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

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
Fig. 1. Flow velocity profile of laminar flow in the HDD borehole annulus. P¼ ð4Þ
Dd
where f is the friction factor (dimensionless).
If the flow velocity is very high and/or the drilling mud is very
mud was assumed to return to either the exit point or the entry
thin (low viscosity), turbulent flow may be used for describing the
point of the drill path to whichever point the reamer is closer.
drilling mud behavior. However, in a large diameter HDD borehole,
The assumption was made based on the field observations of sev-
the flow velocity is very low and the viscosity is very high and
eral large diameter HDD projects. To study the general principle of
therefore turbulent flow does not apply and the flow pattern of
drilling mud return for all large diameter HDD boreholes, further
drilling fluid in the annular space of a large HDD borehole is usu-
study has been necessary and a proposed procedure is presented
ally considered as laminar flow. In Newtonian flow model, the vis-
in this paper.
cous forces are characterized by the fluid viscosity. Drilling mud is
a mixture of water, bentonite, and possibly additives. Cuttings
2. Pressure loss of drilling mud in annular space 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-
Under laminar flow, the flow velocity of the drilling fluid at dif- ling mud. Thus most drilling fluids are Non-Newtonian fluids. Non-
ferent location within the cross-section of the annulus may be dif- Newtonian fluids has an apparent viscosity depends on the shear
ferent. However, the flow velocity during turbulent flow in the rate at which the measurement is made and the prior shear rate
annulus is considered to be the same within the cross-section. (Bourgoyne et al., 1991). Non-Newtonian are pseudoplastic if the
Fig. 1 shows the flow profile under laminar flow. The drilling rod apparent viscosity decreases with increasing shear rate and are
in the annulus during the reaming process is pulled back slowly dilatant if the apparent viscosity increases with increasing shear
by the drill rig, but this pull back velocity is small compared to rate, while drilling fluids and cement slurries are generally pseudo-
the flow velocity of drilling mud. Therefore, the moving velocity plastic in nature (Bourgoyne et al., 1991). The Bingham plastic and
of drill rod has been ignored in the following theoretical Power Law rheological models are used to approximate the pseu-
calculations. doplastic behavior of drilling fluids and cement slurries
There are three commonly used flow models for drilling fluid: (Bourgoyne et al., 1991). For low-velocity mud flow, the power
Newtonian flow model, Bingham Plastic flow model and Power law model is more precise in representing the rheological proper-
Law flow model. The equation of mud pressure loss for Newtonian ties (Moore, 1986; Ariaratnam et al., 2007), and as mentioned ear-
fluid, Bingham Plastic fluid, and Power Law fluid in annulus space lier, the flow velocity of drilling fluid in the annulus is low,
for laminar flow are shown in Eqs. (1), (2), and (3), respectively therefore, in the following study, the Power Law model will be
(Bourgoyne et al., 1991): used to calculate the mud pressure loss.
48  l  L  v The effective viscosity of Power Law model fluid is shown
P¼ 2
ð1Þ below:
ðD  dÞ
le ¼ K  cn1 ð5Þ
48  L  g  v 6  L  s0
P¼ þ ð2Þ
ðD  dÞ
2 ðD  dÞ
3. Drilling fluid return direction
 n
4v ð2n þ 1Þ 4K L
P¼   ð3Þ In this section, the drilling fluid return direction and velocity
ðD  dÞ n ðD  dÞ
were calculated with the theoretical Power Law equation listed
above, under the following assumptions:

Fig. 2. The profile of HDD borehole path.

 B. Shu, B. Ma / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 52 (2016) 1–11 3

Table 1
Reamer diameters and drilling mud pump volumes (field data).

Reaming cycle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pull back

Diameter of reamer, m 0.584 0.762 0.914 1.067 1.270 1.422 1.575 1.422
Drilling mud volume, m3/min 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.5 2.0

Fig. 3. Drilling fluid distribution.

