Pipe Jacking Force PDF

Loughborough University
Institutional Repository
Pipe jacking forces in sand

This item was submitted to Loughborough University's Institutional Repository
by the/an author.
Additional Information:
• A Doctoral Thesis. Submitted in partial fullment of the requirements for

the award of Doctor of Philosophy of Loughborough University
Metadata Record: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/15343
Publisher: c Shak Joseph Yonan

Please cite the published version.

This item was submitted to Loughborough University as a PhD thesis by the
author and is made available in the Institutional Repository
(https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/) under the following Creative Commons Licence
conditions.
For the full text of this licence, please go to:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/
- - - - - - -- -- -- -
LOUGHBOROUGH
UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
LIBRARY
AUTHOR / FILING TITLE
________________yQr::'_~+-- ~,'!.~.:-- _________ _

. .,.~~ .
" - 'vi"
- - - -- - ---- -- - ------ -----.-.-.;;.:~ ---- --- - - -- - - - ----- --_ .
ACCESSION / COPY ,!'iO,' , --
....... I. _~.',' .;P'"
)f'r\~t'." ______
- _____.. '~"V" ~CI':>
,. . ~ ____ _ _ -:- _ 'S
_ '____
<f- 'if_10·'
_ .J _________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ •
VOL. NO. CLASS MARK
(' • !_ r
28 FE
0400848562
11111111111111111 1111111 111111 11111

PIPE JACKmG FORCES m SAND
By
Shafik Joseph Yonan
A Doctoral Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of The

Requirements for The Award of Doctor of Philosophy of
Loughborough University of Technology
October 1993
Supervisor; Dr CDF Rogers

Department of Civil Engineering
@ ShaflkJoseph Yonan, 1993

Loughborough Unive rsity
of T~chnolog y Library
- .... .... -~
Dale \vi c;.r '1 v(

Class
'ACe.
No. (!\{ (io 'b' 't '6 ) b
TO ny :F'ATH:ER JOS:E:PH
& ny nOTH:ER JA.N£T
"Fat" lwet"yone that exatts ft.i.msdf wiU be ft.umbted
amt ft.e that ft.umbtes ft.i.msdf wiU be e"attm"
L..r.e 14:12
ABSTRACT
In this research work, a comprehensive review of investigations into pipe jacking

operations, and in particular the forces generated during the process, is presented.
The factors affecting these forces were examined and their influence was studied in
order to give a clear indication on the their magnitude and behaviour .
A model scale testing facility, based on a 1.8m X 1.5m X 1.5m high steel tank, has
been developed together with hydraulic jacking facilities and scale model pipes of
200mm diameter having both steel and concrete surfaces. In this facility the actual
pipe jacking operation can be simulated, so that a study of the jacking forces could
be made with the use of appropriate instrumentation techniques and computerised

data recording.
A series of tests was conducted to examine the influence of several parameters on the
jacking forces, such as overcut ratio, type of soil, type of pipe surface, overburden
pressure, and the rate of jacking. These parameters were in relation to the distance
jacked.
Two granular soils, uniformly graded Leighton Buzzard sand and well-graded River
sand, were used as the material surrounding the pipeline, that is the material through
which the pipes were jacked . Laboratory analysis on the soil materials was
conducted and the relationship between results obtained from these tests and scale
model testing were established. The interface friction between the surface of the
pipeline and the surrounding soil was determined. The results show a peak in the
jacking forces at the start of the jacking process, followed by a decrease and
i
-- --- ----------- ---
leveling off as the jacking continued. The graph is very similar to the stress/strain
relationship of a typical granular soil . Both steel and concrete pipes were used in
the tests to detennined the influence of pipe surface, and to a lesser degree pipe joint,
characteristics. Higher forces were recorded for concrete pipes. The jacking rate
was kept constant and consistent for all tests. It was found to have little effect on the
magnitude of the jacking forces.
The jacking forces were measured automatically using a computer. The results
show a clear trend of increase in the jacking forces when the overburden pressure
and jacking length were increased . Tests using different overcut ratios have
indicated that a minimum jacking force might be achieved at a specific overcut ratio.
The results of this research show that the jacking forces are influenced by a number
of parameters. These include the overburden pressure, overcut ratio, pipe diameter,
jacking length and the influence of the surrounding material . This is fully
demonstrated by establishing I a method of jacking forces prediction, termed herein
Ithe Loughborough Method. I
ii
LIST OF SYMBOLS
A - Skempton's pore pressure parameter for undrained triaxial tests.

B - Pipe diameter (m), or width of circular tunnel (m) .
B0 - Half width of rectangular tunnel (m) .
BI - Width of rectangular tunnel (m) .

C - Cohesion (kN/m2) .
Cu - Undrained cohesion (kN/m2) .
D - Depth of pipeline (m), or height of soil cover (m) .
F Jacking Force (kN) .
Fb - Net positive buoyancy per metre (kN/m2) .
F0 _ Shield resistance (kN) .
Fr - Frictional Resistance (kN) .
Fs - Resistance force per unit length of tunnel (kN/m) .
Fu - Force per unit length of tunnel (kN/m) .
Fw - Coefficient of frictional resistance due to the weight of the pipe

(kN/m2) .
Gs - Specific gravity .
H - Loughborough rate of frictional increase (kN/m2) .
HI - Height of rectangular tunnel (m) .
K - Loughborough Coefficient of pipe jacking friction (kN/m2) .
Ko - Coefficient of earth pressure at rest (empirical coefficient) .
KI - Loughborough Coefficient of overburden pressure.

L - Jacking Distance (m) .
LI - Distance of propulsion (m) .
LF - Load factor.
M - Slope of the critical state line.
N - Stability number, or stability ratio.
Ne - Stability ratio at collapse.
N' - Normal Effective Force (kN) .
P Cutting edge force (kN) .
ill
Po - Radial pressure on tunnel (kN/m2) .
P1 - Total force on the top half of the tunnel (kN) .
P2 - Total force on the bottom half of the tunnel (kN) .
PID - Skin friction of pipeline (kN/m2) .
p. - Strength of soil face (kN/m2) .

p. 1 _ Heading resistance (kN) •
p.2 - Cutting resistance (kN) .

Pv - Vertical pressure at the crown of the pipe allowing for arching
(kN/m2) .
Ph - Average horizontal pressure on side of the pipe allowing for arching
(kN/m2) .
Ps - Penetration resistance (kN) .
Pu - Total normal force on the surface per unit length (kN/m) .
Pw - Water pressure (kN/m2) .

R - Overcut Ratio.
Rf - Frictional resistance between the pipe and the soil (kN/m2) .
SI - Circumference of the pipe (m) .
S External surface area of pipeline = 1t D L (m2) .
V - Specific volume (m3) •
W - Weight per unit length of pipe (kN/m2) .
X - Distance from the front face of the Model Test Box (m) .
a Adhesive force (kN) .
b Radius of pipe (m) , or half width of circular tunnel (m) .
c Rate of increase in frictional resistance, (Loughborough constant) .
f Coefficient of the frictional resistance due to the weight of the pipe
(kN/m2) .
g Gravity force (rn/s2) .
p Tip resistance (kN/m2) .
p' - Mean normal effective stress (kN/m2) .
q Overburden Pressure (kN/m2) .
q' - Effective deviator stress (kN/m2), or Effective shear stress (kN/m2) .
r Radius of excavation (m) .
iv
t Thickness of the cutting edge (m) .
u' - Change in pore water pressure for undrained triaxial test (kN/m2).
v Volumetric change (m3).
w - Soil pressure perpendicular to pipe (kN{m2) .
wl'w2- Soil pressure horizontal to pipe (kN{m2) .
wg - Weight per unit length of pipe (kN/m2) .
a. Parabola constant.
Constant angle iof friction between the soil and
- -- -- - -
the pipe
-....,.
surface (degree) .,
,
Coefficient of Friction.
Internal angle of friction of soil (degree) .
Drained internal angle of friction of soil (degree).
Internal angle of friction between concrete /steel and soil from

the shear box test (degree). .
'c - Internal angle of friction at critical state (degree) .
Internal angle of friction between the pipline and the surrounding

soil (degree) .
<1>. - Internal angle of friction of the soil from the shear box test (degree) .
<l>p Peak internal angle of friction (degree).
<1>', - Residual internal angle of friction (degree) ,
<l>u - Undrained internal angle of friction of soil (degree),
<l>s/c - Internal angle offriction of soiVconcrete interface (degree) .
<1>'/51 - Internal angle of friction of soiVsteel interface (degree) .
'l' - Dilation angle of soil (degree) .

'Y Soil density (kN/m3) .
er Applied direct stress per unit area (kN{rn2) .
er! _ Major principal stress (kN/m2) .
er3 - Triaxial cell pressure, or minor principal stress (kN/m2) •
er. - Shear stress (kN/rn2) .
v
O"t - Internal stress inside a tunnel (kN/m2) .
<>r - Tunnel support pressure (kN/m2) .
O"v - Vertical pressure on tunnel (kN/rn2) .
O"h - Horizontal pressure on tunnel (kN/m2) .

A. Coefficient ofload bearing capacity .
't Shear strength (kN/m2) .
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all I wish to thank the Department of Civil Engineering, Loughborough

University of Technology, headed by Professor R McCaffer, for allowing me
to conduct this research work . My special gratitude goes to my supervisor

Dr CDF Rogers for his guidance, valuable discussions and helpful suggestions
throughout the entire research project. The assistance of the laboratory staff, who
made it possible for this project to be conducted smoothly, is greatly appreciated.
I am grateful to Brian Colquhoun and Partners for their permission to publish

information relevant to my case study.
I wish to express my thanks to all my friends and fellow researchers for their help
and support especially Ghada Eid for her continuous encouragement and assistance
in preparing this thesis.
Finally I have to acknowledge the very considerable contribution of my parents who

supported me through all my education. I would like to thank them for their
encouragement in persuing this work, therefore, to them I would dedicate this
thesis.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT i
LIST OF SYMBOLS Hi
ACKNOWLEGDEMENTS vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS viii
CHAPTER ONE 1
1- INTRODUCTION 2
1.1- Tunnels and pipelines 2

1.2- The construction of pipelines 4
1.3- Trenchless techniques 7
1.3.1- Pipe jacking 9
1.3.2- Microtunnelling 10
1.3.3- Auger boring 11
1.3.4- Earth displacement hammer 13
1.3.5- Pipe ramming 14
1.3.6- Pipe bursting 15
1.3.7- Horizontal drilling 16
1.4- Factors affecting the choice of pipeline construction 17
1.4.1- Engineering cost 18
1.4.2- Social cost 19
1.4.3- The size of the market 21
1.4.4- The need of the client 21
viii
1.4.5- The cost of trenchless construction 23
1.4.6- Comparisons between trenching and 24
trenchless pipe laying costs
1.5- Aims of the research 25
1.6- Guide to the thesis 27
CHAPTER TWO 29
2- REVIEW OF PIPE JACKING 31
2.1- Introduction and brief history of pipe jacking 31
2.2- Installation techniques 36

2.2.1- Introduction 36
2.2.2- Pipe jacking techniques 37
2.2.2.1- The jacking shaft 37
2.2.2.2- Conventional pipe jacking 39
2.2.2.3- Mechanised pipe jacking 40
2.2.2.4- U ni-Tunnel system 42
2.2.2.5- Large-Bore pipe jacking 43

2.3- Soil mechanics aspects of pipe jacking 44
2.3.2- The theory of ground pressure on tunnels 44
2.3.3- Tunnels through soft ground 47

2.4- Pipe jacking forces 48
2.4.2- Theoretical analysis 49
ix
2.4.2.1-CIRIA approach 50
2.4.2.2- Auld's analysis 53
2.4.2.3- Haslem's analysis 56
2.4.2.4- Japanese analysis 58
2.4.2.5- Herzog's study 59
2.4.3- Experimental and field investigation 64
2.5- Factors affecting the jacking forces 66

2.5.1- Type of soil 66
2.5.2- Amount of overcut 70
2.5.2.1- Non-closure of overcut 70
2.5.2.2- Closure of overcut 71
2.5.3- Overburden pressure 72
2.5.4- Misalignment 72
2.5.5- The length of the pipeline 73
2.5.6- The rate of jacking 74
2.6- Methods of reducing the jacking forces 75
2.6.2- Lubrication 75
2.6.3- Special jacking pipes 77
2.6.3.1- Pipe surface 78

2.6.3.2- High strength pipes 78
2.6.3.3- The use of special materials 79
2.6.4- Intermediate jacking station 79
2.6.5- Overcut ratio 80
2.7- Concluding discussion 81
x
CHAPTER THREE 86
3· THE IDEOLOGY OF THE RESEARCH 87

3.1- Introduction 87
3.2- Methods of investigation 88
3.3- Factors influencing the jacking forces 92
3.3.1- Type of soil 92
3.3.1.1- Cohesive soil 92
3.3.1.2- Cohesionless soil 93
3.3.1.3- The density and dilation of 94
cohesionless soil
3.3.4- The size and length of a pipeline 97
3.3.5- Pipe surface 97
3.3.6- Pipe joint 98
3.3.7- The rate of jacking 98
3.3.8- Misalignment 99
3.4- Boundary conditions 99
3.5- Testing programme 101
xi
CHAPTER FOUR 103
4- MATERIAL CHARACTERIZA nON 104

4.2- Geology 105
4.2.1- Leighton Buzzard sand 105
4.2.1- River (Concrete) sand 105
4.3- Material properties and laboratory testing 105
4.3.1- Particle size distribution 106
4.3.2- Density 107
4.3.3- Specific Gravity 108
4.4- Shear Resistance 109
4.4.1- Direct shear test 109
4.4.2- The triaxial test 111
4.4.3- Special shear test 112
4.5- Test results 114
4.5.1- Soil parameters and comparison of 114
shear resistance
4.5.2- Dilation, contraction and critical state of sand 117
4.6- The concept of soiVsoil friction and its relation 120
to soiVpipe surface friction
4.7- The need for laboratory testing and correlation 121
with pipe jacking scale model testing
xii
CHAPTER FIVE 123
S· EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF PIPE JACKING 124

5.1· Introduction 124
5.2· Equipment 125
5.2.1· The test box 125

5.2.2· The test rig 127
5.2.3· Application of the overburden pressure 127
5.2.4· The model pipes 128

5.2.4.1- Concrete pipes 129
5.2.4.2· Steel pipes 130
5.2.5· The loading arrangement 130
5.2.6· The excavation technique 131
5.3- Instrumentation 132

5.3.1- Measurement of the jacking forces 132
5.3.2- Measurement of pipe displacement 133
5.3.3- Measurement of overburden pressure 133
5.3.4- Data logging arrangement 134
5.3.4.1- Signal conditioning module 134-

5.3.4.2- A-D converter 134
5.3.4.3- Micro-Computer 135
5.3.4.4- Displacement transducer 135
5.3.4.5- Load cell 136
5.3.5- Instrumentation accuracy and tolerances 136
5.4- Experimental procedure 136
5.4.1- Experimental preparation 137
xiii
5.4.2- Experimental installation procedure 137
. 5.4.3- Method of excavation 140
5.4.4- Measurement of overcut 141
5.4.5- Measurement of jacking forces and pipe 141
displacement
5.4.6- Completion of the test 142

5.5- Programme of experimental work 143
CHAPTER SIX 145
6- RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTAL WORK 146

