Internship Report Trenchless Pipe Laying
Internship Report Trenchless Pipe Laying
Internship Report Trenchless Pipe Laying
PASAY
Internship Report
BUQUIRON, GLADWIN D.
Mapua, University
658 Muralla St.
+63 927 4697 505
[email protected]
TRENCHLESS PIPE LAYING – PASAY
Table of Contents
References ............................................................................................................. 17
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Demand for water supply in congested areas under Maynilad Water Services Inc. has
increased the necessity for innovative and economical systems to go underneath and
alongside in-place facilities. Environmental concerns, social (indirect) costs, new and
more stringent safety regulations, difficult underground conditions (containing natural or
artificial obstructions, high water table, etc.) and new developments in equipment have
increased demand for trenchless technology. Trenchless technology methods include all
methods of installing or renewing underground utility systems with minimum disruption of
the surface or subsurface.
According to Najafi (2010), he stressed that the most costly item in trenchless installation
method is pipe installation; usually being estimated on a linear foot basis while open-cut
method spend major cost on excavation, backfilling, pavement replacement, and
shielding or shoring; estimated on a cubic yard or square foot basis. Although trenchless
technology being considered as higher short-term direct costs and remain as barrier to
adopt, Hunt et al. (2012) stated that there would be lack of research to show where the
economic tipping point between the two methods occurs and how it might be influenced
by utility type, pipe number, pipe diameter, number of excavation and reinstatement
procedures avoided, location and the choice of method of installation used.
CHAPTER 2
1.1 Introduction
The chapter represents the past studies and literatures related to the area of this
research. Briefly, the contents from this chapter will guide the research for better
understanding on what information need to be achieved. This chapter will discuss on
option for installing the underground pipelines and utilities. Open-cut method one of the
common methods used in installing underground pipelines. This can be applied widely
but considerations need to be taken to avoid improvidence for the project cost such as
feasibility of the project under certain conditions. Trenchless technology may be an
option for road crossing or river crossing project which is more preferable method in not
only reduce the cost but also less impact on the surrounding environments. Trenchless
bring beneficial for tunnelling underground without caused major disturbance to the
surface. Throughout this chapter, brief explanations on the differences between these
types of installation method: open-cut method and trenchless technology will be
emphasized.
2.2 Tunnels
Tunnelling, especially tunnel excavation by tunnel boring machines (TBM) has increased
in the last three decades (Girmscheid and Schexnayder, 2002). Innovations on the
technology provide more efficiency in tunnelling. Tunnels are unlike other civil
engineering structures where building and bridge materials have defined and testable
properties whereas not in tunnelling which faces uncertainty with the ground and the
general inability to influence its properties. According to Kumar (2005), the development
of countries has affected the engineering design and innovation in engineering which
brought new technologies for tunnelling. Hence, those new technologies may be applied
either in urban areas without major disturbance. Canto-Perello and Curiel-Esparza
(2012b) stated the most comprehensive utility tunnel networks are located in city centre
where traffic congestion is critical, utilities are dense, and the total cost of utility cuts and
traffic interference is great.
The technology of tunnelling advanced from ancient time days until now (Kumar,
2005). There has been considerable development in tunnelling construction
techniques in the last 200 years, especially since Marc Brunel‟s famous first use of
a tunnelling shield when constructing the first tunnel under the River Thames at
London in 1825 (David et al.,2010). Civil engineering as a profession was largely
created in the United Kingdom by the development of the canal system, which itself
was part of the industrial revolution of the eighteenth century (David et al., 2010).
Two significant tunnels of this era included the 2090m Harecastle Tunnel,
constructed using gunpowder as part of the Grand Trunk canal during the 1770s,
and the 5000m long tunnel at Standedge, constructed through millstone grit (David
et al., 2010). The first tunnel underneath a navigable waterway was a tunnel under
the River Thames in London, between Rotherine and Wapping (David et al., 2010).
This tunnel involved tunnelling shield known as „Brunel‟s shield‟, designed by Marc
Brunel. The key function of the shield was support the face and provides safety to
miners. The innovation of tunnelling construction technology brings the
development of rotary tunnelling machine in 1880s that being used at Channel
Tunnel, United Kingdom (David et al., 2010).
Tunnel boring machine (TBM) also one of the methods used for tunnelling. TBM exist in
many different diameters, ranging from micro-tunnelling boring machines with diameters
smaller than 1m to machines for large tunnels, whose diameter greater than 15m and
available for many geological conditions (Jung, 2007). One of the general requirements
for the use of TBM is a consistent geology along the route of the tunnel as the different
cutting tools are only suitable for a small variation in material characteristics while the
combination of different cutting tools on cutter head can increase the application of
machines to a greater range of ground conditions (David et al., 2010).
2.4.1. Advantages
Can be less expensive than trenchless methods in non‐pavement areas.
Applicable for collapsed pipe, severely broken pipe, and heavy root blockages.
Does not require roots or debris to be removed from the pipe.
2.4.2. Disadvantages
More excavation is required than compared to trenchless methods.
May require remove of street and sidewalk pavement which increases expense
of the repair. Does not require roots or debris to be removed from the pipe.
CHAPTER 3
Pipe Jacking
Figure 3.1 illustrates the typical components of a pipe-jacking operation. The cyclic
procedure uses thrust power of the hydraulic jacks to force the pipe forward through the
ground as the pipe jacking face is excavated. The spoil is transported through the inside
of the pipe to the drive shaft or trench, where it is removed and disposed of. After each
pipe segment has been installed, the rams of the jack are retracted so that another pipe
segment can be placed in position for the jacking cycle to begin again. Excavation is
accomplished by hand mining or mechanical excavation within a shield or by a auger
boring machine. Excavation method selection is based on an assessment of the
subsurface for instability. If there is any possibility of excavation face collapse, soil
stabilization techniques, such as dewatering or grouting, must be considered. Pipe
jacking is capable of a high degree of accuracy, as a laser is used to control line and
grade. Installations to an accuracy within an inch are common, with reasonable
anticipated tolerances of between + 3 inches for alignment and + 2 inches for grade.
