due to the stress relief that
occurs around the perimeter of the bore hole when soils are removed from their insitu matrix (highly confined state) and suspended within the drilling fluid (relatively
unconfined state). The swelling tendency of fine-grained soils can normally be
overcome by the addition of polymers to the drilling fluid (which inhibit the transfer
of water from the drilling fluid into the drilled soil formation), and by ensuring that
adequate drilling fluid volumes are used.
Soil Density/Consistency. The density (coarse-grained soils) or consistency (finegrained soils) of bore path soils can have a significant impact on HDD. Soil
density/consistency is generally correlated from standard penetration test (i.e., ASTM
D1586) blow counts. Both the sample blow count and a description of the sampled
soils corresponding density/consistency are normally noted in the boring logs.
HDD relies on the passive resistance generated between the drill bit and the soil
formation in order to make directional changes. It follows therefore that in loose or
soft soil formations, sharp radius bends or abrupt steering corrections are not feasible.
Density/consistency also affects a soils swell potential (fine-grained soils only), and
the volume of drilling fluids required to efficiently entrain and transport the drilled
soils from the bore hole. In general, stiff (i.e., high blow count) fine-grained soils
have a higher tendency to swell than soft (i.e., low blow count) fine-grained soils,
while stiff or dense (i.e., high blow count) soils generally require larger volumes of
drilling fluids than soft or loose (i.e., low blow count) soils.
5

Vertical and Lateral Distribution of Subsurface Deposits. In the sections above,

we have discussed many of the geotechnical properties critical to determining the
feasibility of HDD. By itself, this information provides only half of the picture. In
order for this data to be useful, designers and contractors must have a clear indication
of the vertical and lateral distribution of the various subsurface deposits along a HDD
alignment, both material distributions (i.e., between two different soil types such as
clay and sand) and conditional distributions (i.e., between two layers of the same soil
type, which differ in terms of other properties such as loose sand and dense sand)
(Hair, 1998).
Knowledge of the vertical and lateral distribution of soil formations is critical to the
rational design of a HDD bore path. Alluvial soils are particularly likely to vary
significantly in composition and consistency over short vertical and lateral distances.
Where problem soils are identified, the bore path should be designed to either avoid
them altogether, or minimize the length of bore path within them. This can be
accomplished by either moving the bore path higher or lower (vertical adjustment), or
changing the plan location of the bore path (lateral adjustment).
Knowledge of the vertical and lateral distribution of soils is also critical to identifying
where changed and mixed face conditions may exist along a proposed bore path,
allowing design countermeasures to be put in place to minimize their impact on
construction. A changed face condition occurs when a bore path moves from one soil
formation to another. A mixed face condition occurs when a bore path moves along
the interface between two different soil formations. The effect that changed and
mixed face conditions will have on HDD construction depends on the relative
difference in properties between the two soil formations (i.e., loose/soft soils vs. very
dense/hard soils), but may include steering difficulty, bore path deviation, etc..
Presence of Fill, Obstructions, and Contamination. The presence of fill,
obstructions, and contamination are generally all related to historic conditions along
or near the project alignment. The effect that fill, obstructions and contamination
have on the success of a HDD project depends greatly on the nature of the fill,
obstruction, or contamination; and the extent to which they interfere with the planned
bore path alignment. The geotechnical report should contain an interpretation of the
effect these conditions may have on construction. It is important to note that this
information, which is normally gathered during the research phase of the geotechnical
investigation and discussed in the body of the geotechnical report, may not always be
recorded on the project boring logs.
Interpretation of Geotechnical Data for HDD Projects
Bore Path Design. One of the major qualities that sets HDD apart from other
trenchless construction methods is its steerability, which allows pipelines to be
installed along alignments which curve both horizontally and vertically. While the
ability to steer allows HDD bore paths to be designed to avoid problem areas, bore
hole curvatures should be avoided wherever possible.