6.2- Preliminary test results 147
6.3- Main test results 148
6.4- Jacking forces behaviour 149
6.4.3- The type of soil 158
6.4.4- Pipe surface 160
6.4.5- Jacking distance 161
6.4.6- Pipe joints 161
6.5- Concluding remarks 163
xiv
CHAPTER SEVEN
164
7. INTERPRETATlONOF THE RESULTS 166
7.2- Jacking forces 167
7.2.1- Penetration resistance 167
7.2.2- Frictional resistance 171
7.2.2.1- Effect of overburden pressure 177
7.2.2.2- Effect of jacking distance 181
7.3- Reduction of frictional resistance 183
7.3.2- Pipe joints 185
7.3.3- Soil/Pipe surface interface 186
7.4. Comparison between laboratory and model testing 188
7.4.1- Shear force 188
7.4.2- cJ>m value 197
7.4.3- Particle size distribution 199
7.5- Case studies 201
7.S.1- Tyneside sewerage scheme 201
7.S.1.1- Geology and construction operations 201
7.S.1.2- Drive (E w ·El) 204
7.S.1.3- Drive (E2-El) 20S
7.S.1.4- Drive (E3-E2) 206
7.S.1.S- Concluding discussion 207
xv
7.5.2- MI-Al Scheme 209
7.5.2.1- Geology and ground conditions of the area 209
7.5.2.2- Pipe jack details 210
7.5.2.3- Jacking forces 211
7.5.2.4- Conclusion 212
7.5.3- Previous studies 213
7.5.3.1- CIRIA technical Note 112 213
7.5.3.2- Herzog's investigation 215
7.5.3.3- Methods reported by 217
Stein, Mollers and Bielecki
7.5.3.4- Work by Auld 219
7.5.4- Concluding discussion 221
CHAPTER EIGHT 223
8- CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK . 224

8.2- Jacking forces 224
8.3- Overcut ratio 226
8.4- Pipe/Soil interface and jacking forces 229
8.5- Pipe joints 230
8.6- Recommendationsfor future work 231
xvi
REFERENCES 234
BIBLIOGRAPHY 244
APPENDIX (I) : THE GEOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL 250
PROPERTIES OF THE MATERIALS
APPENDIX (I1) : INSTRUMENTATION CALIBRATION 258

AND TOLERANCES
APPENDIX (HI) : PHOTOGRAPHS 260
xvii
Chapter 1 IntroductiDn
CHAPTER ONE
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 TUNNELS AND PIPELINES
1.2 THE CONSTRUCTION OF PIPELINES
1.3 TRENCHLESS TECHNIQUES

1.3.1 PIPE JACKING
1.3.2 MICROTUNNELLING
1.3.3 AUGER BORING
1.3.4 EARTII DISPLACEMENT HAMMER
1.3.5 PIPE RAMMING
1.3.6 PIPE BURSTING
1.3.7 HORIZONTAL DRILLING
1.4 FACTORS AFFECTING THE CHOICE OF PIPELINE

CONSTRUCTION
1.4.1 ENGlNEERING COST
1.4.2 SOCIAL COST
1.4.3 THE SIZE OF THE MARKET
1.4.4 THE NEED OF THE CLIENT
1.4.5 THE COST OF 1RENCHLESS CONSTRUCTION
1.4.6 COMPARISONS BETWEEN· TRENCHlNG AND
1RENCHLESS PIPELAYING COSTS
1.5 AIMS OF THE RESEARCH
1.6 GUIDE TO THE THESIS
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 TUNNELS AND PIPELINES
Ever since the world was created, nature has contributed to building passages and
tunnels through the ground. Since ancient times, when the civilizations began, men
have used tunnels for transporting peoples, goods and water . The first arched
passage was built in the 22nd century B.C under the temporarily diverted River
Euphrates in Mesopotamia (Szechy, 1966).
The Greeks, as poineers of ancient tunnel engineering, built a l000m long tunnel for
water supply on the island of Samos in the 6th century BC . During the Roman
Empire, many advances were achieved in road and tunnel engineering. Most of the
tunnels were built for water supply, especially those linked to the aqueducts
which supplied Rome with water . They also used underground passages for
drainage and sometimes for transportation (Szechy, 1966 and Beaver, 1972) .
These ancient tunnels were built by simple and crude methods using hard labour and
a large number of men. Only simple and basic tools and machinery were used
during construction. In modem history, tunnel building has changed dramatically
and become a more complicated process requiring special machinery, highly skilled
labour, large quantaties of materials and technical knowledge.
Different systems have been adopted in this century. The submerged tube technique
has been used for river crossings, in which the tunnel is prefabricated in long
2
Chapter I Introduction
lengths in a dry dock. Excavating machines working within a tunnel have been
developed and been combined with shields in very powerful tunnelling machines.
Ground treatment by injecting different types of chemical grout has improved the
ground conditions and reduced its permeability. Freezing can also provide
temporary strength and impermeability . In rock, rock bolting can be used as a
method of preserving the integrity of a rock mass during tunnelling . Sprayed

concrete lining, applied immediately after exposure, can prevent progressive
loosening of the rock.
As a type of tunnel, pipelines are constructed for a large number of reasons
including conveying water from springs, reservoirs or rivers, and conveying other
fluids and gasses. They also can be used for public utility services for carrying
power, telephone and other cables. Sewer pipelines are constructed for the removal
of domestic and industrial sewage. These pipelines are usually built in urban areas
and they commonly pass under roads and buildings. Construction of these pipelines
or tunnels can be carried out either by open cut excavation (trenching technique) or
by eliminating the necessity of open trenches and disturbance to the other services
(trenchless technique) .
The demand for new pipelines has increased in busy cities and under congested
urban areas, and there is also a growing need for replacement of existing pipes,
especially those built during the last century, which are wearing out.
---- -----------------------
Chapter 1 I ntroduc!ion
1.2 THE CONSTRUCTION OF PIPELINES
A pipeline is provided according to the basic requirements of the service it is to
provide . The size, shape, level, line and the length of a pipeline is chosen
according to the type of service and this information is used to determine the
installation techniques that can be used for the system. Pipeline systems have to
withstand the physical properties of the fluids or services that they are transporting
and the surrounding medium. They must also prevent the permeability of fluids
through their wall lining i, unless used as porous drains.
Installation of the pipelines can be achieved in many different ways . The
Babylonians, used a long tube of bricks, waterproofed with asphalt, for building
tunnels under water to provide a passage (Fry and Twaits, 1985) . Rock ducts were
used to form a tunnel called "quaats", which was used in ancient civilizations to
carry water from its source on a mountainside down to the valleys. The Romans
were perhaps the major pioneers of water supply systems, especially the aqueducts
which supplied Rome with water, (Szechy, 1966 and Fry and Twaits, 1985) .
The fIrst major use of tunnel construction in modern history began with the age of
canals. BruneI's great Thames tunnel was the first to pass under a tidal river and
was the fIrst shield driven tunnel. BruneI used the fIrst shield tunnel-lining due to
the difficulty of temporary support in poor soil conditions where the tunnel passed
under the bed of the river. He therefore suggested that they should open the ground
in such a manner that no more earth shall be displaced than is to be fIlled by the shell
or the body of the tunnel. The tunnel was built between 1825 and 1841 and
BruneI's shield was designed to provide a skin covering the ground on all sides, a
------
Chapter 1 Introductinn
means to suppon the face and yet provide access for excavation. He also devised a
method of moving the shield forward into the excavated space so that the permanent
lining could be built at the back (Boardman, 1960, Sandstrom 1963 and Beaver,
1972) .
Due to recent developments, pipelines can be constructed by two different methods,
depending on the structural requirement, kind of service and the economy of
construction. The first involves the use of the trenching system, where the pipeline
is positioned on a rigid bed after digging an open trench in the ground . This
method has the advantages of being cheap and easy to construct in open areas, but
requires deeper consideration in highly built up areas. It is thus most suitable for
laying pipelines through large, or green field sites or in areas where construction
access to the site is permitted and where there is minimal disturbance to the flow of
traffic above ground.
The second method involves the use of tunnels for opening a hole through the
ground with no disturbance to the soil on the top. This method requires traditionally
sufficient size for man-entry to allow excavation to be carried out at the front while
the lining is placed immediately behind . It is considered to be one of the most
difficult construction methods in civil engineering because proper site investigation

is needed, a high degree of accuracy is required for alignment and good planning for
the installation of the temporary and permanent linings . It is expensive and time
consuming, and can require large resources and a big construction site.
In Japan and Germany where microtunnelling was poineered, new microtunnelling
machines were developed for the demand of the market. Two machines emerged,
5
the Slurry Tunnel Boring machine (STB) and the Earth Pressure Balance machine
(EPB) (Moss,1989) . The EPB machines are most suited to cohesive and fine
grained soils, and they are also capable of handling coarse granular materials
including cobbles and even homogeneous rocks. Other developments include the
Super Mini Micro tunnelling system which was developed and used for many small
pipe jacking projects. The tunnelling method is based on the proven slurry shield
technology and the use of temporary pipes, a computer-aided control panel and a
laser guidance system (Hayashi and Miyata, 1989) . This machine is capable of
jacking pipes up to l5Qm with good accuracy, and having adaptable excavation
heads to suit almost all types of soils. The German Witt system was developed for a
full range of rnicrotunnelIing installations of pipe diameters ranging from 150 to
800rnm (Beaumount, 1989).
Underground services are usually encased in a pipeline to protect service lines and
fluid pipelines must have integrity to keep fluids flowing inside. The pipeline
should be capable of withstanding the overburden pressure from the soil above, in
addition to surface surcharges if applicable. It also should be durable against
corrosion from contact with the internal and external materials. Special pipeline
materials may be required when dealing with special substances or soils.
For most underground services, trenching systems have proved adequate for many
years, but recently tunnelling techniques have been prefered due to several factors.
These techniques, known as trenchless pipelaying techniques, will be fulIy
explained in due course.
6
1.3 TRENCHLESS TECHNIQUES
In recent years, there has been increasing concern at the total cost, both socially and
economically, of installing services in trenches and attention has focused on
trenchless pipelaying . Trenchless pipelaying includes the techniques of
microtunnelling, pipe jacking, pipe bursting, pipe ramming, moling and other
systems where small-diameter tunnels are constructed using remote-controlled
equipment where no man entry into the tunnel is possible or where hand excavation
is not practical for larger diameter tunnels.
Generally, tunnelling is a suitable method of constructing larger sewers in deep

significant
ground without causing any'disturbance to the surroundings. As a result, different
manufacturing industries have developed and supplied suitable boring equipment,
both manual and remote-controlled. The introduction of different methods of
excavation has occured to meet the growing demand for such technology. These
initiatives have resulted in a reduction in the size of pipes that can be installed
trenchlessly .
The estimation of the potential market for trenchless techniques has fluctuated in
different countries. Three countries, Japan, West Germany, and the UK, appear to
have established a significant lead over other countries in adopting this technique. In
both the UK and West Germany, the technique has developed due to the density of
! ageing urban infrastructure in which new underground services are needed . In
Japan, the need for less disruptive construction methods arises from the need to
install new pipe infrastructures within cities that do not have them.
7
Irvine (1985) concluded that non-man entry tunnels are cheaper than pipe
construction in manually excavated tunnels. In bad ground the costs of forming a
man entry hole by pipe jacking, segmental tunnelling and minitunnelling are all very
similar. Man entry tunnel and pipe jack systems become less competitive for the
smaller size of service pipeline because the excavation and installation of the main
lining are in effect temporary works allowing the construction of the main pipeline.
However, if the unused part of the tunnel space could be used for installing other
services, then the unit costs would be reduced considerably. The provision of a
tunnel is an asset which may be underused in economic tenus if only one service
runs through it, and the provision of easy access may reduce the maintenance cost.
Akesaka & Rooke (1985) suggested that both the manufacturers of machines and
contractors can provide the necessary equipment for trenchless construction, but,
without a real market, the experience required to improve the techniques and reduce
the cost of site operations will not be obtained. The potential benefits to the industry
will therefore never fully materialise.
They list the main disadvantages of trenching as
1. Permanent reinstatement for public utilities is necessary
2. Damage to roads, especially with deep trenches
3. Damages to pipes and cables
4. Damage to the ground in deep excavation
5. Distruption of traffic
6. Disruption to trade
7. Damage to small volume roads caused by diversions
In addition, the problems of noise, dirt and smell are all mainly overcome
- - - - - - - - - --_. -_.
by using trenchless techniques .
According to Jones (1987), the interest in trenchless construction techniques has

accelerated recently, especially if conventional tunnelling is discounted. An
introduction to trenchless systems is given in the following sections.
1.3.1 Pipe Jacking
Pipe jacking is a technique of jacking prefabricated pipes into the ground while
excavation is carried out at the face of the pipeline (Figure 1.1) . It is suitable for
most soil conditions including rock, sand and clay, whether below or above the
water table . The pipe diameter typically ranges from 900mm up to 2500mm,
although in some cases larger sections can be used. The technique has been
described by Drennon (1979), Pipe Jacking Association (PJA, 1980) and Clarkson
and Thomson (1983) .
The jacking process can be divided into two stages. Face excavation is usually
carried out manually, but over recent years excavation machines of ever-increasing
sophistication have been introduced. The leading pipe is fitted with a steel shield
that has a cutting edge. A set of steering jacks are positioned between the leading
pipe and the shield to control the direction of the shield, and hence the excavation by
trimming the excavation as it is jacked forward. The spoil is extracted by means of
muck trains on rails or a conveyor belt .
The pipes are then jacked immediately behind the shield from a jacking pit. The
jacking pit consists of a set of hydraulic rams or jacks placed in the line of the drive
9
Chapter 1 IntroductiDn
and load transfer units, or spacers, provide the connection between the jacks and the
pipes. The jacks are positioned against a wall which is designed to provide an
adequate reaction to the forces generated during jacking and to distribute them to the
soil .
The length of the jacked pipeline in a single drive is dependent on a number of

factors. Higher jacking loads are needed for longer drives, and these loads are
related to the surface friction between the pipe and the soil and also to other
parameters, notably face resistance. Bentonite slurry lubrication and intermediate
jacking stations can be used to reduce the magnitude of the jacking loads required to
advance the pipe and therefore to achieve longer drives. Intermediate jacking
stations, consisting of a number of small jacks equally distributed around the

circumference, are placed between two pipes in a steel housing at regular distances
along the pipeline, depending on the total length of the pipeline and on the magnitude
of the jacking forces.
Different types of pipes can be used, such as concrete, steel, clay, ductile iron,
plastic, glassfibre reinforced plastic (GRP), glass reinforced concrete or a
combination of these materials. Concrete pipes are most commonly used except
when special circumstances exist, and these may be reinforced or unreinforced .
1.3.2 MicrotunneIling
Microtunnelling usually refers to the equipment used for installing smaller diameter
pipes in the range 250 to 900mm . MicrotunneIling machines are one of the most
significant and sophisticated developments in the field of trenchless pipelaying .
10
Microtunnelling was fIrst developed in Japan in the 1970sas part of the existing
sewer installation programme. (Hayashi and Miyata, 1989) . More recently, West
Germany has undergone a large sewer installation programme, most notably in

