Information Last Revised: 3/29/93
TTP Reference Number: RL-421103
1. Technical Name of Technology: Resonant Sonic Drilling
2. Common Name of Technology: Sonic Drilling
3. PI and Telephone No: G.W. McLellan, (509) 376-2260
4. Affiliation: Westinghouse Hanford Company
5. Technology Category: Drilling Technologies
6. Developers: Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Water Development Corporation, and Westinghouse Hanford Company through a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA)
7. Application
7.1. Where (in-situ/ex-situ): in-situ
7.2. Media: vadose zone and groundwater
7.3. Targeted Contaminants: chemical and radioactive waste
8. Scope of project (feasibility study, treatability, bench, pilot, field):
laboratory development and field test
9. Integrated Demonstration (ID) Need/Requirements:
Advanced and improved drilling technologies are needed to 1) reduce costs; 2) minimize waste from drilling; and 3) maintain containment of drill cuttings and effluents while drilling. Resonant sonic drilling is a promising method for several drilling applications including; characterization borings, groundwater monitoring wells, vapor and water extraction wells, and barrier installation holes, vertical to horizontal continuous coring, or any type/size earth penetration with a steel pipe.
10. Objective
10.1. Objective of technology (i.e., This technology will destroy VOCs in groundwater.):
The objectives of enhancing the sonic drilling method is to obtain representative geologic samples that meet data quality objectives, minimize secondary waste generated and reduce costs for drilling through increased productivity while minimizing operational and contamination exposure hazards to personnel. An additional objective is the deployment of instruments, sensors and other devices to the subsurface for characterization, remediation and monitoring purposes.
10.2. Baseline (baseline technology to which it is compared):
Cable Tool Drilling (Cable Tool)
11. Process Description:
Resonant sonic drilling has three major components: a drill rig with the sonic head, drill pipe, and a drill bit. The drill head uses counter-rotating weights to generate wave force energy and operates at frequencies close to the natural frequency of the steel drill column (up to 150 cycles per second). This causes the column to vibrate elastically along its entire length. In the resonant condition, drill pipe acceleration rates exceed 500g's and forces up to 200,000 lbs are efficiently transmitted to the drill bit face to create a very effective cutting action. As the pipe moves through the ground during drilling, the walls of the steel pipe expand and contract helping to reduce any dampening of the vibrations caused by ground swelling. The drill bit can be designed to either push the all soils into the borehole wall or modified to allow a continuous core to enter the steel pipe of the drill. Core samples can be continuously retrieved by using either a wireline latch or small inner rod retrieval assembly. No circulation medium is required with the sonic method; therefore, the only byproduct from drilling is the core sample.
11.1. Input:
Typically a diesel engine powering the hydrostatic drive pump(s).
11.2. Output:
Output consists of high quality core samples or aquisition of data via downhole probes and sensors. Unused core samples are the only secondary byproduct from drilling. This results from the fact that the resonant energy causes sands, gravels, cobbles and even clays to relax into the adjacent formation just enough to permit the drill pipe to advance freely into the formation.
12. Summary of Technology Advantages (relative to the baseline: faster, better, cheaper, safer):
The key advantages of the sonic drilling method are (1) rate of drilling, (2) containment of drill cuttings, (3) the minimization of secondary drilling waste, (4) sample quality in formations where the baseline method cannot retrieve high quality samples (eg., caliche, boulders), and (5) increased safety due to less hands on exposure to physical hazards and waste contaminants. Additionally, it minimizes contamination to supplemental drilling components (which occurs with systems which require a circulation media), and maintains excellent contamination control at the collar of the borehole. It also drills at any angle from horizontal to vertical.
13. Limitations of Technology (relative to the baseline: faster, better, cheaper, safer):
While the method has produced improvements to the baseline in areas such as increased drilling rates, lower costs and smaller quantities of secondary waste produced, a definite area for improvement is the minimization of downtime which is directly related to equipment failures both in the drill head and drill pipe. Reduction of downtime rates to levels consistent other drilling methods will result in significant cost reductions compared to the current baseline.
14. Major Technical Challenges:
The major challenge is the development of reliable drill pipe for resonant sonic drilling. A resonance monitoring system will provide valuable input in determining the threshold energy levels for the drill pipe design basis. In addition, an accurate measurement system to determine the thermal effects from the bit to the core sample is necessary to develop bits which will maintain temperatures of the contaminants being characterized at acceptable levels (e.g. to avoid volatilizing organics), while maintaining acceptable penetration rates. Directional drilling applications are also being pursued.
15. Technical Effectiveness:
15.1. Performance
15.1.1. Remaining Contamination: (contamination mobility reduction, volume reduction, toxicity reduction)
Summary (20 words or less): As discussed in the sonic test report under difficult drilling conditions, the sonic drill produced substantially less cuttings the cable tool method.