Where bore hole curvatures are necessary, the density/consistency of alignment soils
(i.e., the ability to generate the passive resistance required for steering) should be
taken into consideration. The ability of the drilling fluids and product pipeline to
negotiate a tortuous bore path should also be kept in mind. The more tortuous the
bore path, the more difficult it will be for the contractor to maintain drilling fluid
flow, and the higher the installation loads on the product pipeline will be.
Minimum Depth of Cover. Where not mandated by existing conditions (e.g.,
existing utilities) or local regulations, the minimum depth of cover for a HDD
installed pipeline is generally established to provide a measure of protection against
surface heave and/or hydrofracture. From a practical point of view, surface heave
and hydrofracture are more often the result of improper drilling practices (lost
circulation, bore hole blockage, over-rapid drilling, high density cuttings slurry
returns, etc.) rather than geotechnical conditions. Nevertheless, subsurface conditions
do play a role in evaluating the risk of surface heave and hydrofracture.
Surface Heave is generally related to contractors drilling too fast and
displacing or compacting rather than cutting and slurrifying the bore path soils. To
prevent surface heave, minimum drilling rates (time per length of drill rod) should be
calculated by the contractor and submitted to the design engineer/construction
manager prior to construction. Appropriate drilling rates as a function of soil type are
discussed in greater detail below.
Hydrofracture occurs when the pressure exerted by the drilling fluids within
the bore hole exceeds the capacity of the surrounding soils to contain them, resulting
in the fracturing of the soil formation and the release of drilling fluids through the
fractures. Many factors can contribute to hydrofracture including:

the presence of planes of weakness/preferred drainage pathways to the

surface, such as shrinkage cracks, granular utility backfill, wick drains,
pile foundations, stone columns, etc.;
the length of the borehole (longer boreholes generally require higher
fluid pressures to maintain flow along the length of the borehole);
large elevation changes along the bore path;
blockages within the bore hole which can cause the drilling fluid
pressure to build up; and
drilling with high density cuttings slurry (often the result of inadequate
drilling fluid volumes and/or over-rapid drilling).

At a minimum, hydrofracture results in increased costs due to decreased drilling

efficiency, cleanup costs, etc., but also has the potential to shut a project down,
especially along roadway alignments or within environmentally sensitive areas.
Formulas for the estimation of maximum allowable bore hole drilling fluid pressure
have been published by Kennedy, Skinner and Moore (2004), Arends (2003) and
Delft Geotechnics (1997), among others. The applicability of individual formulas

depends greatly on the project parameters (i.e., soil type, soil layering, soil failure
mode etc.). At present, there is a great deal of ongoing research in this area but very
little field data to support any of the published hydrofracture formulas.
Loss of Drilling Fluids. In porous formations or formations with interconnected
fractures and/or discontinuities it can be very difficult, if not impossible, to prevent
drilling fluids from flowing out of the bore hole and into the formation. Drilling fluid
loss is generally only of a concern for clean, coarse-grained soils (i.e., sands and
gravels containing less than 12% fines). Where clean, coarse-grained soils are
identified along a project bore path, detailed grain size analysis is required to
determine if HDD is feasible, or if the porosity of the formation can be addressed
through drilling fluid design.
In areas where the HDD alignment is in close proximity to existing utilities, there is a
potential for the bore path to encounter granular trench backfill materials. Granular
trench backfill materials, such as pea gravel, are extremely porous, and can act as a
preferred drainage pathway for drilling fluids, resulting in fluid loss from the bore
hole and potential damage to the existing utility and any overlying improvements.
Where possible, clearances for existing utilities should be set to avoid not only the
utility itself, but the anticipated backfill zone for the utility trench as well. Notes
regarding the trench backfill material for existing utilities should also be taken during
the design phase or pre-construction potholing/field location of existing utilities, and
shared by both the design engineers and HDD contractor.
Bore Hole Stability. In coarse-grained soils, the ability to maintain bore hole
stability (i.e., the ability to prevent bore path soils from uncontrollably running or
flowing into the bore hole) is often of significant concern. Bore hole stability is also
of concern in formations identified as containing oversize materials such as cobbles
or boulders due to the sheer weight of the materials. In fine-grained, firm to stiff soils
(with the exception of saturated, non-plastic silts) bore hole stability is generally of
lesser concern.
The ability of a coarse-grained soil to resist uncontrolled running or flowing is
directly related to the fines content of the soil. In general, whenever the fines content
(i.e., the percentage, by weight, of particles smaller than 75m in diameter) is less
than approximately 30%, specific countermeasures may be needed to address bore
hole stability. The relative need for countermeasures will vary greatly based on the
plasticity of the fines, the density of the formation, and the location of the
groundwater table with respect to the bore path. Countermeasures to improve bore
hole stability may include relocation of the bore path to a more stable formation, and
modification of the drilling fluids program.
Drilling Fluids. Of all HDD construction parameters, the design of drilling fluids is
most affected by subsurface conditions. Current drilling fluid theory generally
advocates a base fluid of water, bentonite, and polymer, to which additives are added
as necessary. The percentage of bentonite and polymers in the base fluid depends on