Hamburg (Kuntze, 1985), while in the UK and USA microtunnelling machines
have steadily been introduced (Beaumount,1989) .
Microtunnelling is a technique used for installing pipes by means of
remote-controlled excavating machines where man-entry is impossible. It is also

known as small bore pipe jacking (Kraeme-Wasserka, 1987) . The principle behind
the technique is similar to that of pipe jacking, except that most of the operation is
carried out by remote control (Harding, 1981) . There are two types of
microtunnelling machines, slurry shield and steerable bores, and these will be fully
discussed in later sections . Slurry shield machines have the advantage of being
comparatively easy to use within ground water without extensive prior treatment of
the ground and/or the use of compressed air . It is suitable for virtually all types of
ground and has an operational distance of up to 200m .
1.3.3 Auger Boring
Auger boring is the technique of creating a hole through the ground from which the
excavated spoil is removed by the rotating action of auger drills (Thomson, 1967) .
It is one of the oldest forms of horizontal boring and has been available since the
early 1940s . The process is illustrated in Figure 1.2.
The boring unit, which is set up in the bottom of a shaft, consists of the boring
machine and a base . The boring machine provides the rotational power to the
11
augers. The base supports the machine and provides the forward and reverse
motion by means of a thrust mechanism. There are two basic types of boring unit in
use, the co-axial thrust ram type and the scissor ram type. The boring unit is
supplied by hydraulic power produced by an above ground unit. The speed of
rotation and the size of the bore is dependent on the type of machine and the specific
boring requirement.
Auger heads are used as the cutters for forward boring, while reamers enlarge the
hole when pulled back towards the machine by the augers. Different heads are
available for clay, hard or soft mudstone and basalt. Augers and extension rods are
used to transmit the thrust and rotation to the head .. and at the same time to transfer
the spoil from the head to the shaft. There are different sizes of augers depending on
the required pipeline diameter. Extension rods are jointed, using either spring clips
or bearings on wheels. Normally the length of the augers and rods are 900mm,
although other lengths can be obtained.
There are two methods of auger boring. The fITst involves separate casing, in which
the hole is first completely augered out and the casing or pipe is driven into the hole.
The second method involves simultaneous casing where the casing is inserted as the
hole is augered out. The latter is clearly necessary in unstable ground and is more
similar to pipe jacking, whereas the former is more similar to tunnelling in relation to
the response of the ground (Munro and McMurdie, 1985) .
The boring proceeds after setting the equipment in position . Boring starts with
screw-jointed lead augers. More auger flights are added as the bore progresses until
the flight length reaches the distance between the driving and the fITst reception
12
shafts . Extension rods are then added and boring continues to the second and
subsequent reception shafts. Spoil removal takes place from the last shaft that the
head had passed through. When the bore is completed in one direction, it can be
either reamed out to a larger diameter, or the rods and augers can be withdrawn to
the machine shaft and removed. When the boring is completed, the shaft is filled to
just below the invert level of the pipe. Pipes are then sequentially jointed and
pushed along the proposed line by the boring unit or by a jack. In unstable ground
and where no reaming is required, the pipes can be inserted progressively behind the
lead auger.
The range of casing diameters installed by auger boring equipment is typically from
150mm to l500mm . The driving range can be from 30 to 50 m, and over lOOm has
been achieved on some occasions. It is mainly a soft ground technique, although it
has been used in soft rocks. Its accuracy depends on many factors, such as the size
of the sleeve (the bigger the bore the less the deviation), the rotation of the augers
and other constructional factors (Thomson, 1985 B) .
1.3.4 Earth Displacement Hammer
Earth displacement hammers are a noh-steerable means of trenchless pipe and cable
laying, and are commonly known as impact moles. They were introduced and
developed in Eastern Europe . They have now become more sophisticated and
include equipment which can be recovered if faced with difficulties in overcoming
the ground conditions. Modifications include reciprocating heads, which have a
better impact at the face. The technique is commonly used for telecommunications
because of the portability, and low capital cos~ofthe equipment (Etherton, 1985).
13
This method is based on compressed air powered impact, or percussive, moling
. which forms a hole through the ground by compacting or consolidating the
surrounding soil . There are two types of hammer, having either a fixed or a
moving head.
The technique is ideally suited to service connections and short, small diameter
drives. Its installing accuracy is mainly dependent on the direction of the initial
launching, the ground conditions and the machine characteristics. The type and the
moisture content of the soil can affect the operating performance, since the stronger,
stiffer and denser the soil is the more difficult it is for the machine to displace the
ground. In this respect the ability to generate and sustain pore water pressure in the
soil will affect the ease of advancement. Therefore more resistant;, . soils reduce the
driving distance and slow the progress of the operation.
The operating size ranges from 50 to 175rnrn in diameter, and pipes can be driven up
to 30m . It is typically suitable for medium stiff to moderately soft soils, control of
line and level being lost in very soft soils.
1.3.5 Pipe Ramming
Pipe ramming, also called impact ramming, uses a particular type of earth
displacement hammer. It is considered to be an alternative to pipe jacking, but it is
less steerable and this can be a problem when installing sewer lines. In simple
terms, the hammers are positioned in the start shaft and are connected to the pipe to
be driven through adaptors. The pipe has a cutting shoe attached to its front end.
The spoil enters the sleeve as the pipe is rammed into the ground and can be
14
removed at the end of the ramming operation by auger, water jet or compressed air.
Steel pipes from 400 mm to up to 1200mm diameter are typically installed by this
method. One major operational disadvantage is the time taken to weld lengths of
pipes together. It is suitable for most soil types, including strong soils, and the
driving distance can reach up to 35m .
1.3.6 Pipe Bursting
Pipe bursting is the method of inserting a new pipe into an existing pipeline of an
internal diameter equal to or slightly smaller than its replacement by means of
fragmenting the existing pipework and forcing the material into the surrounding soil
to form access for the following replacement pipe (Poole et aI, 1985) .
It is mainly used for gas main replacement since it is a renovation technique that can
be used for maintaining or increasing (up-sizing) the capacity of the original line . It
was originally developed in the UK for British Gas .Development work is being
carried out to improve reliability in replacing larger diameter sewer pipes. Up-sizing
at small diameter is standard practice for this technique, but some side effects may
develop such as ground pressure on adjacent services and structures . New
developments have recently been adopted. such as hydraulic methods of pipe

bursting which apply direct radial force on the old pipe to break it .
It can be used to replace different varieties of pipe materials such as concrete, cast
iron. uPVC, virtifiedclay and asbestos cement. Machines were typically available
for pipes ranging in diameter from 200 to 300 mm, but a greater size range now
exists.
15
Other replacement techniques are available, including pipe excavation, extraction, or
excavation and swaging, and rolldown methods, but these will not be considered
herein.
1.3.7 Horizontal Drilling
Drilling is a method of laying cables and pipes in variable ground conditions without
other excavation. This technique is based on oilfield drilling technology, using a shoe to
deflect the mud and drill at the required angle under the obstacle to form a pilot hole.
This method was developed in the USA, where it has become established, and it is
growing elsewhere around the world (Hair and Shiers, 1985, and Turner, 1978),.
Drilling is used for the rapid installation of pipelines under large obstacles, such as
rivers or embankments, (Szczpak, 1989) .;The diameter range is 50-1000mm, and
distances up to 150m can be covered in a single operation. This method is ideally
suited to smooth profile pipelines with joints resistant to tensile forces, such as the
welded steel pipelines used for oil, gas or water transmission and cable conduits.
The drilling method is carried out by a smooth curved pilot hole of 70-80mm in
diameter (Figure 1.3) . The pilot hole follows the proposed centreline of the
pipeline. The ground entry angle on one side (entry pit) is usually 5-20 degrees and
the drilling line passes through a sagbend . Once the pilot hole has passed by the
obstacle, it rises through another sag bend to the exit on the other side at the
predetermined target peg and at an angle to the horizontal of around 8 degrees. The
pilot hole is drilled by a specially built rig which pushes the drill rods into the
ground. The progress of the pilot hole is recorded by a specially designed steering
16
tool system . Both the drilling and steering operations are controlled using
immediate feedback of the drill bit position, which allows the pilot hole to be rapidly
drilled along the designed path. This method is suitable for firm to stiff clay and
coarse sand up to 2 mm particle size.
It can be concluded from the above discussion that trenchless systems should be
chosen to suit the required utility . Microtunnelling is a type of trenchless
construction that most public authorities and engineers see as the appropriate
technology for such construction for the present and the future.
1.4 FACTORS AFFECTING THE CHOICE OF PIPELINE
CONSTRUCTION
The demand for NO-DIG techniques has increased in comparison with other
trenching techniques over the past few years. This change has radically affected all
of those who work within the statutory authorities, consultants, pipe suppliers and
manufacturers of the equipment. It is important to realise that the public will gain the
most from these techniques, if trenchless construction techniques dominate future
construction trends, by not being affected by the construction. In addition to this
social advantage, it is essential to emphasize the need to provide new services, and
maintain and refurbish the old systems, with the minimum overall expenditure and
with the maximum overall effect.
The demand for the trenchless techniques is dependent upon factors such as, the size
of the market, the needs of the client, the cost of trenchless construction , and the
17
Chapter 1 I ntroductfon
social cost.
During recent years there has been increasing concern at the total cost of installing
services in trenches. It has been increasingly appreciated that in addition to the direct
costs of the works on site there are significant additional social costs, particularly in
urban areas . The development of alternative trenchless construction has been
stimulated by the prospect of reducing the social costs while trying to achieve direct
costs which compare favourably with those oftrenched construction (Iones, 1987).
The cost of a proposed pipeline scheme will be treated under the two main cost
headings of Engineering Cost and Social Cost in this section (Green and Wood,
1987) . A breakdown of these costs is given in Figure 1.4 .
Flaxman (1993) reported that the cost of trenchless methods is falling as their use
has been more widely adopted during the past ten years. Trenchless methods for
new installation are also increasingly competitive with open cut.
1.4.1 Engineering cost
This refers to the total incurred cost of the whole pipeline scheme regarding
planning, engineering and construction, including public planning and preparation.
Engineering cost can also be split into the two categories of direct cost and
indirect cost.
The direct cost is the cost of physically constructing a pipeline project including
planning of the scheme, design and specification, other consultancy aspects, and the
construction work. The latter includes the cost of the materials, machinery and the
18
Chapter I Introduction
cost of carrying out all temporary and permanent works .
Indirect costs are considered to be those incidental costs arising from the
construction of the pipeline, and can include the following:
(i) The cost of road reinstatement, and / or ultimate reduction in design

life of the road.
(ii) Any damage caused to other utilities during construction, including
existing cables, ducts, pipes and other services . In addition, any damage
caused by gtound movement to surrounding buildings and structures.
(iii) Loss of other utilities and services when mains and cables are needed
to be shut down during construction, and damage caused by overloading

the remaining infrastructure.
(iv) Damage caused to adjacent roads, often Iow volume roads, by diversion
of traffic onto them during construction.
1.4.2 Social cost
The social cost cannot be defined precisely, and sometimes as a consequence it is

ignored or underestimated when preparing the contract and tender documents. The
social cost is mainly concerned with the public and public services. It can be divided
into many catogories .
Construction of a pipeline can cause disrnption of traffic in the form of delays and
diversions, and hence increase the journey times and consumption of extra fuel
which can damage the environment. It also creates more congested traffic around
the working area and consequently disturbance to residents and businesses. Loss of
19
business can also result from diverted traffic and the difficulty of conducting a
nonnal business without regular passing customers or easy access. Closing roads
around the working area could cause a problem for delivery vehicles and prevent
customer access totally (Glennie and Reed, 1985) .
Open cut excavation typically causes more long-tenn damage to the road surface than
trenchless techniques. The extent of the damage is dependent on the quality and type
of the road construction. The reinstatement of a damaged road can not be carried out
to the same quality as the original, in general. Therefore, the overall expected life of
the road is reduced considerably and more money is needed for subsequent repairs.
Also damage to adjacent roads can occur by the extra diverted traffic that it has to
carry while construction is taking place.
Settlement, and sometimes heave, at the surface, and underground movements can
also be caused by open cut excavation and consequently wi11 qffect the foundations
of buildings and other structures adjacent to the site . Structural defects and
defonnation of cladding and services are all symptoms of soil disturbance around the
influence zone of building foundations. The type of soil can contribute greatly to
the seriousness of these faults.
In addition, trenchless techniques usually cause less noise, smell, dirt and visual
intrusion. No large machinery is required at the surface at any point along the
proposed line of the pipeline. Spoil can be disgarded cleanly and no dirt need be
created in the surrounding areas. Only a small working area is required, when
compared with other types of tunnelling and open cut excavation, and consequently
the work can be carried out without the notice of, or inconvenience to, the public at
20
the surface. Finally, the construction site looks tidier and cleaner than conventional
sites and that is a considerable advantage when construction is taking place in the
heart of the big cities and busy urban areas.
1.4.3 The Size of the Market
Whatever criteria may be examined in determining the size of the market, a
potentially huge volume of work is available for application of trenchless methods.

The trenchless revolution has already started, which is evidenced by the work
underway in Japan, West Germany and the U.K.
Thomson (1985A and 1985B) and Elvidge (1987) have assessed the size of the total
market. The utilities throughout the western world ins'tall approximately 600,000
km of pipes and cables per annum. Notthen American and European markets
combined account for 400,000 km of services per annum, while including those of
Japan and S.E Asia probably brings the total up to around 500,000 km per annum.
Figure 1.5 shows the size of the total market of utilities instaIlation for different pipe
diameters. Moss (1989) has studied the market potential between the water
authorities and the pipe jacking contractors by listing pipeline contracts in tennsof
size, depth, position and overall cost. The results show that a likely market of
some 20-30 km a year exists.
1.4.4 The Need of the Client
The client's decision in selecting the type of trenchless technique to be used is
considered to be the key factor in evaluating the future markets for trenchless
21
pipelaying . In order to consider which pipelaying technique to use, the client must
differentiate between the cases of mains services running below a road containing
existing services, the crossing of a road, railway or similar obstacle and replacement
of existing services. The client must also know the cost effectiveness of the
trenchless techniques when compared with alternative methods and have an
independent evaluation of the different current techniques available for trenchless
pipelaying .
Thomsom (198SA and 1985B) listed the characteristics that the client may be
seeking when considering trenchless techniques as
I-Length of the pipeline
2-The diameter of the pipeline
3-Installation without damage to existing services and structure
4-Ability to overcome minor obstructions occuring in the ground
S-Ability to work in different soil conditions
6-Ability to work in unstable ground
7-Ability to work below the water table
8-Bore tracing location
9-Steerability
10-Installation of final service to accurate line and level
11-Installation of flexible service to a reasonable line and level
12-Installation of duct in which the service is to be threaded
13-Routine operation with own men
14-Work from restricted access sites
IS-Simple and economic drive shafts coinciding if possible with
permanent access chambers
22
16-Need to make lateral connections without disturbance.
1.4.5 The Cost of Trenchless Construction
Economic studies by Irvine(1985)and Newman(1986)are concerned with making
comparisons between a number of alternative ways of investing resources in order to
select the one which gives the optimum future return for the investment. The
difficulties of economical comparisons in this area are the problems in assessing the
true initial cost of a project since this can be greatly influenced by the social cost
within the economic system.
Judgements vary on the degree of responsibility for risk and damage, and hence on
what constitutes an element of direct cost. The risk oflong-term damage to adjacent
roads, buildings and services must be increased whenever ground is disturbed by
construction and the cost of this damage will be ultimately paid by the owners of the
damaged items. Therefore, to simplify the study of direct cost it has generally been
limited to a comparative assessement of the contractor's costs plus the cost of design
and supervision for sewers up to 2000mm diameter by the following methods.
(i) Traditional pipelaying in trenches
(ii) Trenchless pipelaying techniques
(ill) On-line replacement of pipes
(iv) Renovation of existing pipes
23
1.4.6 Comparisons between Trenching and Trenchless Pipelaying
Costs
In order to compare the costs of trenchless pipelaying with trenching, it is important
to examine the indirect costs and the social costs in addition to the actual direct
contract cost. Considerable work has been done to show that the social costs that
arise from engineering work could be a significant factor in the overall cost of a
project (Glennie and Reed, 1985) .
Social costs in certain critical locations can be several times higher than the direct
construction costs, and those locations tend to be in busy city centres and urban
areas where a substantial amount of rehabilitation of public services is being done.
Trenchless techniques reduce the social cost significantly, but do not eliminate them,
as was shown for a typical case by Flaxman in 1985 (Figure 1.6).
Flaxman (1993) stated that with trenchless methods now often being cheaper
(in direct cost) than the open-cut alternative, this is unlikely to be necessary in many
cases. The avoidance of social costs in such circumstances is an added bonus to the
community, but it does not need to be calculated .
Studies in this field have been conducted at UMIST, Middlesex Polytechnic and the
WRC and these show that evaluation of the social cost is possible in some cases and
depends on the type of trenchless technique being used. Further studies are being
out
carried"with the aim of greatly reducing the social costs as trenchless techniques
improve in the future (Green and Wood, 1987).
24
Chnpter 1 Introduction
l.S AIMS OF THE RESEARCH
This research work was introduced to study the jacking forces, with regard to
different parameters, for pipe jacking operations. Any investigation of this kind will
require the use of controlled experimental conditions in which variation of different
specific experimental factors may be examined, and care was taken to achieve this in
the research work presented in this thesis.
After a thorough review of the literature, it was proposed that a scale model
apparatus should be built at Loughborough University. The adoption of scale model
testing was dictated by economical aspects and the testing facilities available in the
laboratory. All other experimental factors and boundary conditions were considered
thoroughly, together with the pipe materials used and jacking operations followed,
after which the experimental work commenced. Consistency was maintained
during all experimental work for the provision of analytical data results in relation to
a spectrum of parameters that will be fully discussed later on .
The primary aim of this research is thus to study the factors that influence jacking
forces during pipe jacking operations. This type of work has never been executed
under controlled laboratory conditions. Therefore the design of a scale model testing
facility, which takes into consideration the influence of boundary conditions on the
results and which will allow an accurate simulation of actual pipe jacking to be
achieved, was necessary. By employing scale model testing, both the magnitude
and behaviour, or pattern, of these forces can be studied and recommendations for
practice can be made .
25
Knowledge of the jacking forces is essential in practice and their definition under
different conditions will provide the means for more efficient pipe designs. thrust
walls. definition of numbers and capacity of the jacks. and consequently estimation
of jacking length for various ground conditions. In addition. it is anticipated that
the friction between the surface of the jacked pipeline and the surrounding soil will
contribute greatly to the magnitude of forces generated during the operation.
Therefore. the material used in manufacturing the jacked pipeline should be studied.
together with different surrounding soils.
A further factor that can be varied in practice to reduce the jacking forces is the
overcut ratio. This determines the amount by which the soil can collapse onto the
pipeline once the shield has passed. and thereby will also set up arching mechanisms
within the soil above the pipeline.
Although the results of this research work will depend upon the effects of the
experimental boundary conditions. with careful interpretation they will nevertheless