Further Description (unlimited length):
15.1.2. Process Waste
15.1.2.1. Status of waste (mobility, volume, hazard, recyclability)
Summary (20 words or less): Drilling generally produces only the cored sample. On a typical well (8 inch hole diameter) this relates to 1 drum of cuttings for every 60 feet drilled
Further Description (unlimited length):
15.1.2.2. Treatment (needed, available)
Summary (20 words or less): Secondary waste analysis handling treatment is dependant on waste type, radiological, chemical or mixed.
Further Description (unlimited length):
15.1.2.3. Decontamination / Decommissioning
Summary (20 words or less): Drilling tool decontamination typically will involve core tubes/samplers, drill bits, core barrels, and drill rods.
Further Description (unlimited length):
15.1.2.4. Disposal (needed, available)
Summary (20 words or less): Small quantities of secondary drilling waste, disposal contingent on analysis results.
Further Description (unlimited length):
15.1.3. Practicality
15.1.3.1. Foreclose Future Options
Summary (20 words or less): Not applicable
Further Description (unlimited length):
15.1.3.2. Reliability
Summary (20 words or less): Currently sonic drilling is rated as marginal, however recently tested enhancements in industry applications will increase the reliability to an acceptable level.
Further Description (unlimited length): The goal is to reduce overall down time from equipment failure and drilling related problems to less than 10%.
15.1.3.3. Failure Control
Summary (20 words or less): Not applicable
Further Description (unlimited length):
15.1.3.4. Ease of Use
Summary (20 words or less): An experienced operator is required for this method to assess conditions such as what is occurring with the sonic pipe during drilling.
Further Description (unlimited length): At the current time monitoring the effects of resonance and determining whether increases or reductions in energy levels are required for various drilling conditions encountered. The development of a resonance monitoring system will provide instantaneous readings on the changing dynamics in the drill pipe. The integration of overload control mechanisms will reduce the possibility of pipe failure. This will permit the operator to view and evaluate the entire drilling operation without sole focus on speculating whether the resonant energy levels are placing the drill string in a premature failure mode.
15.1.3.5. Infrastructure
Summary (20 words or less): Not available
Further Description (unlimited length):
15.1.3.6. Versatility
Summary (20 words or less): The sonic method has proven it can be used in various soil types while obtaining continuous high quality core samples.
Further Description (unlimited length):
15.1.3.7. System Compatibility
Summary (20 words or less): The system is compatible for mixed waste applications for vertical, horizontal and diagonal holes.
Further Description (unlimited length): This is the result of waste minimization, contamination containment, and mitigation of operational and contaminant exposure of personnel.
15.1.3.8. Off-the-Shelf (procurement ease)
Summary (20 words or less): The sonic system currently in development is not an off the shelf system however, the method may be available via manufacture by mid 1994.
Further Description (unlimited length):
15.1.3.9. Maintainability
Summary (20 words or less): With proper preventative maintenance, the life of a sonic system would be indefinite unless economic conditions or technology advances make it unacceptable. Further Description (unlimited length):
15.1.3.10. Safety Measures
Summary (20 words or less): All drilling methods have operational hazards however, no accidents occurred on the sonic rig during 8 months of operation.
Further Description (unlimited length): Frequent safety meetings and proper protocols are the key.
15.1.4. 'Works' (functions as intended):
Summary (20 words or less): During the sonic feasibility test, even a 20 year old rig (provided by selected contractor) functioned as intended with the exception of the high equipment failure rate.
Further Description (unlimited length):
15.2. Cost
15.2.1. Start-Up Cost
Summary (20 words or less): The costs of obtaining a high quality used rig are approximately $300K. The cost of drill strings are undetermined at this point due to further development required.
Further Description (unlimited length):
15.2.2. Operations and Maintenance Cost
Summary (20 words or less): Will be slightly higher than cable tool (est. approx. 20%) but the increase in productivity will more than offset the increased maintenance costs.
Further Description (unlimited length): Preliminary testing of sonic at the Hanford site resulted in a cost reduction of approximately 15-20% over 11 holes, even though downtime from equipment failures was over 45%. With refinement and development of previously mentioned products/components, it is projected that the downtime can ultimately be reduced to less than 10%, which will result in a substantial reduction of direct drilling costs and durations.
15.2.3. Life-cycle cost
Summary (20 words or less): Less than baseline method, but undetermined at this time.
Further Description (unlimited length):
15.3. Time
15.3.1. Years Until Available
Summary (20 words or less): Sonic Drilling is currently available at this time, however if development needs noted above occur, significant savings will also occur.