the nature of the drilled formation. In general, the percentage of polymer should
increase in fine-grained soils.
In coarse-grained soils, drilling fluid volumes on the order of one to more than two
times the bore hole volume should be anticipated (HDD Consortium, 2001). The
volume of fluid required will depend on the grain size distribution, density, and
porosity of the formation. In general, greater volumes of drilling fluids are required
for coarse, dense, and/or porous formations.
In fine-grained soils, drilling fluid volumes on the order of two to more than five
times the bore hole volume should be anticipated (HDD Consortium, 2001). The
volume of fluid required will depend on the water content, plasticity, and consistency
of the formation. In general, greater volumes of drilling fluids are required for dry,
highly plastic, and/or very stiff formations.
Drilling Rates. The rate at which the pilot bore or a reaming pass can be completed
is a function of the soil type, the drilling fluid pump capacity, the viscosity of the
drilling fluid, and the desired increase in bore hole size (HDD Consortium, 2001).
Drilling rates are normally expressed as a minimum time per length of drill rod, and
should be calculated by the contractor and submitted to the design engineer/
construction manager prior to construction. Failure to keep drilling rates above the
calculated minimum time per length of drill rod can result in increased cuttings slurry
density, increased risk of hydrofracture, and increased risk of surface heave.
Tooling Selection. Tooling selection for HDD in soil environments is normally
limited to the style of drill bit used for the pilot bore phase, and the style of reamers
used for the reaming passes.
As detailed above, HDD relies on the passive resistance generated between the drill
bit and the soil formation to make steering adjustments. The amount of passive
resistance that can be generated by a drill bit is directly related to its surface area. As
a result, in loose or soft soil formations, contractors may elect to use a broader-faced
tool in order to generate greater amounts of passive resistance, and therefore make
more precise steering adjustments.
For reamers, tool selection is more dependent on the material properties (i.e.,
plasticity, grain size, etc.) of the soil formation, rather than the density/consistency.
In fine-grained soils, the object of the reamer is to chop the formation into
suspendable pieces, which can be entrained within the drilling fluid and transported
out of the bore hole. In clayey soils, however, the soil often has a tendency to stick to
the reamer, greatly reducing its effectiveness. As a result, when drilling in clayey
soils, many contractors prefer to use reamers which have a lower surface area, and
have larger diameter or a greater number of fluid nozzles. In coarse-grained soils, the
formations are generally non-reactive, allowing a greater variety of reamer designs to
be used.

Transfer of Geotechnical Data for HDD Projects

While the geotechnical report is often prepared for the owner and design engineer, it
is extremely important that HDD contractors also have full access to the report, which
should be included in its entirety with the project bid documents. The geotechnical
engineers who performed the field investigation, completed the geotechnical analysis
and prepared the geotechnical report should also be retained through the bid process
and construction period to respond to any contractor requests for information
pertaining to subsurface conditions and/or the findings of the geotechnical report.
HDD contractors should always have full access to both the geotechnical data (e.g.,
results of research, boring logs, test data, etc), and the interpretations of the data made
by the geotechnical engineers (e.g., profiles, conclusions and recommendations). The
contractors should not be bound to the interpretations made by the geotechnical
engineers, but rather should be free to make their own interpretations of the data.
Where interpretations differ, the HDD contractors should be willing to provide a
rationale for their interpretations based on the data provided in the report and/or the
results of their own investigations.
Closing
For HDD projects to be successful, all parties to the project must have a detailed
understanding of the effect that geotechnical conditions will have on construction.
This understanding allows potential problems to be identified early on, and addressed
through proactive rather than reactive action. In writing this paper, the authors hope
to have increased this understanding, and closed a perceived gap between
geotechnical engineers, design engineers, owners and contractors.
References
Arends, G. (2003), Need and Possibilities for a Quality Push Within the Technique of
Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD), 2003 NASTT International No-Dig
Conference, March 31- April 2, 2003, Las Vegas, NV.
Delft Geotechnics (1997), A Report by Department of Foundations and Underground
Engineering, prepared for ODonnel Associates, Inc., Sugar Land, TX.
Hair, C.W. III (1998), Site Investigation Requirements for Large Diameter HDD
Projects, published in Course Notes: Horizontal Directional Drilling Short
Course on Design and Construction, 1998 ASCE Pipelines in the Constructed
Environment Specialty Conference, August 23-27, San Diego, CA.
HDD Consortium (2001), Horizontal Directional Drilling Good Practice Guidelines,
NASTT, Arlington, VA.
Kennedy, M.J., Skinner, G.D., and Moore, I.D. (2004), Elastic Calculations of
Limiting Mud Pressures to Control Hydrofracturing During HDD, 2004 NASTT
No-Dig Conference, March 22-24, New Orleans, LA.

10