provide the basis for proper engineering design and good installation practice for
jacked tunnel linings. as well as the basis for further scale model testing.
26
1.6 GUIDE TO THE THESIS
The research work reported herein is based on well-defined methods of investigation,

'as follows
Chapter one provides an introduction to work relating to all pipelines and small
tunnels. It also acknowledges the role of trenchless technology in engineering
practice and explains the methods of construction available in practice. The cost and
other factors that affect the market's capacity for this work are also reviewed.
Finally the aims of the research are presented.
A thorough review of the literature on this subject is given in chapter two. The
review was conducted to determine whether sufficient information relating to
methods of investigation was available for pipe jacking techniques and to establish
what is known, either by experiment or practical knowledge, about the jacking
forces expected under different site conditions . A summary of all relevant
published work is given. Finally a comparison of the methods of investigation of

various researchers is: tabulated in order to give a clear indication of their
achievements .
Chapter three describes the philosophy behind the research work and the methods of
investigation chosen for this work. It also includes a discussion of the factors that
might influence the behaviour of the jacking forces and the effect of experimental
boundary conditions .
27
The characterisation of the soils used in the experimental work is fully described in
chapter four . Details of the experimental programme, the equipment and
instmmentation developed, and experimental procedures are given in chapter five.
Chapter six presents the experimental results obtained during the research work, and
discusses them in the light of previous research and existing theories.
The interpretation of the results is given in chapter seven, together with a number of
case studies which examine the findings of this work in relation to practical
situations .
Conclusions and recommendations drawn from research work are given in chapter
eight, together with suggestions for further work.
Finally, the geological and physical properties of the materials used during the
course of the research, as provided by the suppliers, are shown in appendix I .
Calibration tolerances of the instmmentation used to monitor the results are given in
appendix 11 . Appendix ill illustratesthe experimental equipment and instmmentation

in a series of coloured photographs with relevant text section reference number
shown at each plate title.
28
10 ___......_ _--.
11
1- Cutt!n~ Shield
2- Muck Container
3- Muck Rail
4- Intermediate Jacking Station
5- Thrust ring
6- Spacers
7- Hydraulic Jacks
8- Jacking Wall
9- Power Unit
10- Crane
11- Jacking Pipes
12- Jacking Shaft
13- Soli
1 2 3 4 12 13
Figure 1.1 General Arrangement of a Pipe Jacking Operation

1
1- Cutting head
2- Steady bearing
3- IntelIDediate shaft
.4- Driving and bearing rods
5- Pipe Jack
6- Machine shaft
7- Boring unit
8- Soil
Figure 1.2 General Arrangement of an Auger Boring Operation

1· Target point
2- Pilot hole
3- Washover pipe
4- Selting point
1- Pipe line
2· Swivel
3· Barrel reamer
4· Fly cutter
5· Washover pipe
Figure 1.3 Horizontal Drilling

(a)-General Arrangement
(b)-Detail of Head Of Back Reaming Operation
1500 1· DIRECT COST ENG.COST
m BUS.LOSS
o CLAIM
• TOTALCOST
1000 I~ __________
500
TRENCHING TRENCHLESS
1500 2· SQClAL COST I2l

o DAMAGES
~ 1000r~---------
o
o
§
l-<
8 500~=~~
3000 3· TOTAL COST E::2I DIRECT COST

o SOCIAL COST
TOTAL COST
2000
1000
Figure 1.4 Comparison of Cost Between Trenching and Trenchless

Techniques for a Pipeline (after Green and Wood, 1987)
Figure 1.5 Underground Installation Expenditure by Diameter
Catagortes: Around The World (after Thomson 1985)
COST (£OOO'S)
I
o 10
STRAIGHT FORWARD CASE
TRENCHING
PROBLEM CASE
TRENCHING ,. .. ..,..,
, , ,."
......
"'... ,'/.,.'.
.. .., ... ,
Figure 1.6 Total Cost Of Pipelaying to the Communlly (after Flaxman,1985)

Chapter 2 Review of Pipe Jacking
CHAPTER TWO
2 REVIEW OF PIPE JACKING
2.1 INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF HISTORY OF PIPE JACKING
2.2 INSTALLATION METHODS

2.2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2.2 PIPE JACKING TECHNIQUES
2.2.2.1 THE JACKING SHAFT
2.2.2.2 CONVENTIONAL PIPE JACKING
2.2.2.3 MECHANISED PIPE JACKING
2.2.2.4 UNI-TUNNEL SYSTEM
2.2.2.5 LARGE-BORE PIPE JACKING
2.3 SOIL MECHANICS ASPECTS OF PIPE JACKING

2.3.1 INTRODUcrION
2.3.2 THE THEORY OF GROUND PRESSURE ON TUNNELS
2.3.3 TUNNELS THROUGH SOFT GROUND
2_4 JACKING FORCES

2.4.1 INTRODUCTION
2.4.2 THEORETICAL ANALYSIS
2.4.2.1 CIRIA APPROACH
2.4.2.2 AULD'S ANALYSIS
2.4.2.3 HASLEM'S ANALYSIS
2.4.2.4 JAPANESE ANALYSIS
2.4.2.5 HERZOG'S STUDY
2.4.3 EXPERIMENTAL AND FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
29
2.5 FACTORS AFFECTING THE JACKING FORCES

2.5.1 TYPE OF SOIL
2.5.2 AMOUNT OF OVERCUT
2.5.2.1 NON-CLOSURE OF OVERCUT
2.5.2.2 CLOSURE OF OVERCUT
2.5.3 OVERBURDEN PRESSURE
2.5.4 MISALIGNMENT
2.s.5 THE SIZE AND LENGTH OF THE PIPELINE
2.5.6 THE JACKING RATE
2.6 METHODS OF REDUCING JACKING FORCES

2.6.1 INTRODUCTION
2.6.2 LUBRICATION
2.6.3 SPECIAL JACKING PIPES
2.6.3.1 PIPE SURFACE
2.6.3.2 HIGH STRENGTH PIPES
2.6.3.3 THE USE OF SPECIAL MATERIALS
2.6.4 INTERMEDIATE JACKING STATIONS
2.6.5 OVERCUT RATIO
2.7 CONCLUDING DISCUSSION
30
2 REVIEW OF PIPE JACKING
2.1 INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF HISTORY OF PIPE JACKING
Tunnels are used as a convenient method for conducting public services in densely
populated areas . The increasing demand for construction and renewal of the
underground public utilities in urban areas around the world has led to the introduction
of trenchless construction techniques as an alternative to traditional trenching .
Trenchless construction has developed over recent years, with the aim of reducing the
social costs and damage to existing surroundings caused by pipelaying . Pipe jacking
is one of the trenchless construction systems that is widely used in urban areas for
construction of tunnels ranging from 800mm to 3000mm or more in diameter.
Pipe jacking was fIrst introduced in the USA in the late 1890s as a means of culvert
installation without surface disruption (Drennon, 1979) . It was introduced in the UK
in the late 1950s, mainly for use in tunnels of short length to cross roads or railway
embankments. At this time a sleeve was constructed and the pipe was installed at a
later time. Thus as a lining installation method, rather than as a tunnelling method,
pipe jacking has been in use in the UK for over 25 years, chiefly with a manual means
of soil extraction (Jones,1987). Pipe jacking has become increasingly popular over
the last 15 years, particularly in Japan and West Germany where major works have
been undertaken (Clarkson and Thomson, 1983) . These countries started to use pipe
jacking in thel960s, and now lead the world in research and development of the
technique.
31
Pipe jacking is generally accepted as a good ground technique for both short crossings
under roads, rivers and canals, embankments and railways, and for multiple length
contracts. In unstable ground, chemical stabilisation and suspension grout have been
used for ground stabilisation and control of water. The technique has the advantages
of a good quality tunnel lining, little risk of settlement during and after construction,
and speedy construction. It is often used for short drive lengths, but by reducing the
. jacking resistance by lubrication and using intermediate jacking stations, longer drives
are possible.
There are three methods of pipe jacking: jacking a pipeline with hand excavation at the
face, jacking a pipeline with mechanical excavation, and the Uni-tunnel system.
Mechanised excavation methods have been introduced relatively recently and many
pipelines are currently being constructed in the UK by these methods. The Uni-tunnel
system was introduced in 1980, but has not been used much.
Alternative tunnel linings are available and are often found to be acceptable, especially
in soft ground tunnelling projects. The engineer must assess the benefits of using
such alternatives, together with cost and risk involved . Usually the cheapest
alternative is adopted.
Hough (1986) cites the lack of research into pipe jacking techniques in the UK as the
reason for the uncertainty in its use, whereas West Germany, Japan and the USA have
invested more in pipe jacking research and now are more innovative. In 1980 the Pipe
Jacking Association (PIA), with coorperation from the Construction Industry
Research and Information Association (CIRIA), instigated research that has
influenced the design of jacked pipes and joints. The PJA required three optimum
32
design points to be researched with regard to the joint. These were:
1. the specified thrust it would sustain during jacking
2. the angnlar deflection allowable during jacking, and
3. the external hydrostatic loading design.
Following this the PJA summarised the need for future research into five main areas as
follows:
I-The likely future markets.
2-Pipe joint design.
3-Joint packings and the effect of jacking misaligned pipes.
4-Pipe lubrication.
5-Establishment of" friction values" for soil.
The need for research was further highlighted by Craig (1983) in his state-of-the-art
review on pipe jacking for CIRIA . The main areas in which research was thought to
be needed were: friction loads in different types of ground condition, load-deflection
characteristics of the joints with different packing materials, the effect of cyclic
loading on the pipes at intermediate jacking stations, the effect of lubricants on
reducing friction along a pipe, and the development of a site investigation test suitable
for predicting frictional forces. Research work has been initiated in some of the above
areas.
Research work is being done in different countries, the most notable being Japan,
West Germany, the USA and the UK. The main aims of the work are to create an
understanding of the behaviour of jacked pipes and develop methods of design and
production of the basic elements of pipes and joints.
33
The UK research programme has been summarised by MiIIigan (1986). Research is
being supported by the PJA in conjuction with the Science and Engineering Research
Council (SERC), after both the PJA and CIRIA promoted the programme. SERC
have been developing a programme of research work in civil engineering with a strong
emphasis on testing at large or full scale. This programme has included work at
Oxford University to investigate the load transfer between pipes and the contact
pressures between pipes and soil for misaligned pipes, using model pipes in a test rig
in the laboratory (Milligan and Ripley, 1989) . This work has been extended into the
field, with the first field work project being recently completed (Norris, 1993) . It also
includes research into the mechanisms controlling the deformation of soil around
trenchless pipelaying operations at Loughborough University of Technology, a project
that is complementary to the research reported herein (Chapman and Rogers, 1991).
Haslem (1986) describes the development of a method of predicting jacking forces
related to the ground conditions and including the effects of lubrication by bentonite
slurry. Most of the work has been based on field observations from contractors,
supplemented by laboratory tests on samples of the materials through which the
tunnels were driven.
In West Germany the ministery for research and development implemented a
programme in Hamburg in 1981, which succeeded in improving the performance
characteristics of the Tele-Mole system. In addition to tunnelling machine
developments, research was also concentrated on pipes for jacking systems, with the
particular aim of providing maximum resistance against corrosion (Stein and Bielecki,
1984) .
34
In Japan, pipe jacking is a well-established technique for sewer construction with
a length of about 400 km per annum being constructed (Thomson,1982).
Downey (1984) has shown that there is a clear trend in the Japanese pipe jacking
industry of increasing mechanisation and sophistication due to the evident popularity
of this method of construction .
Pipes are also being developed in Japan. Glass reinforced concrete jacking pipes have
been developed by the Japan Superline Pipe Association using technology licensed
from the UK . Laboratory tests have shown that the pipes have high axial compressive
strength and are particularly suitable for long distance jacking (Takada, 1987) . In
addition a method of installation using a membrane wrapping having high water
proofing properties has proved successful in laboratory tests and in field work
executed in very gravelly ground (Tohyama & Koiwa, 1987) .
A more recent development has been the introduction of fully remotely controlled
equipment in different sizes. This has resulted in a range of small diameter machines
which are able to deal with bad ground conditions, including mechanically balanced
slurry shields that are able to balance soil pressure and water pressure independently.
35
2.2 INSTALLATION TECHNIQUES
2.2.1 Introduction
Pipe jacking has been defined in a number of publications . Craig (1983) described it
as a technique of installing pipes by driving a line of them through the ground with
hydraulic rams from a prepared jacking pit. Excavation is carried out at the forward,
shield end of the pipe as the pipeline is pushed from the jacking pit. After pushing a
full pipe length into the ground a new pipe is placed into the pit and the process is
repeated. The method provides a flexible structural, finished pipeline, duct or culvert
on completion of the tunnelling works. This process is illustrated in Figure 2.1 .
Parry (1978) summarised the process as follows:
1- It is a method by which the jacked pipes can constitute the finished
lining, whether steel or concrete pipes are used .