CHAPTER 4
Pipe Ramming
soil compaction occurring during the ramming process. This technique is employed for
pipes larger than eight inches in diameter, and may be used for either carrier pipe or
casing pipe in a normal road crossing. To facilitate the pipe ramming process, the
leading edge of the first segment of pipe or casing is usually reinforced by welding a
steel band from 6 to 24 inches in width around the exterior of the lead end of the pipe.
This banding provides two distinct advantages: (1) it reinforces the leading edge of the
pipe, and (2) it decreases the amount of friction around the casing as the pipe is
advanced. This band may also be added on the inside of the pipe if desired, or if the
outer casing band is insufficient reinforcement in difficult soil conditions. This interior
and, like the outer casing band, also reduces the soil friction inside of the casing. After
the casing process is complete, the soil that has entered the casing during the ramming
process is removed by the addition of compressed air or water from either end of the
casing if small-diameter casing is used. For larger and oversized casings, augers similar
to those used in auger boring may be used to remove spoil from the casing. In the
largest casings, where man-entry is possible, the casing may be cleaned out by hand or
by the use of a skid-steer loader. An open-ended pipe ramming procedure normally
consists of eight steps:
1. A shaft or pit is constructed as a launch pit.
2. A steel leading-edge band for reinforcement is welded on the leading edge of
the first segment of casing.
3. Casing is placed in the drive shaft or pit, and is adjusted to achieve the desired
line and grade. Where line
and grade are not critical, the pipe can be supported by construction equipment
such as backhoes, cranes,
side-boom tractors, wood or block supports, or directly on the pit floor. In cases
where the achievement of
line and grade are critical, the pipe is supported by adjustable bearing stands,
launch cradles, platforms, Ibeams,
or pipe jacking/ auger boring machine tracks (The final item has the added
advantage of being able
to support augers during the cleanout process, possibly decreasing time spent on
the job.)
4. The pneumatic hammer or pipe ram device is attached to the casing, and is
connected to an air compressor
Typical diameters of pipe installed by pipe ramming range from 6 to 60 inches, though pipe
ramming has been used to install pipe as large as 147” in diameter. Drive lengths can be up
to 200 feet in length, though longer crossings have been completed.
Though this method is limited to steel pipe only, its versatility over a wide range of soil
conditions gives it favour among many contractors who also use it in horizontal directional
drilling (HDD) for drill pipe assists, for drill stem recovery, and for casing in gravelly
conditions (the „conductor barrel‟ method). A significant disadvantage to this method is that
steel casing will require welding, which increases overall job time spent. This disadvantage
has been addressed in the last 10 years by an interlocking steel pipe joining system
developed by Permalok Corporation of St.Louis, Missouri. This preinstalled precision joint
connection provides for rapid joining of steel pipe, many times eliminating the need for in-
field welding and associated down time, which increases productivity. This technology
becomes even more economical if the need for a certified welder on a job site is eliminated,
added to the increase in productivity.
CHAPTER 5
process after the pilot bore is completed, a back reamer is attached to the end of the drill
string, followed by the desired flexible or semi-flexible utility product pipe. The pipe is
installed along a bentonite mud slurry pathway that is created when the back reaming is
complete. Tracking of the pilot bore and back reaming process is enabled by a
radiosonde that is contained within a housing that is within the drill bit. Accuracies of
installation within one inch are possible using the HDD process.
based mud as the bit advances. High volume and velocity in HDD are necessary to carry
cuttings back to the surface through the bore annulus. It should be emphasized that
utility boring is mechanically-assisted fluid cutting of formations, while HDD is fluid-
assisted mechanical cutting of formations. This difference is important in preventing
settlement under structures and roads. Table 5.1 compares the main features of typical
HDD methods.
Figure 5.1 Comparison of the Main Features for Typical HDD methods (Najafi,
2004)
References
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2000. Standard practice for Direct Design of Precast
Concrete Pipe for Jacking in Trenchless Construction. ASCE Standard 27-00.
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2000. Standard Practice for Direct Design of Precast
Concrete Box Sections for Jacking in Trenchless Construction. ASCE Standard 28-00.
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2004. Horizontal Auger Boring Projects. ASCE Manuals
and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 106.
Bennett, David; Ariaratnam, Samuel; and Como, Casey, 2001. HDD Consortium Horizontal
Good Practices Guidelines.
Iseley, Tom, and Gokhale, Sanjiv B., 1997. Trenchless Installation of Conduits Beneath
Roadways – a Synthesis of Highway Practice. National Research Council of
Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NCHRP Synthesis 242.
Iseley, Tom; Najafi, Mohammed; and Tanwani, Raj, 1999 Trenchless Construction Methods and
Soil Compatibility Manual, 3rd ed.
Najafi, Mohammad, 2004. Trenchless Technology – Pipeline and Utility Design, Construction,
and Renewal. McGraw-Hill.
Shahin, M.Y., and Crovetti, J.A., 1985. Final Report for the Street Excavation Impact
Assessment for the City of Burlington, Vermont. Prepared by ERES Consultants,
Champaign, IL, June 12, 1985.
Simicevic, Jadranka, and Sterling, Raymond L., 2001. Guidelines for Impact Moling. Trenchless
Technology Center of Louisiana Technological University Technical Report #2001-03,
prepared for the United States Army Corps of Engineers Engineering Research And
Development Center.