(1). The borehole is circular; because the entry angle and exit angle are usually less than 10° and
(2). There is no drilling mud leakage into the surrounding the depth of drill path typically is around 30 m. Therefore, the total
ground; length of the drill path can be approximately assumed to be the
(3). Drilling rod, reamers, and product pipe are all centered on same as the straight distance from the exit point to the entry point
the center line of the borehole; (1000 m). The length between the exit point and the reamer is
(4). The flow path of the drilling fluid is not blocked by reamer, marked as L.
cuttings, or borehole collapse, so the drilling fluid can choose Based on real data from maxi-HDD projects, an HDD borehole
to return to either the exit or entry point; with a total length of 1000 m and a final diameter of 1.575 m
(5). The entry point and exit points are at the same elevation. (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
These assumptions described an ideal drilling condition in order 241 mm (9.5 in.), respectively. The diameters of the sequence of
to simplify the complicated downhole condition and therefore reamers are 0.584 m (23 in.), 0.762 m (30 in.), 0.914 m (36 in.),
make it possible to use the analytical calculation equations intro- 1.067 m (42 in.), 1.270 m (50 in.), 1.422 m (56 in.), and 1.575 m
duced above. Clearly, at the pilot borehole drilling stage, drilling (62 in.). The volumes of drilling mud pumped into the borehole
mud can only return to the entry point, therefore this study focus through the reamer in the reaming process are listed in Table 1
on the reaming processes and pipeline pull back process. according to a real maxi-HDD project. A flow index n = 0.459, and
Fig. 2 shows a typical plot of an HDD profile. The reamer is a consistency index K = 2.34 are assumed for the drilling fluid
pulled back by the drill rig from the exit point to the entry point. (Shu et al., 2015). The volume of drilling mud pumped into the
Drill rods are always attached behind the reamer, which can be borehole increases as the diameter of reamer increases, in order
used for the next cycle of reaming or for pipeline pull back. The to keep the density and flow velocity of drilling mud consistent
diameters of the borehole on the front side and back side of the for cuttings transport. A pipeline of 1.219 m (48 in.) in diameter
reamer are Di1 and Di, respectively. In this study, a borehole is planned to be installed in this borehole.
length of 1000 m is assumed. Please note that the length of the drill The drilling mud volume pumped into the borehole equals to
path is usually only slightly larger than the straight distance the total of the mud volume return to the exit point and the entry
between exit point and entry point for long distance HDD projects, 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

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
Fig. 7. Drilling mud return to the entry point. 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
mud volumes returning to the exit and entry points are the same, is
good understanding of the drilling mud return in the pipeline pull
not at the middle of the drill path but somewhat closer to the entry
back stage maybe useful for the estimation of pull force caused by
point. This is because the borehole diameter in the exit point side is
drilling mud resistance.
large than that of entry point side. The ‘‘balance point” is also the
The research described above has found that the drilling fluid
point at which the mud pressure loss reaches the maximum value.
can return to both entry and exit points at the same time, however,
The diameter of the reamer in the first reaming cycle is much
the percentages of drilling mud that return to these two points
larger than that of pilot bit, which make the calculation results
depends on the location of reamer and the borehole diameters at
very different from those of other reaming cycles. Therefore, it
the front and back sides of the reamer.
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). 4. Parametric study
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 Examining the equation used for the mud pressure loss, the
cycles 2 through 7. possible factors that may affect the drilling mud return include:
From Fig. 5, it is interesting to see that most of time, a large per- pump volume (Q), length of borehole, reamer diameter (D), flow
centage of the drilling mud returns to either the exit point or the index (n), and consistency index (K).
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- 4.1. Effect of pump volume and consistency index
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 A large volume of drilling mud pumped into the borehole
shifted to around 70% of the drilling mud returning to the entry through the reamer means higher mud flow velocity in the annu-
point. Therefore, there is only a very short length (L = 600– lus; a higher mud flow velocity means a larger mud pressure loss.
750 m), in which section that the volumes of drilling mud return However, at the same time, it was found that the percentages of
to both sides are close to equal. Therefore, for simplicity, in certain drilling mud return to exit and entry points did not change at all.
studies for large diameter HDD boreholes, it may be enough to Consistency index pertains to the viscosity of the fluid. The
assume that the drilling mud only returns to the exit point or the higher the consistency index, the thicker the mud. The consistency
entry point to whichever point the reamer is closer. index depends on the solids content and the viscosity of the liquid
From the drilling mud volumes returned from both entry and phase. The consistency index increases with solids content and the
exit points, the drilling mud pressure loss can be calculated and concentration of polymer additives. It was also found that the

Fig. 8. Profile of the location of product pipe and reamer.

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

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;

(2). scenario 2: n = 0.459;
Flow index represents the degree of deviation from Newtonian (3). scenario 3: n = 0.60.
behavior of the fluid, within a specified range of shearing rate
(Bourgoyne et al., 1991). The flow index of a Newtonian fluid is The results are shown in Fig. 13. It shows that as the flow index
1.0, such as for water or glycerin. The flow index of drilling mud 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 it is necessary to study how the elevation difference affects the
deeper slope means that drilling muds are more inclined to return drilling mud return. When the elevations of entry or exit points
to either the exit or the entry point rather than be more evenly dis- are in the same level, the mud pressures caused by the elevation
tributed at any specific location. For example, at L = 400 m, there is from both entry and exit sides are equal. When the elevations of
around 88% of drilling mud return to the exit point when n = 0.3. these two points are different, the mud pressure caused by the ele-
This number reduces to only 80% when n = 0.459, and to 76% when vation difference should be taken in consideration of the drilling
n = 0.6. The drilling mud pressure loss decreases with the increase mud return. The following two scenarios are considered in this
of the flow index values, as shown in Fig. 14. 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 Fig. 15 shows a drill path with the entry point higher than the
assumed to be the same. However, a more difficult situation to exit point. Before the reaming process starts, the drilling mud is
study is that of a non-level grade, with entry and exit points at dif- static in the borehole, and there should be no drilling mud in sec-
ferent elevations, leading to a natural tendency for the fluid to tion AB. Then the reamer starts to be pulled back from the exit
drain to the lower of these openings (Slavin et al., 2011). Therefore, 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

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

Fig. 17. Reamers used in clayey soils. 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
reamer returns back to the exit point until the reamer reaches a in soil layers usually include the fly cutter type, compaction (or
critical point C (see Fig. 15). At point C, the mud pressure loss at barrel) type and flow channel type, see Fig. 17. Reamers used for
the exit point side equals to the mud pressure loss at the entry rock layers are shown in Fig. 18. The fly cutter type reamer, flow
point side plus the mud pressure caused by the elevation channel type reamer, and those reamers used in rock layers have

Fig. 18. Reamers used in rock layers.