2- The lining is stable.
3- The method means that section other than circular in shape can be
thrust, therefore having uses in construction of pedestrian tunnels,
under-passes, etc.
4- It is a simple mining operation as no ring erection is necessary. As long
as continuous surveying is carried out, then the accuracy should be
good.
5- Instant support is provided and there should be no over-break, thus

considerably reducing the chances of any settlement at the surface.
6- It is a cleaner method than conventional tunnelling because there is no

need to send material back into the tunnel .
36
Chapter 2 Reuiew of Pipe Jacking
7- The shield should ideally be equipped with bentonite lubrication

facilities and individually controlled jacks for steering.
8- Intermediate jacking stations can be inserted on long thrusts to control

the magnitude of jacking forces.
Although he mentions that there should be no over-break, over-break is considered to

be essential in reducing the jacking forces required for pushing the pipes and a small
over-break is generally used. Also little consideration has been given to curved jacked
tunnels and the build up of jacking forces associated with them. Sulinski (1972) also
cites a reduced volume of excavation and relatively early stabilisation of the water table
as further advantages of pipe jacking.
2.2.2 Pipe Jacking Techniques
2.2.2.1 The Jacking Shaft
A shaft or pit is constructed at the start and finish of the tunnel section to be driven.
The size of the shaft is designed to suit the size of the pipe jacking equipment. A
thrust wall, capable of taking the anticipated horizontal force generated during the
thrusting of the pipes, is constructed at the back of the start, or jacking, shaft. The
shield, or the tunnelling machine, with the lead pipe are lowered into the pit and
positioned to the correct line and level on guide rails. A set of steering jacks' is
located between the shield and the lead pipe. The direction of travel is controlled by
the operation of the steering jacks acting against the lead pipe. The thrust wall acts as a
buffer to transfer the horizontal forces through the length of the pipeline to the cutting
edge of the shield by means of high power hydraulic jacks acting through a steel
37
Chapter 2 Review oJPipe Jacking
thrust ring and, as appropriate, steel spacers in the jacking pit. Therefore the pipeline
is progressively pushed forward into the ground along the proposed line.
The ram diameter and stroke of the jacks vary depending upon the method of operation
(O'Reilly et ai, 1986) . Short stroke jacks with multiple spacers permit the use of
smaller pits, although with a consequent loss in production. The method results in a
regular release and application of jacking pressure . Medium stroke jacks with spacers
keep the pit size within manageable proportions and also maintain a degree of
flexibility and continuity of jacking pressure. Long stroke jacks, usually with
sufficient stroke to allow a full pipe to be installed without the use of spacer blocks,
result in a lack of flexibility and require a longer thrust pit, but speed up the
operation. There is also a limitation in the total pressure which can be applied through
long and slender jacks . Either two or four jacks can be used, depending on the thrust
force required. The jacking forces should be evenly distributed around the
circumference of the pipe.
Different conventional jacking systems, as described in Craig (1983), have been
developed by individual contractors. In the UK, pipe jacks are normally relatively
short, with ground cover to the crown of generally I.S to 7 m. The size of the jacking
shaft is dependent on the jacking system the diameter and length of the pipe, and the
required access for skips. Typical access shaft sizes for small diameter pipes are 3m
wide by 4 to Srn long. Alternatively, a small diameter shaft has been used with a
heading at the bottom of the shaft to give a working area of sufficient size for pipe
jacking.
38
2.2.2.2 Conventional Pipe Jacking
There are two main types of jacking system. In a flexible system the rams operate
against a vertical thrust wall with spacers between the head of the ram and the pipe
thrust ring. A rigid ring system has the same movement of the jacks, but after each
thrust long rigid beams are placed and pinned in different positions so that the thrust
may be transmitted to the floor through the beams rather than to back wall of the shaft.
The capacity and numbers of jacks are dependent on the forces required to push the
pipes through, additional jacks being required for long distance drives. These can be
inserted at intervals along the pipe length (intermediate jacking stations) in case high
loads are experienced later in the drive. Intermediate jacking stations are normally
introduced when the loads have reached more than approximately half of the jacking
capacity .
The excavation is either done manually, where a shield is provided for the miners'
protection, or, in a large diameter pipe. a mechanical excavator may be used. The small
hydraulic jacks placed just behind the shield are solely for alignment purposes. In
unstable ground a hood or other face support may be required, as in other tunnelling
methods.
The external diameter of the pipes varies from one manufacturer to another for the
same internal diameter. An overcut is generally adopted around the external diameter
of the pipe, the amount of the overcut varying depending on the type of the soil and the
method of excavation. Lubrication for the pipes may be required to eliminate the high
friction around the pipes, bentonite or mud or a similar substance being used.
39
The constructional tolerance recommended for most conditions in the PIA specification
is 75mm for line and level, a target within which the majority of pipe jacks can be
maintained. Conventional pipe jacking in the U.K is achieved with a small gang of
men. The rates of progress depend on ground conditions, and they vary considerably
from one contract to another.
2.2.2.3 Mechanised Pipe Jacking
This more recent form of pipe jacking uses mechanical excavators to aid the process,
which is usually carried out in soft ground by a full-face boring machine, or by a
mechanical excavator within the shield (Figure 2.2) . The thrust forward on the leading
pipe and the forces required from the pipe jacking system are reduced when a full face
machine is used. Lubricant is often used on top of the pipe to reduce the friction
forces.
For this technique a larger jacking shaft is required than with conventional pipe
jacking, due to the large size of single or telescopic jacks used to drive a full length of
the pipe at one time. Long straight or curved lengths without changes Iin direction at
manholes are preferable, with fast rates of progress possible (Washbourne, 1985 and
1986) .
Small bore pipe jacking is commonly known as minitunnelling or microtunnelling .

This technique uses pipe jacking methods but with remote controlled excavation
techniques utilising specially designed tunnel boring machines. These machines are
mainly adopted for construction of sewers in urban areas with difficult ground
conditions and a high water table.
40
Two main groups of tunnel boring machines exist . Slurry shields are really
miniaturized versions of the mechanical shields used for conventional tunnelling. In
the more sophisticated form they have a full face cutting head which can be moved
backwards relative to the body of the shield, allowing the cutter to exert a constant
pressure on the soil irrespective of the rate of advance of the pipe. Spoil from the
excavation is transported to the surface in a slurry, and the slurry pressure at the tunnel
face can be adjusted to match the external water pressure.
Alignment is monitored using a laser directed at a target on the shield. The target is
viewed by a television camera built into the shield and the picture is displayed on a
remote monitor at the surface. An operator viewing it can adjust steering jacks on the
shield to maintain alignment. The same operator controls the pipe jacking part of the
operation.
Steerable bores are usually steerable at the head by use of jacks. Alignment is
controlled by a visual survey from the launch pit or by use of a remotely viewed laser
system. Pipe installation may either be single-stage concrete pipe being jacked in
behind the borer, or multi-stage involving either a small diameter pilot bore or special
steel boring pipes which are subsequently thrust out and replaced by permanent pipes.
The spoil is removed either by aid of screw conveyors, which take the soil through the
pipes to the starting pit where it is collected and removed, or in a similar way with the
aid of hydraulic conveyance. An exception to this is the Swedish Lundby method for
pipes with a nominal diameter of 400mm and more. This method, specialised for soft
clay soil, consists of driving an open shield in a controlled way into the ground while
removing the soil plug from the pipe by water and a scraper (Stein et aI, 1985/86) ..
41
Chapter 2 Review oJ PIpe Jacking
Stein and Kipp (1985) describe the different methods of pipe jack construction for
pipes less than 800mm in diameter, where steel protective jacking pipes are used. In
cases where the jacking pipes are smaller than the steel protective pipes, the steel
protective pipes can be either left in place or drawn out of the ground, and the gap is
normally filled up with a propriety material . If the jacking pipes have the same
diameter as the steel protective pipes, the steel protective pipes are pushed out into the
receiving pit by jacking in the jacking pipes coupled with the aid of an adaptor.
Similarly, larger jacking pipes can be used by pushing the steel protective pipes to the
receiving pit with a reaming head in front of the jacking pipes. The extra soil is
removed through the pilot (steel) protective pipe. By using the steel protective pipe
method, the face resistance is reduced, as are jacking force peaks when obstacles are
encountered. It also gives better alignment control.
2.2.2.4 Uni- Tunnel System
This is a novel system in which inflatable rubber bladders are inserted between the
pipes and movement is accomplished by inflating the bladders sequentially, so that
every third pipe is driven forward sequentially (Richardson and Scruby, 1981 and
Craig, 1983) . The frictional resistance, against the ground, of the two following
pipes acts in reaction to the thrust. The system contrasts with conventional pipe
jacking where frictional resistance increases with drive length.
This technique requires specially manufactured pipes with butt ends to provide the
required area of contact for the installed bladder and a steel collar to prevent the bladder
from coming into contact with the excavated surface. The thrust corresponds to the
friction forces along a single pipe length only, so that the end loads of the pipe are
42
small . The amount of advance of each cycle is different, ranging from a few
millimetres to 15mm.
The process is carried out twice to advance the remaining sections and the sequence is
then repeated so that virtually continuous movement of the lining takes place while
spoil is excavated from the face. Although this technique was invented in 1981 and
fIrst used in Japan (NCE, 1986), it has been little used due to its comparatively high
cost when compared with the typical cost of pipe jacking.
2.2.2.5 Large-Bore Pipe Jacking
In contrast to small diameter tunnels, Clarkson and Ropkins (1977) have i11ustrated
pipe jacking applied to large structures such as bridge foundations, abutments and
subways. Since 1976, over twenty projects have been executed in the UK concerning
foundations and abutments for various types of bridge and subway, the majority under
existing railway tracks but some under roads. In each case the method served to
minimize the high cost and inconvenience of traffIc disruption which would have
resulted from the use of conventional methods . All the earlier projects featured
rectangular pre-cast concrete units delivered to site and installed into the drive pit by
crane. Subsequently, however, the concept of jacking massive rectangular cast in-situ
units was successfully implemented.
43
Chapter 2 Review ofPipe Jacking
2.3 SOIL MECHANICS ASPECTS OF PIPE JACKING
2.3.1 Introduction
Tunnels are constructed in variable ground conditions from soft clays to hard rock. In
order to decide which method of excavation to use, a knowledge of the ground
properties, insitu stresses, and other soil characteristics should be gained. In pipe
jaCking, similar problems are encountered as for tunnels but further study of the
behaviour of the ground movement and its resistance to the forward movement of the
jacked pipeline, together with the magnitude of the ground pressure exerted on the
crown of the pipeline, are needed.
2.3.2 The Theory of Ground Pressure on Tunnels
Most analyses of the pressure acting on a tunnel are concerned with the vertical stress
on the roof of the tunnel, although in some instances lateral stress is more important
than the roof stress. The insitu stresses are detennined approximately from earth
pressure theory .
Before dealing with the evaluation of ground pressures, it is necessary to understand

the behaviour of the soil mechanisms around the tunnel, since arching phenomena
have some contribution to the vertical pressure on the tunnel. Terzaghi (1943) defined
arching using his famous yielding trap door experiments. The movement between the
yielding sand and the adjacent sand is opposed by the frictional resistance along the
contact line between them . Therefore, the decrease of the vertical pressure on the
yielding strip must be associated with an increase of the vertical pressure on the
44
adjoining parts.
According to Szechy (1966), Kunczl conducted experiments on the behaviour of the
sand during arching over a slot. The slot was opened wider without attaining,
however, the intensity of the original geostatic pressure acting on the cover
(Figure 2.3) .
Terzaghi (1943) analysed the pressure on tunnels through sand by considering the
movement of the sand according to arching principles (Figure 2.4) . At the top of a
rectangular or square tunnel, the width of the yeilding strip (2BI) is approximately
equal to
2Bl = 2 [Bo + HI tan (45 - <1>/2H (2.1)
and for a circular tunnel, the width is
2B = 2b [1 + sin ( 45- <1>/2 H/( cos (45 - <1>/2)) (2.2)
where
BI = width of rectangular tunnel,

130 = half width of rectangular tunnel,
HI = height of rectangular tunnel,
B = width of circular tunnel,
b = half width of circular tunnel, and
$ =internal angle of friction.
The vertical pressure (av) on the horizontal section b I b I of width 2BI is determined
by
45
cry'" ya (1 - C e- Ko tan $ D/B) • (l / Ko tan $) (2.3)
where Ko '" empirical coefficient
Also according to Terzaghi an approximate estimate oflateral pressure is given by the
following formula:
crh ", 0.3 'Y (0.5 HI + D) (2.4)
For granular soil on the basis of Rankine's ratio
(2.5)
The effect of depth of the tunnel on the magnitude of the vertical pressure at the crown
of the tunnel was studied by Bierbaumer, according to Szechy (1966) . He developed
Bierbaumer's theory, which was developed during the construction of the great Alpine
tunnels. According to this theory, the tunnel is acted upon by the mass bounded by a
parabola of height h = a D (Figure 2.5) . The pressure at the crown will be
P=aDy (2.6)
The value of Cifor a rectangular or square tunnel is given by
a = 1 - ([tan<jl * tan2<jl(45-<jl/2)D) / [(Bo+2HI) * tan(45-<jl/2)lJ (2.7)
46
Chapter2. Review of Pipe Jacking
2.3.3 Tunnels Through Soft Ground
The conclusion of Muirwood (1975 ), is that loading problems should be treated in
effective stress terms. Atkinson and Pons (1977A) investigated, both theoretically and
experimentally, the stability of a circular tunnel in a cohesionless soil with support
conditions similar to those found during construction, with due regard to effective
stress conditions. They carried out experimental work to analyse the behaviour of dry
cohesionless soil along an unlined circular tunnel, and derived the following
expression for the lower bound on the tunnel support pressure (aT) required for
stability.
(2.8)
where ~ = (1+5In<l>')/(1-5In<l>')
<1>' is the maximum angle of shearing resistance of the soil (degree),
B is the tunnel diameter (m), /
g is the force due to gravity (rn/s2), and
'Y is soil density (kN/m3 ) •
Atkinson and POltS (1977B), by using tunnel modelling, defined a load factor (LF) as
the ratio between the acnial stability ratio (N) and the stability ratio at collapse (Ne) .
They also suggested that there is little need to differentiate between drained and
undrained deformations in overconsolidated clays, because of the relatively small
volumetric strains observed above their model tunnel.
47
Chapter 2 Review of PIpe Jacking
Davis et al (1980), have used the stability ratio (N), proposed originally by Broms and
. Bennermark (1967), to provide a convenient frame work for estimating tunnel
stability. Values of N less than 6 indicate that the excavation heading would be stable
and that no support is required.
2.4 PIPE JACKING FORCES
2.4.1 Introduction
The resistance to tunnel driving is generated from the pressures on the shield and by
sliding resistance between the soil and the outside surface of the pipe along its length.
This resistance must be overcome by the applied jacking forces,and the factors
affecting it are illustrated in Figure 2.6 .
In particular, two sets of parameters must be considered:
(i) Frictional resistance due to ground pressure
This can be used in a theoretical approach for calculating the required forces. Many
factors can influence these calculations, including
a- pipe shape
b- pipe self-weight
c- pipe overall diameter
d- surface surcharge
e- unit weight of the soil
f- type of soil
g- assumed soil loading mechanism
48
h- rigidity of the pipe structure
i- coefficient of friction of the pipe-soil interface
(ii) Construction factors
These factors can affect the magnitude of the calculated forces required for installation
of the pipeline, and include
a- face resistance
b- overcut
c- variation of ground conditions
d- rate of installation and magnitude of delays
e- joint deformation, both angular and lateral (steps)
f- lubrication
g- use of intermediate jacking stations
h- jacking around curves
2.4.2 Theoretical Analysis
It is important to predict the jacking forces during construction for the following
reasons:
1- Provision of jacks, and associated equipment, capable of providing
such forces.
2- Design of an adequate thrust pit •
3- Intermediate jacking station(s) may be required.
4- Provision of pipes to sustain the forces without damage.
5- The strength of the joints.
6- Economy of operation, uncertainty leading to overdesign .
49
There are two fundamentally different ways of estimating the jacking forces required
for pipe jacking as illustrated in Figure 2.7 . These methods are elaborated below and
are summarised in Table 2.7 at the end of the section.
2.4.2.1 CIRIA Approach
CIRIA produced a state-of-the-art review on pipe jacking as a Technical Note by