Further Description (unlimited length): Full implementation for vertical drilling (wider use on various projects) is 12-24 months. Diagonal and vertical use in medium and high level waste sites is projected to occur in 24-42 months. The following assessments represent best estimates on various application timelines: (1) Vertical and Diagonal Drilling: All chemical and low level radioactive sites) - 1 year; Medium/ high level - 2-3 years (2) Horizontal (see note): Feasibility testing - 1 year; All chemical and low rad - 2-3 years; Medium/ high rad - 3-5 years
Note: Sonic currently is viewed as a possible casing advancement technique for directionally drilled holes under single shell underground mixed waste storage tank farms. Depending on the evolution rate of the method it may become the entire method for installation of these or similar holes for other projects.
15.3.2. Speed/Rate
Summary (20 words or less): Currently drills holes at double the baseline rate but equipment failure reduces full cost savings potential.
Further Description (unlimited length):
15.3.3. Years to Finish
Summary (20 words or less): Not applicable
Further Description (unlimited length):
16. Environmental Safety and Health
16.1. Worker Safety
16.1.1. Exposure to Hazardous Materials/Hazards
Summary (20 words or less): The sonic method has no circulation system and controls waste at the collar of the hole, therefore properly operated it minimizes personnel exposure.
Further Description (unlimited length):
16.1.2. Physical Requirements
Summary (20 words or less): The average noise level is 85-90 DBA, therefore hearing devices are required. Unless in waste sites, standard safety gear is adequate.
Further Description (unlimited length):
16.1.3. Number of People Required
Summary (20 words or less): Typically two people are required to operate the drill, an operator and an assistant.
Further Description (unlimited length):
16.2. Public Health and Safety
16.2.1. Accidents
Summary (20 words or less): The sonic drill has operated 8 months without an accident. Basically no accident or potential hazard to the public exists from operating this method.
Further Description (unlimited length):
16.2.2. Routine Releases
Summary (20 words or less): Not applicable
Further Description (unlimited length):
16.2.3. Transportation
Summary (20 words or less): Not applicable
Further Description (unlimited length):
16.3. Environmental Impacts
16.3.1. Ecological Impacts
Summary (20 words or less): Negligible
Further Description (unlimited length):
16.3.2. Aesthetics
Summary (20 words or less): Not available
Further Description (unlimited length):
16.3.3. Natural Resources
Summary (20 words or less): Not applicable
Further Description (unlimited length):
16.3.4. Energy Demands
Summary (20 words or less): Lights for night operation
Further Description (unlimited length):
17. Socio-Political Interests
17.1. Public Perception
17.1.1. Proponent Reputation
Summary (20 words or less): Acceptability should be high since it controls contamination potential, minimizes waste, operates safely, and minimizes secondary drilling waste.
Further Description (unlimited length):
17.1.2. Familiarity / Understandability
Summary (20 words or less): Recent publications and near term/long duration tests at Hanford should rapidly increase the public's familiarity with this technology.
Further Description (unlimited length):
17.2. Tribal Rights / Future Land Use
17.2.1. Capacity for Unrestricted Use (terrestrial, aquatic)
Summary (20 words or less): Not applicable
Further Description (unlimited length):
17.3. Socio-Economic Interests
17.3.1. Economic Impacts
Summary (20 words or less): Minimal investment with substantial savings potential.
Further Description (unlimited length):
17.3.2. Labor Force Demands
Summary (20 words or less): Typically should function exclusively with contractor support.
Further Description (unlimited length):
18. Regulatory Objectives
18.1. Compatibility with Cleanup Milestones
Summary (20 words or less): Achievable drilling rates assist in meeting these commitments
Further Description (unlimited length):
18.2. Regulatory Infrastructure / Track Record
Summary (20 words or less): Track record is continuing to improve.
Further Description (unlimited length):
18.3. Regulatory Compliance
Summary (20 words or less): The system met regulatory compliance issues during feasibility test in FY1992.
Further Description (unlimited length):
19. Industrial Partnerships
19.1. Company Name:
Water Development Corporation
19.2. Rationale:
Due to the relatively unknown nature of the resonance impacts to drill pipe, teaming with an industry lead contractor for this system is a positive step toward solving is and other equipment reliability issues.
19.3. Contract Mechanism:
Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA)
19.4. Other Potential Companies:
Not applicable
19.5. International:
Not applicable
20. Intellectual Property
20.1. Patent Ownership:
Covered by CRADA
20.2. Other Owners:
Not applicable
20.3. Patent Number:
Not applicable
21. Cost Sharing:
22. Background on this technology (Where did the idea come from? Who else is doing similar work? What have the results been to date? What is the most significant competitor to this technology?):
Sonic drilling was developed in the early 1960's by Albert Bodine and used in the geotechnical and mining industry, specifically for Placer (gold) exploration. Approximately 20 sonic heads were manufactured by Hawker Siddeley (HS) in Canada by 1985. In 1986, HS left the business and sold the remaining sonic equipment to industry contractors. Currently four contractors (three U.S. based and one from Canada) use the sonic method. Water Development Corporation currently has all the patents, documentation files, and previous sonic drilling equipment from the resonant drilling system developed by Al Bodine.
23. Reference Documents:
None available