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

Fig. 19. Pear shape borehole. 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.
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 References
entry points freely. For the compaction type reamer, the front side
and back side of the reamer are more separated by the reamer 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.
because of the lack of such flow channels, so when the drilling Ariaratnam, S.T., Harbin, B.C., Stauber, R.L., 2007. Modeling of annular fluid
mud is jetted out from the nozzles of the reamer, it may hard for pressures in horizontal boring. Tunn. Under. Space Technol. 22 (5–6), 610–619.
the drilling fluid to return to the back side of the reamer (exit Ariaratnam, S.T., Stauber, R.M., Bell, J., Harbin, B., Canon, F., 2003. Predicting and
controlling hydraulic fracturing during horizontal directional drilling. In:
point). However, when drilling in soil conditions, the borehole Proceeding of ASCE Pipelines 2003 Conference, ASCE.
cross section sometimes is not circular but a pear shape due to ASTM, 2011. F 1962-11 Standard Guide for Use of Maxi-Horizontal Directional
the subsidence of the reamer in soft soils (Zhou et al., 2012), see Drilling for Placement of Polyethylene Pipe or Conduit under Obstacles,
Including River Crossings. West Conshohocken, PA.
Fig. 19. The overcut on the top of the borehole provides a flow
Baumert, M.E., Allouche, E.N., Moore, I.D., 2005. Drilling fluid considerations in
channel for drilling mud. design of engineered horizontal directional drilling installations. Int. J.
The downhole condition is much more complicated than the Geomech. 5 (4), 339–349.
Bennett, D., Wallin, K., 2008. Step by step evaluation of hydrofracture risks for
assumptions made in Section 3. Firstly, the drilling mud may leak
horizontal directional drilling projects. In: Proceeding of Pipelines Conference
into the ground during the reaming and pipeline pull back pro- 2008, ASCE, Atlanta.
cesses, therefore not all of the drilling mud pumped into the bore- Bourgoyne Jr., A.T., Milheim, K.K., Chenevert, M.E., Young Jr., F.S., 1991. Applied
hole is able to return to the ground surface. Secondly, borehole Drilling Engineering. Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), Richardson, TX.
Cheng, E., Polak, A.M., 2007. Theoretical model for calculating loads for pipes in
collapse during construction may block the flow path of the drilling horizontal directional drilling. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 22 (5–6), 633–
mud. Thirdly, when drilling in very clayey soils, the reamer may be 643.
wrapped up by the clayey cuttings which then block the flow chan- 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.
nel of the drilling mud. All these factors can affect the return of Undergr. Space Technol. 26 (2), 415–421.
drilling mud. Therefore, sometimes, it is possible to see that the Ma, B.S., Najafi, M., 2008. Development and applications of trenchless technology in
drilling mud does not return to the ground surface exactly as the 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
theoretical calculation predicts. 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.
7. Discussion and conclusions 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
The drilling mud return is closely related to the estimation of Syst. Eng. Pract. 1 (2), 69–76.
borehole mud pressure, the transportation of cuttings and possibly 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.
the pull force of pipeline. This study focuses on the drilling mud Slavin, L.M., Najafi, M., 2012. Effect of pipe stiffness on maxi-HDD pull loads. J.
return of large diameter HDD boreholes. It shows that the drilling Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 3 (1), 22–31.
mud can return to both exit and entry points of the drill path at the 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
same time, while the percentages depend on the reamer hierarchy, 2011, 2049–2059. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41202(423)215.
location of the reamer, and flow index. The location of the balance Shu, B., Ma, B.S., Lan, H.T., 2015. Cuttings transport mechanism in a large diameter
point, at which the volumes of drilling mud returning to the exit HDD borehole. J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 6 (4), 04014017.
Shu, B., Ma, B.S., 2015. Study of ground collapse induced by large-diameter
and entry points are equal, is not at the middle of the drill path horizontal directional drilling in a sand layer using numerical modeling. Can.
but typically somewhat closer to the entry point. It is important Geotech. J. 52, 1562–1574.
to realize that during the pipeline pull back stage, most of the dril- Wang, X., Sterling, R.L., 2007. Stability analysis of a borehole wall during horizontal
directional drilling. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 22, 620–632.
ling muds return to the entry point, because this may be useful to
Zhou, P., Jiao, R., Ma, B., et al., 2012. Analysis of borehole wall stability in horizontal
understand the fluidic drag portion of the total pull force. By using directional drilling. In: Proceeding of ICPTT 2012. ASCE.
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.