Craig( 1983) . The objective of the study was to determine the design criteria of the
pipe, the joint detail, the allowable end thrust on the pipe and the frictional forces due
to radial loading. The aim of the work was consequently to enable the industry to
establish the most competitive techniques for jacked pipe construction. The study was
based on direct experience, partly from literature but mainly from discussions with
representatives from all sides of the industry, who supplied information from
contracts.
The jacking loads provided in practice are normally in the range 0 - 4000kN on
average, although peak values at the end of jacking runs can reach up to 10000kN .
Variation in frictional resistance can occur as a result of minor changes in ground
conditions and properties, thus can therefore only be estimated within wide limits.
Craig (1983) produced a table showing some typical values for jacking forces,
expressed in terms of drag per unit area of the external pipe surface, for jacking
operations in different ground conditions . These were produced as a guide for
estimation of forces and are reproduced in Table 2 .1 .
50
Table 2.1 Empirical Jacking Forces ( after Craig, 1983 )

SoU Type Drag Force kN/m2
Rock 2-3
Boulder Clay 5- 8
Finn Clay 5 - 20
Wet Sand 10 - 15
Slit 5 - 20
Dry Loose Sand 25 - 45
Fill up to 45
Typically, different formulae or tables are used in different countries to estimate the
jacking forces. In Japan, the jacking force is estimated using
(2.9)
where
F = the total pipe jacking force,

Fa = shield resistance,
Rr = frictional resistance between the pipe and the soil,

SI = circumference of the pipe,
W = weight of the pipe,
Fw = the coefficient of the frictional resistance due to the weight of the
pipe,
Ll = distance of propulsion, and
I = coefficient for curved section
51
The shield resistance is given by

. 2· .
Fo = P + (Pw • B /4·__ 1t)
._ (2.10)
where P = force on cutting edge,
Pw = water pressure, and

B = external diameter of the pipe
In Australia, the jacking force is calculated using
F=aS+FoB (2.11)
where a = adhesive force,
F 0 = force per metre for the leading edge to penetrate the soil (shield
resistance),
B = external diameter of the pipe, and
S = external surface area of pipe = 1tBL .
The adhesive force is calculated from Table 2.2
Table 2.2 Adhesive Force Used in Australia (after Craig, 1983) .

Soil Type Friction Value (kN/m2)
Shale 1
Clay 5 - 7.5
Sand 13
In France jacking force calculations are based on recorded friction values during
construction (Table 2.3), although higher peak measurements have been recorded in
some cases.
52
Chapter 2 Review ofPIpe Jacking
Table 2.3 Frictional Forces used in France (after Craig, 1983).

Soil Type FIictlon Value (kN1m2)
Clay 8 - 10
Silt 17
Sand 20 - 30
Gravel 50
In Germany, the jacking forces are determined by a combination of the resistance at the
face of the tunnel and the friction between the pipe and the surrounding soil . An
average pressure of 9 kN/m2 must not be exceeded in design, although jacking loads
are sometimes said to be in the range 5-50 kN/m2 .
2.4.2.2 Auld's Analysis
Most of the theoretical methods for estimating the jacking forces use earth pressure
calculations and coefficient of friction. Auld (1982) analysed the problem by using
Terzaghi's earth pressure theory, allowing for the effect of arching of the soil above
the pipe on the vertical and lateral pressures.
The yielding strip width for a circular pipe is shown in Figure 2.8. From the bottom
surface of the pipe the inclined boundries of the zone of subsidence rise at an angle of
(45+~/2 ), and thus
2B = 2b [ 1 + sln(45+/2) I / cos(45 - <1>/2) (2.12)
A uniformly distributed vertical earth pressure can be taken as cr per unit area at any
v
53
Chapter 2 Reuiew oJ Pipe Jacking
depth z in the region of the sliding surface ac and bd (Figure 2.8) . The vertical
pressure can be detennined by considering the equilibrium of a horizontal thin slice of
thickness dD and the shearing resistance of the soil, as
Shearing resistance = C + cs tan$ (2.13)
where cr= applied stress per unit area
C = cohesion per unit area
To calculate the horizontal earth pressure, Coulomb's theory for active pressure is
applicable on the basis that the sides of the pipe are simple retaining walls, behind
which the backfill carries a unifonnly distributed surcharge cry per unit area, the
vertical pressure at the roof level. Lateral pressure on the sides of a pipe buried in the
sand or gravel can be obtained by considering the equilibrium of the soil mass lying
inside the wedge shaped zones defined by the shearing planes extending upwards at an
angle of 45+$/2 from the bottom surface of the pipe. Thus using Terzaghi's approach
(2.14)
ffiIy = cry/y
or by using Rankine's equation
(2.15)
In order to achieve the total force acting on the circumference of a circular pipe, the
ground pressure must be established. Figure 2.9 shows a suitable method. By
resolving the vertical and horizontal pressures in the radial direction, the radial
54
Chapter 2 Review oJ PIpe Jacking
pressure component at any point on the pipe is given by :
Po = cry eosS + ah sinS (2.16)
The total force on the top half of the pipe is thus
(2.17)
or
Pl = 2b(cry + crh) (2.18)
The total force on the bottom half of the pipe is given by
P2 = 2b( cry + self weIght of the pIpe per m 2 + crh ) (2.19)
and therefore the total force can be established as
P o =P1 +P2 (2.20)
By approximation of the normal pressures on the external surface of the pipe, he
therefore derived an expression for the total normal force on the surface per unit length
of the pipe (pu) as
P u = B.(2.Py + 2Ph + W/B) (2.21)
Where B = external diameter of the pipe,
Py = venical pressure at the crown of the pipe allowing for arching,
Ph = average horizontal pressure on side of the pipe allowing for
arching, and
W =weight per unit length of pipe
The frictional resistance which needs to be overcome per unit length of pipe is thus
given by
55
Fu =Pu ' tan~ (2.22)
where ~ = angle of friction between the soil and the pipe and ~ < cp •
Auld has thus considered the ground pressures on pipes as the sole parameter for
calculating the jacking forces, whereas it is known that other factors affect the forces
and these should be taken into account. Norris (1993) demonstrated from his basic
theory .. · that there is an error in Auld analysis resulting in a 25% overestimate of
jacking resistance. Further research is needed to define accurately what effect the other
parameters have on the jacking force. In addition, it appears that the conversion of
ground pressure on the pipe into frictional resistance has been treated very simply
using the angle of wall- friction. Further research is required to investigate this
approach and also to establish more accurate friction relationships for various pipe
and soil conditions.
2.4.2.3 Haslem's Analysis
Haslem (1986) studied jacking forces both in theory and in practice. Based on field
measurements, a new theoretical approach was developed allowing for the effects of
bentonite lubrication on both the buoyancy of the pipes and on the sliding resistance.
This method involves initial prediction of the jacking force for an ideal drive to provide
a base value, which is then adjusted to account for construction factors.
He summarised the observations from six tunnels through overconsolidated clay.
Improved prediction of jacking forces was achieved by determining the contact area
between pipe and soil from elastic theory and applying values of sliding resistance,
measured in the laboratory, over this area.
56
Chapter 2 Review of Pipe Jw::ktng
Figure 2.10 shows the jacking forces for several drives of a single contract onto which
is superimposed theoretical lines A to E where
A = simple earth pressure theory used at Kochi City with l! = 0.17
B = as for A but with l! = 0.34 (representing the required restarting

force)
C = elastic contact at the roof of the tunnel with an adhesion of 72 kPa
D = elastic contact at the floor of the tunnel with an adhesion of 72kPa
E = as D but with adhesion equal to the cohesion of the soil (200kPa)
Figure 2.11 supports the concept of elastic deformation of the soil in contact with the
pipe and resistance based on laboratory values of adhesion over the contact area.
Figure 2.12 shows the results and predictions for an earlier drive with the measured
forces lying between theoretical lines D and E for elastic deformation of the floor of the
tunnel excavation.
His conclusion can be summarised as follows
1- The range of forces from site measurements was wide and not related
to specific properties, when compared with the empirical resistance.
2- Theoretical calculation based on simple earth pressure overestimates
the jacking forces.
3- An alternative theoretical method has been proposed for calculating
the jacking forces by treating the pipeline as an elastic cylinder resting
on a cylindrical void in an elastic medium. This method underestimates
the jacking forces when compared with the laboratory values of sliding
resistance applied over the area of contact based on elastic deformation.
57
Chapter 2 Review oJ Pipe Jacking
4- It was found that, despite varying misalignment of the pipeline
studied, the curvature was similar and the increase in forces due to
misalignment predicted by the theory was negligible . This suggests that
if the theory is appropriate the differences in the measured jacking
forces must have another cause.
It appears from his work that the elastic deformation of the soil around the pipe
produces an increase in the jacking forces due to the greater contact areas causing more
adhesion resistance around the surface of the pipeline. More studies should be carried
out in a variety of ground conditions and types of soil. Investigation is also needed to
examine the variation of the jacking forces at different depths for the same ground
conditions. Other construction factors, such as overcut ratio, should also be
considered.
2.4.2.4 Japanese Analysis
A Japanese analysis (Anon, 1981) has used simple earth pressure theory to derive the
following expression for the jacking forces at Kochi city, Japan.
F = ([1t 12. B. ml [w + 1/2. (wl+w2) I + 1/4 .Wg • ~) . L (2.23)
where B = diameter of the pipe (m)
W = soil pressure perpendicular to pipe (tonne/ m2)= yD
° =cover to the pipe (m)

w1.w2 = soil pressure horizontal to pipe (kN/m2)
wl =KoD and w2 = Ko(D+B)
Ko=( 1-s!n<l» / (1 +s!n<l»
58
Wg = weight per unit length of pipe (kN/m2)
The pipeline was jacked through a ground which consists of sand and gravel layers
iI
fonned by the build up of sand fronfnearby river, together with silt and cohesive sand
and gravel. Seepage of water was detected in (he coarse non-cohesive gravel layer .
iron
Jacking operatioll5involved the use of ductile'pipe and the employment ofintennediate
jacking stations.
This expression was used to give the jacking forces using a coefficient of friction of
0.4 between gravel and the pipe, and 0.2 between clay and the pipe. Practically it was
the
found, during'jacking operation, that the coefficient of friction in cohesive soils stayed
at around 0.2 and increased to around 004 on occasions. This increase is due to the
cohesion of the clay layer when the surface concrete of the pipeline is separated after a
certain period of contact with soil. Injected lubricant was found to reduce the driving
force by 15% .
2.4.2.5 Herzog's Study
Herzog (1985) studied the jacking forces in loosely packed earth by referring to
Kuhnhann's (1977) statistical analysis of jacking forces (in MN), which states
F =0.21 Fk -1.18 (2.24)
in which Fk (in m 2) is made up of steel skin surface area and heading area, see Table
2.4 .
59
Table 2.4 Replacement Shield Area (after Kuhnhann,1977)
Type of Shield Fk
.. .
Fully mechanised shield, heading supported Fm +3 FB

partially mechanised or hand shield, heading supported Fm + FB
Partially mechanised. heading half obstructed Fm + O.5FB
Fully mechanised or hand shield. heading open Fm
Fully mechanised shield. free cutting O.7m
Note: Fk is shield area, Fm is steel skin surface, and FB is heading area
He suggested that it should be possible to calculate the jacking forces from the relevant
influences, such as
Type of shield
Heading support
Primary stress condition
Skin friction
Face resistance
He based his study on the pile model concept, where the two resistances, skin
resistance and face resistance, have to be overcome.
The skin friction can be determined by making the assumption that the primary earth
pressure (dependent on soil density, y, cover depth, D, and pipe external diameter, B )
acts on the pipe. In the vertical direction
Pv = 'Y ( D + B/2 ) (2.25)
60
Chapter 2 Review oJPipeJackfng
and in the horizontal direction
(2.26)
where Ko = side pressure coefficient, which is tenned more properly coefficient
of earth pressure at rest.
The frictional coefficient for a pipeline in the ground (f) is given in Table 2.5, from
which the skin friction (Pn0 can be calculated as follows
Table 2.5 Coefficient of Friction Between the Ground, The Shield and Pipe
Surface (after Herzog, 1985)
Soil Steel Shield Concrete Shield
Gravel 0.55 0.80

Sand 0.45 0.65
Loam.Marl 0.35 0.40
Low Grade Clay 0.30 0.35
Clay 0.20 0.25
-
Note: Low Grade Clay is assumed to mean a clay of low plasticity
Pm =f1tDL ( Pv + Ph ) /2 (2.27)
where L is the length of the pipeline.
The face resistance can be divided into two resistances, cutting resistance and heading
resistance. The heading resistance results from construction processes, such as the
resistance caused by compresed air or bentonite support. The heading resistance (Psl)
is given by the horizontal earth primary stress (Ph) and the heading area of the pipe or
shield as
61
(2.28)
The cutting resistance is given by the cutting thickness (t) of the shield and the strength
of the soil face ( Ps), as defined in Table 2.6 .
Table 2.6 Resistance to Ground Cutting in Terms of the Strength of The
Soil Face (Ps)
Soil Ps (MN/m2)
Rocky Ground 12
Gravel 7
Dense Sand 6
Medium Sand 4
Loose Sand 2
Mar! 3
Clay 1
Poor Clay 0.4
The cutting resistance is therefore given as
Ps2 = Ps 1tB t (2.29)
The complete face resistance is given by
Ps =Ps 1+ Ps2 (2.30)
The heading resistance can be ignored if the heading is totally self-supported.
A summary of the jacking force analyses is given in Table 2.7, which serves to
provide a direct, simple comparison of the different approaches.
62
.............. --~------------------------------------
Table 2.7 Summary of the Methods of Jacking Force Analysis
ANALYSIS BY SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS CONCLUSION REMARKS

