Professional Documents
Culture Documents
864
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 07/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Emerging Technologies:
A Suggested Design Method for Curved, Jacked Steel Pipe
J.L. Robison, P.E.1, R.D. Hotz, II, P.E.2 and C.C. Chen, Ph.D.3
1
Pipelines 2013
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 07/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
865
A simplified description of
the construction method of a
DMT or DP is to think of a
combination of HDD and
microtunnelling. As with
conventional microtunnelling,
a microtunnel boring machine
(MTBM) head is jacked
through the soil. However, to
create the desired curve,
Pipe Thruster
articulated joints within the
machine assembly provide
Figure 1. Schematic of Direct Pipe Crossing
for steering capability as the
pipe is jacked producing a
curved alignment similar to
those possible with HDD
(see Figure 1). Unlike HDD,
the hole is continuously
supported
and
during
installation the pipe is in
compression, not tension.
Also unlike HDD, the soil
formations in the near
vicinity of the tunneling
machine are not subject to
high pressures from slurry
Figure 2. Pipe Thruster and String
systems. Unlike traditional
microtunnelling, the entry and exit pits may be designed at or near the ground
surface, eliminating the expense of deep entry and exit pits required for straight-line,
conventional microtunnelling. Also unlike traditional microtunneling, the use of the
pipe thruster allows the pipe to be jacked in a continuous string by clamping around
the pipe. A photograph of a pipe thruster and stringing area is shown in Figure 2.
Pipelines 2013
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 07/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
866
There are some obvious technical challenges to consider with the above-described
process. There are also many benefits. The obvious advantage of this method over
conventional microtunneling is the near-surface entry and exit to a large extent
reduces the requirements of deep excavations. Compared to a conventional
microtunnel, a curved drive allows for potentially much shallower entry and exit pits.
Compared to an HDD, DP or DMT allows:
1. Potentially much shorter and shallower drives (see Figure 3 below).
2. Continuous support of drilled hole potentially for crossing of gravels and
other collapse-prone soils.
3. Significant reduction of hydraulic fracture and inadvertent returns risk.
Figure 3 below graphically depicts the potential differences between DP/DMT and
HDD techniques. As discussed above, length and depth requirements may be greatly
reduced for DP/DMT versus a traditional HDD.
Pipelines 2013
867
Items 1 thru 3 are discussed in this paper, item 4 is not discussed in this paper as it is
the same evaluation used for HDD; a good reference for calculation of item 4 is the
PRCI Design Guide (Watson, 1995).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 07/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Pipelines 2013
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 07/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
868
Pipelines 2013
869
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 07/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Following the guidance provided in Chapter 3 of API Recommended Practice 2AWSD (API), the following stress conditions should be considered:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Additionally, buckling must be considered between the jacking frame or pipe thruster
and the launch seal (or where the pipe enters the ground and is assumed to be laterally
supported against buckling).
Buckling
For jacked, curved pipe, the buckling analysis takes one of three forms, depending on
the diameter to wall thickness ratio (D/t) of the jacking pipe. Assuming that D/t is less
than 60, and we do not recommend that it be greater than 60 for steel trenchless
installations, then the allowable axial compressive stress (Fa) is calculated using the
methods described in API 3.2.2. The length used in the buckling calculation is the
distance between the pipe thruster clamp and the entry seal. (See Figure 5. The pipe
thruster clamp is in the foreground, and the launch seal is incorporated in the far sheet
pipe wall.) Once the pipe has passed the entry seal it is assumed to be essentially fully
supported as the pipe overcut is on the order of one inch, and it is partially filled with
slurry lubrication fluid.
Figure 5. Direct Pipe Launch Pit with Pipe Thruster and Launch Seal
Pipelines 2013
870
Where P is the applied load and A is the cross-sectional area of the pipe. The
allowable axial stress (Fa) is then calculated using the equations in API section 3.2.2,
depending upon the pipe D/t, the steel design strength (Fy), the unbraced length, and
Youngs Modulus of elasticity for steel. A factor of safety is built in to the Fa
calculations. Therefore, to check that the design is acceptable, the applied
compressive stress must simply be less than the allowable.
Bending Stress
To calculate the design factor of safety for bending stress, first the applied stress (fb)
is calculated from the estimated maximum load by the following equation derived
from beam mechanics from the PRCI design guide:
=
24
Where E is the steel modulus of elasticity, D is the pipe diameter (in inches) and R is
the radius of pipe curvature (in feet).