Based on experience of contractors and A set of ranges of Jacking resistance Is Minor changes In ground Condition can cause
records of jacking forces from various achieved from records of previous a significant variation In fnctlonal forces. with
CRAIG(CIRIA) s1tes . The study covers predicttve methods contracts in similar ground condtttons . vartation of more than 50% In Jacking forces
from many countries worldwide. found In some contracts. The jacking drag
values are thus only a very approximate
guldltne and are of little use In design .
Based on the arching prindple of the soll. It. Introduces a better estimation of the The conversion of the ground pressure Into
converts the vertical and the hOrizontal Jacking loads by considering mainly the a Jacking load Is very simple. It relates
ground pressures around the pipeline tnto a earth pressures around the plpeUne . angles of fnctlon to the Jacking load •
AULD Jacking load equation. However it does overestimate the Other factors are not taken into consideration.
Jacking resistance. Accurate fnetlon relationships between the
soil and the surface of the pipeline should be
established •
Based on treating the pipeline as an elastic It appears to underestimate the Jacking Construction factors are needed to adjust
cylinder resting In a cylindncal void In an forces tn practice. probably as a result, the Jacking forces . It Is applicable to an
HASLEM elastic medium . It relates the sliding of plasUc deformation causing contact elastic medium. whIch the ground is not. but
resistance to the amount of area tn contact area to Increase. It is applicable to an nevertheless represents a valuable
with the surrounding soil . Ideal. straight line pipe Jack. conU1b .....t.i~". which can
be refined .
, Based on a simple earth-pressure theory . It was found that the coefficient of The coefficient Is stIlI an assumption and It
Developed to analyse the Jacking forces at frlct!on between the pipeline and has not been tested practically . The theory
Kochl city. Japan. gravel Is 0.4. and clay Is 0.2 • Is of little practical value Without considerable
JAPANESE Bentonite lubr1catlon reduces the empirical experience to detennlne constants.
(ANON) JackIng forces by 15%.
Based his stUdy on Kllhnhann's statistical Calculation of the Jacking forces gives a It does not consider the amount of the overcut
study related to jacking forces . Also. he reasonable estimation .It includes the around the face and the time depend;nt
HERZOG studied the Jacking forces using the pile calculaUon of the skin friction and the behaviour of the soUlround the pipeline
model concept, skin resistance and face face fL'Sistancc of the plpeUne and is dunng the Jacking process. A contnbullon
resistance. based on simple, logical concepts. worthy of refinement.
Chapter 2 Review DJ Pipe Jacking
2.4.3 Experimental and Field Investigation
Detailed field investigations have been conducted by Haslem (1983 and 1986), and
this has been mentioned in relation to his jacking force analysis in section 2.4.2.3 .
Experimental work has concentrated mainly on small project research to define some
problems associated with pipe jacking. This work has been clearly demonstrated by
O'ReilIy and Rogers (1987) . They concluded that, in a self-supporting ground, the
resistance to jacking is simply the shear strength of the line contact. (In rock point
contacts can arise at an angle to the vertical since the excavation will not be perfectly
circular) .
They have also considered the contact area between the pipe and the soil (in this case a
clay) according to elastic theory, by conducting a scale model experiment. A graph
( Figure 2.13 ) was achieved, from which it was concluded that the elastic theory
underestimates the contact area by a factor of approximately 2.5 for a clay with
(PL=20%, LL=85%) and a load applied for 15 minutes. Using clay with higher
water content (LI = 0.36), the contact area was underestimated by a factor of 1.6 .
The area of contact was also not constant and increased with time. If this change in
contact is applied to the data of Haslem reported earlier, a better fit is obtained
(Figure 2.14 ) .
A larger project has been carried out at Oxford University on the cyclic loading of
jacked concrete pipes. Scale model apparatus was used to examine the behaviour of the f
concrete pipes and its packing within joints during the jacking process.
64
The aim of the work was to determine the magnitude of the forces that pipes can
sustain during construction (Milligan and Ripley, 1989), and thus this has little bearing
on the discussion herein.
lA f()llow on project has been conducted to extend the work to the field (Norris and
Milligan, 1992A and Norris, 1993), for fi~e different schemes. Both the progress
and jacking forces were recorded to demonstrate the effect of the pipe soil interface.
The field experiments were conducted in five types of ground conditions, stiff Glacial
Clay (scheme 1), weathered Mudstone (scheme 2), London Clay (scheme 3), dense
Silty Sand (scheme 4) and loose Sand Gravel (scheme 5) . The records of the jacking
forces for all the schemes are demonstrated in Figure 2.15 a,b,c,d, and e . It seems
that the rate of the jacking resistance for cohesionless soil in schemes 4 and 5 was
decreased dramatically when lubrication was used. Schemes!, 2 and 3, where the
jacking process· occurred in cohesive soils, show changes in the rate of jacking
resistance due to stoppages, rate of jacking and weather conditions. However, he has
failed to relate the effect of the overburden pressure (cover) to the magnitude of the
jacking forces, where the jacking force was 54 kN/m for scheme 3 under 11-2!m of
soil cover, 8-54 kN/m for scheme 2 for 7 - Ilm of soil cover and 7.2 - 29.8 kN/m
for scheme 11 at ·1.5 - 1.7m below the ground level. No mention was given to the
amount of the overcut ratios adopted for each scheme and their effect on the magnitude
of the jacking forces. It is expected that more detailed results will appear in a thesis to
be published in early 1994.
Rogers et al (1989A) have investigated the jacking forces from site data by referring to
case studies on pipe jacking projects. In their paper, they relate the magnitude of
measured jacking forces with the stability number of the soil, and hence the ability of
65
the ground to support itself. They plotted their results as shown in Figure 2.16, in
which they demonstrated that higher jacking forces were needed in weak alluvial clay
::I
with'stability number of 7 (Figure 2.16a) than much stiffer glacial clay of stability
number of 3. . (Figure 2.16b) . It is recognised that full collapse of an unlined tunnel
will occur at values of stability numbers of about 6 according to Peck (1969) and Mair
(1979) . Rogers et al (1989B), studied a pipe jacking operation at Bumham-on-Seaand

concluded that the jacking forces were considerably lower in self-supporting ground
with little misalignment and with overbreak around the driving shield (overcut) . Stein et al
(1986) defined the jacking forces for a small diameter pipe jack in terms of cover depth
and jacking distance from site data in Hamburg, Figure 2.17.
2.5 FACTORS AFFECTING THE JACKING FORCES
2.5.1 TYPE OF SOIL
Pipe jacking can be performed in different types of soil and ground conditions. The
Pipe Jacking Association has classified the types of soil which are likely to be
encountered during pipe jacking.
(a-) Non-cohesive: sands, gravel, ballasts and silts.
(b-) Cohesive: clays, mads with up to 20% of gravel and having a moisture content
less than the plastic limit. Also chalks having a saturation moisture content of 20% or
greater.
(c-) Mixed: sand and clay, sand and silt, non saturated clays and silts, and boulders.
(d-) Fills: mixed materials of recent deposition such as domestic refuse containing
ash, vegetable matter, etc, and materials of varying content and compaction used for
66
Chapter 2 Review oj Pipe Jacking
embankments for railways, roads, etc.

(e-) Rock: hard material of geological origin or other comparable hard inert material
(concrete, brick, etc ) .
Prior to pipe jacking, information should be provided on the characteristics of the soils
likely to be encountered together with details of the strata with depth to a point
significantly below the pipeline and water table, such as its rate of inflow into an
excavation and any tidal or seasonal changes. For particular types of soils these
characteristics include the following.
(a) Non-cohesive soils

grading analysis to fmd particle size distribution.
permeability of soil .
soil densi ty .
standard penetration test of soil (N-factor) .
(b) Cohesive soils
Atterberg limits
u ndrained shear strength (apparent cohesion or unconfined compressive

strength is called for in the literature, although more closely controlled
testing appear to be better)
permeability of soil (to enable determination of time dependent collapse
of soil onto pipe)
s oil density .
.standard penetration test of the soil .
(c) Mixed soils
information as above together wi th evidence of artesian or perched water
67
Chapter 2 RevieW ojPfpeJack1Ilg
tables.
(d) Fill materials
information as above with particular reference to compaction and the
nature of the material .
(e) Rock
colour, grain size, geological type.
rock strength (MN/m2) and fracture state (R.Q.D)
planar structure (bedding, etc.) .
Phillips (1985) suggests that a site investigation should involve a number of boreholes
both along the line of the proposed drive and in the area of the associated temporary
works. The author considers lOOm to be the maximum spacing unless very uniform
ground conditions can be ensured.
Ingold and Thomson (1989) categorised pipe jacking site investigation according to
application such as crossing, large diameter line installation (2000mm-1500mm) and
small diameter line installation «250 mm) . In all pipe jacking geotechnical
investigation, particle size distribution and,in the case of cohesive material,the shear
strength and consolidation· constitute the standard lab\lratory tests, while the insitu testing
will mainly involve the Standard Penetration Test for determination of the relative
density and strength of granular soils or shear vane test for cohesive soils.
Although Stein et al (1985) show a linear relationship for jacking forces in a small
diameter pipe jack (Figure 2.17) they suggested that this relationship is not necessarily
the case in practice because the condition of the soil along the pipeline has been shown
vary considerably in practice.
68
Drennon (1979) stated that selection of pipe jacking as the preferred method of tu~nel
installation depends largely upon the soil. Since long run jacking almost always
requires use of a tunnel boring machine, the soil must be suitable for that sort of
mining operation . This effectively precludes jacking in mixed face conditions,
although it should be noted that this comment was made thirteen years ago and recent
equipment developments would appear to have rendered the statement invalid for
current practice . The best ground for jacking is clay with a minimum unconfined
compressive strength of lOOkN/m2 . The higher the percentage of silt or sand in the
clay, the more difficult the frictional conditions become since permeability of the clay
will rise and collapse of the soil onto the pipe is more likely to occur. Jacking has
been done very successfully in shales that have both good stand up times and that turn
to clay immediately around the pipe.
Materials that prove very difficult for successful pipe jacking include squeezing clays,
since the contact area between the pipe and the soil rapidly become large and
considerable forces are generated. In addition a weak clay will cause problems in
maintaining alignment of the pipe jack since shield resistance against the surrounding
soil is required for steering . Sand or gravel, especially in a loose or running
condition, also can prove very difficult for pipe jacking. Friction on the pipe is the
major problem with sands and gravels where these materials do not develop a strong
arching mechanism above the pipe, such as the case with loose materials that have a
low, or non-existent, angle of dilation.
69
2.5.2 AMOUNT OF OVERCUT
Overcut is the creation of a small gap around the pipes that follow a slightly oversized
steel shield at the face of the tunnel. The shield usually has an outside diameter of
1O-20mm greater than the outside diameter of the jacking pipes. The magnitude of the
overcut is usually defmed in terms of overcut ratio (R), as shown in Figure 2.18. This
gap is not usually precisely uniform around the pipe, except for a full face cutter
working in ideal ground conditions or trimming shields in clay. Hand excavation
produces more overcut, or overbreak, than shield tunnelling . In some cases, an
overcut of 2S-S0mm is created, depending on the type of the soil. For example,
Manlow (1984) stated that the mini tunnel system shield creates an overcut of
approximately 6% of the bore.
There are two distinct situations in which the magnitude of the overcut influences the
jacking forces, and these are detailed below.
2.5.2.1 Non-closure of overcut
This occurs in a fmu to stiff cohesive soil and in a cemented soil or rock. In this case
a large proportion of surface area of the pipe does not make contact with the
surrounding soil .
Washbourne (1982) analysed the non-closure of overcut by referring to Kirsch
equations. He observed that the jacking distance can be increased if the overcut can be
maintained. The Kirsch equations assume that the material surrounding the excavation
will shear at an angle of (45 + <\112)0 to the horizontal from the extremities of the
70
horizontal diameter. In addition the elastic closure of the vertical diameter will cause
the top of the excavation to bear down on the crown of the pipes. The shear failure at
the horizontal diameter of the excavation will be associated with a compressive
stress l.of 2Ctan(4S+$!2) acting· . circumferentially . The Kirsch elastic theory equation
may be applied to a long horizontal excavation of radius (r) and stress field of (Pv) in the
(KoPv) in the direction
vertical and A· horizontal'in material of modulus of rigidity G and Poissons
ratio Cv) .
The overcut will not close if
Pv [ 3 - Ko J < 2C tan [45 + $1 2 )0 (2.31)
2.5.2.2 Closure of overcut
Closure of overcut happens when the surrounding soil collapses onto the pipeline.
This occurs in non cohesive soils (gravel, sand, and silt) and is manifested by full
contact between the surrounding material and the surface of the pipeline. In this case
the jacking resistance will be considerable and the support pressure to the jacking
thrust wall, at the back of the jacking pit, in such material can also be low, for this also
depends upon the strength of the surrounding soil .
When jacking in certain ground conditions, the material may be non-closing at the start
of the excavation, but will progressively collapse onto the pipe as negative porewater
pressure reduces with time. This will tend to induce high sliding, or frictional,
resistance.
71
Little investigation has been carried out on the relationship between the overburden
pressure and the magnitude of the jacking forces generated during the construction of a
pipeline at different depths. Stein et al (1985) postulated the linear relationship shown
in Figure 2.17, in which the jacking forces are related to cover depth and jacking
distance, but this can be considered as an approximate model only . Overburden is
accounted for in several of the theoretical analyses described in section 2.4.2, but no
serious attempt has made to measure this effect in the laboratory or in the field .
2.5.4 MISALIGNMENT
As a pipe jack progresses, errors in the position of the excavation can often cause the
pipeline to deviate from the proposed line . It is important to keep the pipeline
properly aligned because any deviation will cause ground resistance to increase and
will additionally cause the forces in the pipes to rise considerably.
Haslem (1983) analysed the misalignment of the jacked pip,eline. terming it wriggle.
Misalignment can occur in any direction. but is generally resolved horizontally and
vertically. By considering an elemental length of the tunnel and the components of
horizontal and vertical deviation. he obtained the resultant normal force between the
tunnel element and the soil (t.N) . This can be expressed as a force per unit length of
tunnel (FJ. from which the resistance force per unit length (Fs) can be obtained as
Fs= Futan p (2.32)
where p = angle of friction between the soil and the pipe surface.
72
Rogers et al (1989B) demonstrate in a case study that sharp changes in both line and
level can cause the jacking force to rise by typically 20 tonnes. It was also stated that
the force tends to be more sensitive to changes in level than in line, since the major
principal stress is usually vertical .
It can be concluded that the jacking force is expected to increase when the line of
tunnelling deviates from a straight line, due to the increase in the normal force between
the surrounding soil and the pipeline. A simple analogy to explain the reason for this
is that a greater area than that of the face of the shield is directly opposing the thrust
of the jacks (Le some component of force in a misaligned drive acts directly towards
the jacks) . Such analysis is, however, too simple since it assumes a single pipe rather
than discrete pipe sections, which attempt to realign due to the differential forces acting
across the ends of the pipes . These result in a moment being set up and large,
localised forces normal to the pipewall are generated to maintain equilibrium.
In a similar manner, tunnel curvature has a great effect on the jacking forces. Nomura
et al (1985) showed in field tests that a lOOm length of jacked pipeline with a curvature
of radius 200m is possible in either cohesive or sandy soil. Clearly as the curvature
increases, so the normal (and hence jacking) force increases.
2.5.5 THE SIZE AND LENGTH OF THE PIPELINE
The pipe diameter and the total length of the proposed pipeline have a considerable
influence on the magnitude of jacking forces (Anon, 1981, and Herzog, 1985) . These
parameters increase the surface area of the pipeline, and consequently total contact area
73
with the surrounding soil. In addition the span (or diameter) of the pipeline will have
an influence on the ability of the soil to develop arching above the pipeline.
2.5.6 THE RATE OF JACKING
The rate at which the pipes are jacked is dependent on the difficulties encountered in
construction, such as the rate of excavation, the speed of spoil removal and the rate of
installing the lining. The fonner is generally the dominant influence. In good ground
conditions using mechanical excavation, jacking rates reach 4m/hr, while in bad
ground conditions and using hand excavation the jacking rates may be reduced
dramatically to O.4m/hr, (Basu, 1973) . Washboume (1984A) stated that for small
diameter tunnelling in soft ground, 3-6 m/hr might be jacked if a boring machine is
used for excavation.
Time is an important factor in changing the behaviour of the soil around the pipeline.
Rogers et al (1989A) have shown the that slow progress causes an increase in the
jacking forces. In addition, they demonstrated that a break in production can lead to
significantly increased restart forces, which in some cases reach 50% of the forces
prior to the stoppage (Figure 2.16) . Norris and Milligan (1992A), concluded that the
time factor effect is pronounced in. high plasticity clay and may be related to rate of
jacking rather than increases in ground pressure during stoppages as shown in Figure
the
2.19. They also demonstrated that'pipe-soil interface is effected by the localised radial
and frictional stresses.
74
2.6 METHODS OF REDUCING JACKING FORCES
2.6.1 INTRODUCTION
By jacking further pipes into the ground forces will progressively increase, the
magnitude of these forces being dependent on many factors as discussed above. In
this section, methods of reducing these forces are investigated . The most popular
method of reducing jacking forces is the application of a lubricant around the pipes.
relatively
Bentonite, polymer mud or any chemical substance that produces aAfrictionless
medium around the pipes can be used. An alternative method of reducing jacking
forces is to coat the pipes with a smooth material.
Mechanical means can also be used to reduce the forces required of the main jacks,
such as intermediate jacking stations whereby sets of hydraulic jacks are placed at
regular intervals along the length of the pipeline in order to reduce jacking distance
over which the pipe train is jacked. In addition, adjustment of the amount of overcut
around the tunnel lining can reduce the jacking forces in some types of soil .
2.6.2 LUBRICATION
Lubricating slurry for jacked tunnel linings is usually based on bentonite with a water
content of about 98% by volume. It is usually pumped uniformly around the outside
of the jacked lining through injection points in the rear of the shield or through
specially provided holes in the pipe line, or a combination of both. As the linings are
normally lighter than the weight of slurry they displace, injection of slurry through the
top of the lining counteracts the tendency of the lining to float upwards. In addition to
75
reducing the frictional forces, the bentonite supports the ground immediately behind
the cutting edge of the shield, thereby limiting any settlement and reducing the
possibility of future soil collapse onto the pipeline. Slurry lubrication offers the
opportunity of installing longer runs of jacked tunnel linings with fewer points.
Washbourne (1986) has investigated the use of thixotropic slurries in the tunnelling
industry as a result of a programme of research. The use of bentonite slurry smear is a