The allowable bending stress (Fb) is then calculated using one of three equations in
API section 3.2.3, depending upon the pipe D/t and the steel design strength (Fy). A
factor of safety is built in to the Fb calculations. Therefore, to check that the design is
acceptable, the applied bending stress must simply be less than the allowable.
Hoop Stress
To calculate the design factor of safety for hoop stress, first the applied stress (fh) is
calculated from the estimated external and internal pressures by the following
equation from the PRCI design guide:
=
Pipelines 2013
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 07/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
871
1.0
And
1.0
If fa/Fa is less than or equal to 0.15, then the following formula is used in lieu of the
first two.
1.0
Pipelines 2013
872
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 07/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
1.0
1.0
And
If fx is greater than 0.5Fha, then the following formula is used in lieu of the first two.
0.5
0.5
1.0
Combining all of the stress analyses factors of safety together with the combined
stress analyses, we can develop the graph below (Figure 7. Stress and Capacity
Analysis) that details the design checks of the adequacy of the proposed pipe for the
anticipated jacking loads and geometry. Note that because the allowable compressive,
bending and hoop stress calculations (Fa, Fb, and Fh) include required factors of
safety, the indicated capacity analysis (capacity divided by anticipated stress) must
simply be greater than 1.0. The combined stress analyses are the results of the
equations given above and must be less than 1.0; only the highest set of combined
stress calculations is presented for clarity. The hoop stress capacity analysis does not
appear on the graph because it is much higher than the other analyses, i.e., for the
example scenario the hoop capacity is much greater than the anticipated applied
stress.
Pipelines 2013
873
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 07/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
If the completed analysis results indicate that stress violations are likely at the asdesigned geometry and pipe specifications, then the geometry and/or pipe
specifications may need to be altered to provide for an acceptable design.
After the pipe geometry, stress conditions, and other parameters are summarized in
the design model, it is very simple to assess higher than anticipated loads by
replacing the anticipated, calculated jacking loads with arbitrary values. This analysis
provides a maximum load that may not be exceeded without potential stress
violations for a given pipe geometry and pipe strength and size specifications.
The maximum allowable load should be compared to the anticipated jacking force
load and a decision made whether the design is acceptable or if pipe specifications or
geometry should be changed to provide a larger cushion between allowable and
anticipated loading. Several factors must be weighed in this evaluation, including the
confidence the designer has in the anticipated jacking load calculations, the amount
and quality of geotechnical information available, the consequences of a failed drive,
the amount of risk of which the owner is tolerant, and many other site-specific
factors.
APPLICATIONS
The authors have provided detailed design services on four DMT and DP crossings
for 2013 construction and are currently providing preliminary design services on
several additional crossings. These trenchless sites all have geometry or geotechnical
issues that make an auger bore, traditional microtunnel, or HDD infeasible, costly,
and/or risky.
Specifically, the following challenging conditions have been faced:
1. Deep, granular (gravels, cobbles) soils not optimal for HDD work.
2. Short, shallow design profiles required by right of way constraints and
geologic conditions.
3. Continuous casing in a curved drive beneath an Interstate highway.
SUMMARY
The DP and DMT trenchless applications offer great promise and utility to the
pipeline engineer needing to cross an area with a minimum of impactparticularly
where traditional methods such as HDD or microtunneling are not possible or risky
due to geometry and geological conditions. DP and DMT technology is gaining
acceptance in the American pipeline design community and has been shown to work
in Europe where more than 15 DP crossings have been completed. Engineering
design and stress analyses for these crossings is possible using the design procedures
discussed above, and it is responsible for owners to require the analysis be completed.
As data is gathered from future construction projects, additional refinements in the
design procedures will be possible.
Pipelines 2013
874
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 07/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
REFERENCES
API Recommended Practice 2A-WSD. (21st Ed., December 2000, with errata and
supplements December 2002, September 2005, and October 2007).
Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed
Offshore Platforms-Working Stress Design.
Bennett, D., Cording E.J. (1999). Jacking Loads Associated with Microtunneling.
Geo-Engineering for Underground Facilities, G. Fernandez and R.A. Butler,
eds., ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 90, 731-745.
Lang, G. (2012). Herrenknecht AG, Personal Communication.
Staheli, K. (2006). Jacking Force Prediction: An Interface Friction Approach Based
On Pipe Surface Roughness. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgia Institute of
Technology.
Watson, D. (1995). Installation of Pipelines by Horizontal Directional Drilling an
Engineering Design Guide. Pipeline Research Council International, Inc.
Pipelines 2013