common practice in the UK (Washbourne, 1982) . In this technique bentonite slurry is
injected over the pipe prior to its entry into the ground, although this has a negligible
effect in granular soils where the lubrication would be most useful. By contrast
injection of lubricating slurry behind the shield and/or through the pipe wall acts to
separate the outside of the jacked tunnel lining from the surrounding ground, and this
can reduce sliding resistance in granular soils.
As friction is greatly reduced by lubrication, slurries can greatly increase the distance
to which the tunnel can be jacked in a single run without intermediate jacking.
Washboume (1984) concluded that
Fb = (weight/m) slurry - (weight/m)linlng (2.33)
where Fb is the net positive buoyancy per metre, giving a tendency for floatation of a
tunnel lining in a slurry .
Haslem (1983) also concluded that lubrication has a great effect on reducing the
frictional force between the surrounding soil and the surface of the pipeline. He
stated that the conventional theory of the pressure induced underneath the pipe is
attributable to the weight of the pipe itself. By adding bentonite, the pipe displaces a
76
weight of slurry greater than its own weight which results in an upthrust pressure on
the pipe. If the pressure provided by the bentonite is sufficient to maintain the overcut
void along the length of the pipe, the contact area between the soil and the pipe will be
limited to a strip along the crown of the pipe. The bentonite slurry offers no resistance
to the pipeline and hence the only resistance to forward movement is generated by
pipe-soil resistance at the crown of the pipeline, together with face resistance.
The effect of the slurry lubrication has been well observed from a number of on-site
pipe jacking operation by Rogers et al (1989A and B) and Norris (1993) as
demonstrated by Figures 2.16 and 2.15e respectively. The observation has shown a
dramatic reduction in the jacking forces.
It can be concluded that, in order to achieve the greatest benefits of slurry lubrication,
the slurry must be injected round the forward end of the pipe run as jacking proceeds.
Slurry injection into the overcut annulus tends to make the pipes float, although this
sometimes requires a very difficult slurry-sealing operation. Reduction of jacking
forces by typically up to 50% can be achieved by lubrication .
. 2.6.3 SPECIAL JACKING PIPES
Special jacking pipes are needed in certain circumstances, such as where :
1. high friction values between the surface of the pipe and the
surrounding soil occur,
2. high strength pipes are required, for example adjacent to the shield or
inteIjacking stations, and
3. the use of special materials in jacking the pipes is required by local
77
conditions.
2.6.3.1 Pipe surface
Jacking pipes can be made from steel, concrete, clay, ductile iron and other materials,
to which can be added coatings. The magnitude of the sliding resistance is dependent
on the friction between the surface of the pipe and the surrounding soil. This value of
friction varies for anyone pipe surface because of the different frictional characteristics
of the surrounding soil. In addition the value can change markedly with the type of
pipe surface. For example, steel pipes have less frictional resistance than concrete
pipes due to the nature of the surface.
In order to reduce jacking forces concrete pipe manufacturelS are trying to produce a
smooth surface finish for their jacking pipes. Research is underway on how to
achieve Iow surface friction values either by using conventional concrete or by coating
the pipes with different materials, such as reinforced plastic matrix, paint and
polyuretha ne varnish.
2.6.3.2 High strength pipes
High strength pipes are required adjacent to the jacks and for long distance drives to
sustain the large forces involved. The development of glass reinforced concrete
jacking pipes has contributed to improved site operations, as reported by Takada
(1987), who studied the feasibility of long distance jacking using glass reinforced
pipes. Laboratory tests demonstrated that these pipes have high axial compressive
strength .
78
2.6.3.3 The use of special materials
High ground water tables can cause problems during pipe jacking since water can
infiltrate during construction . Tohyama & Koiwa (1987) discussed the use of
membrane wrapping in pipe jacking. They noted that infiltrationlinflow of water
during tunnel driving worsens the working conditions inside the tunnel. Preventative
measures to reduce infiltration/inflow required labour, time and cost. Membrane
wrapping was developed to counteract this effect and has proved successful. In this
method, the tunnel is completely covered with a waterproof vinyl sheet . The sheet is
sufficiently strong for use in very gravelly ground. In addition they showed that the
jacking forces required were far lower than the standard values (Figure 2.20) . Even in
the case of the longest pipe jack, approximately only one third of the standard force
was required. It also demonstrated that the membrane prevents lubrication from
dispersing into the ground, thus greatly contributing to lower jacking forces. These
combined effects prove that the jacking distance could be significantly extended, thus
reducing the number of jacking shafts and greatly reducing the cost of the project.
2.6.4 INTERMEDIATE JACKING STATIONS
Intermediate jacking stations are used when the pushing force of the main jacking
station is no longer adequate to overcome the friction between the pipes and the soil or
where an increase in force would result in the load bearing capacity of the pipes being
exceeded.
They are most commonly used in very long drives. An intermediate jacking station
consists of a steel shield introduced in the line of pipes with hydraulic jacks mounted
79
inside the periphery (Figure 2.21) . The front section of pipes are jacked using the
pipeline behind as the reactive force. The jacks are then retracted and the back section
of pipes are jacked forward using the thrust pit rams. As at the thrust pit, the pipes at
the intermediate shield are protected with load spreading steel rings. One or both of
the pipes adjacent to the intermediate shield have a rebate so that on completion of the
pipe jack all hydraulic rams, strengthening rings and load spreaders can be removed
and the gap can be closed to form a joint. Very long pipe sections can be jacked using
a section by section jacking sequence.
The number of intermediate stations required will clearly depend on the length of the
pipe sections, the resistance at the face, and the friction acting on the jacked pipes.
Care has to be taken to install intermediate jacking stations well before the forces rise
high enough to require their use, since changes in ground conditions could increase the
forces on the front section considerably. Intermediate stations are normally designed
to be as strong as the main stations in terms of their jacking capacity. In contrast with
main stations, intermediate jacking stations are equipped with a large number of short
stroke hydraulic cylinders with a relatively Iow pushing force per cylinder. This
results in a short construction length with narrow, short thrust collars for a uniform
transfer of force.
2.6.5 OVERCUT RATIO
The magnitude of the overcut around the tunnel lining can affect the sliding resistance
because it influences the interaction between the surface of the pipe and the
surrounding soil. In particular it affects the arching mechanisms set up in granular

soils. Washbourne (1982), for example, describes the overcut as a method of
80
relieving some of the interactive pressure between the lining and the surrounding
ground, and thereby reduce the sliding resistance.
2.7 CONCLUDING DISCUSSION
The finding;of the literature review can be summarised as follows .
1- Pipe jacking has increased in popularity for new pipeline and tunnel construction,
and renovation of existing underground utilities in busy urban areas. The technique
is most used in Japan, Germany, the UK, and the USA, although other countries
around the world are starting to adopt this tunnelling method .
2- Pipe jacking has both advantages and disadvantages over trenching and traditional
tunnelling techniques, and these are summarised in Table 2.8 .
3- One construction problem concerns the length of the jacked pipeline. Large jacking
forces are needed for long drives and these are restricted by the capacity of hydraulic
jacks, the resistance of the supporting wall, the strength of the pipes and the deviation
of the pipeline. The type of the surrounding soil and the contact area between the pipe
and the soil generate different jacking, or sliding, resistances for the whole pipeline
and these need to be accurately, if not precisely, predicted. Intermediate jacking
stations can be used to'reduce the problems, but these are expensive to install and
require a good appreciation of the likely forces generated by the ground to ensure good
engineering, hence economic design. It is also important that they are installed in
sufficient time to ensure that the front section(s) of pipes do not become immovable.
81
· Chapter2 Review ojPipeJacking
4- Little research work has been done towards understanding jacking forces. The
current method of predicting these forces in the UK is based on contractors'
experience and empirical relationships determined from site records for different types
of soil (Craig, 1983) . In some countries empirically based formulaehave been used to
calculate jacking forces. Theoretical solutions have been postulated, for example Auld
(1982) produced a theory for calculating jacking forces based on the arching principle,
expounded by Terzaghi . Nevertheless estimates of certain parameters, based on
empirical observations, are required in the calculation such as values of the face
resistance . Much more information on this subject is required before accurate

predictions can be made.
5- The factors that influence the frictional component of the jacking forces are the
overcut ratio at the face of the excavated tunnel, the type of the soil around the
pipeline, the insitu stress conditions, and the amount of the contact area between the
pipeline and the surrounding soil .
6- The methods of reducing the jacking forces are the use of lubrication around the
pipeline, the use of smooth external surfaces for the pipes, the use of overcut, the
installation of intermediate jacking stations at intervals along the length of the pipeline,
and the use of a membrane placed between the pipe and the soil, between which
lubrication can be injected. This latter technique can also be used to overcome the
problems of a high water table.
7- Special cases of pipe jacking include curved tunnels. For practical purposes,
straight drives-are usually adopted and shafts have to be built at points where the
82
out
pipeline has to go through a bend. However, recent work has been carried"in Japan to
overcome this problem and some projects have been successfully carried out with
large radius curves. Special laser guidance systems and strong concrete pipes were
used to overcome the problems associated with a curved pipeline.
It is clear from these findings that there are several areas in which research is required.
These are described below.
1- Sliding resistance is influenced greatly by the type of soil surrounding the jacked
lining . Investigation should be made to specify the limits of this variation by
considering theoretical aspects of the surrounding soil and the soil-structure friction
phenomena of different types of soil. Some study of jacking resistance in a cohesive
soil has been done. The contact area between pipe and soil has been studied relation to
the elastic theory, and its influence on the forces recorded in practice has been
estimated (Haslem, 1983 and 1986, Q'Reilly and Rogers, 1987) . This remains a
complex problem. However a more profitable area of research concerns cohesionless
soils in which the mechanism of soil-pipe interaction and generation of frictional forces
can be more easily determined.
2- It has been noted that the magnitude of the overcut can have a significant effect on
the sliding resistance of the jacked tunnel, especially in granular soils where collapse
of the soil over the pipeline occurs immediately (Washbourne, 1984B) . Research
should be undertaken to establish the magnitude of this effect and optimum values for
design. Whilst larger values of overcut might not be feasible in certain situations
where ground movements are critical, in many cases a relatively small increase in
overcut might permit longer driving distances and hence more efficient site operations.
83
Chapter 2 Reuiew of PIpe Jack1ng
3- In predicting the jacking forces required for a particular type of soil, little
consideration has been given to the magnitude of the overburden pressure that will
occur in dilating soils above the pipeline. This should likewise be researched since
free field horizontal and vertical effective stresses, although providing an upperbound,
might provide a considerable overestimation of forces in practice.
4- Research is also required to investigate the increase of jacking forces caused by

misalignment of the pipeline. The jacking capacity of the pipes required to sustain
these forces during installation should be taken into consideration in this work.
5- More research is required into methods of reducing jacking forces by lubrication
and/or coating the pipes with material of Iow frictional resistance. The material should
be tough enough to resist damage to its surface during the jacking process, and hence
should remain relatively smooth.
6- Determination of the coefficients of friction between the pipe surface and
surrounding soil, for different types of soil and pipe surfaces, are required to permit
better estimation of jacking forces in practice.
84
Chapter 2 Reuiew of Pipe Jacking
.
Table 2 8 Advantages and Disadvantages of Pipe Jacking .
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
1. It can be used In different ~es 1. The total length of the jacked
of soil. and in conditions were pipes may be restricted
compressed air would otherwise during construction ( although
be necessary . this can be overcome) .
2. The ~cked pipes form the 2. The amount of permissible
finis ed lining, and there Is no CUlVature of the tunnel is
need for temporary l1rl1ng . minimal.
3. Good and stable lInIng with 3. The build up of the jacking
little risk of soil and pipe forces can prove excessive if
settlement . unexpected ground is
encountered.
4. Fast construction technique in
comparison with traditional 4. Misalignment of the
tunnelling and trenching . f,lpellne may cause pipe
racture and spalllng of
5. The volume of excavation concrete at the joints, which
required is significantly nlight not be apparen t from
reduced. Inside the tunnel.
6. No damage to roads or public 5. Pipe joint seal cannot be seen,
utilities, and no disruption to and thus damage might not be
traffiC when compared apparent.
with trenching techniques.
7. Less smell, nOise, dirt and
visual Intrusion.
8. Smaller access requiredfor the
starting and finishing pits than
conventional tunnelling
techniques.
9. No subsequent grouting
required.
85
"'~D~"""--~--~~--~~--~--e
-----------------
Figure 2.1 Typical Pipe Jacking Pit, (after PJA)

1. Excavation machine 5. Crane
2. Disposal system 6. Pipes
3. intennedlate jacking station 7. Control unit
4. Hydraulicjacks 8. Power supply unit
Figure 2.2 Mechanised Pipe Jacking System

" ,
',,'...
,',,','
,,,,
,,,
,,, ,,, ,
,, ,,,
,, ,, ,
,,,
",','
,,
,",,','
,,
,,, ,,,,
,,.
cover
plate (kg)
(a)-Experimental layout
2.5
2.0 1\ I loose
I sand
~ i-"
1.5
/'
....V'
'61l
~
Cl) 1.0
\.-- V dense
sand
I
0.5
0.0
o 2 4 6 8 10
dh (mm)
(b)-Experimental results
Figure 2.3 Pressure Upon a Cover Plate Governed by Arching

(after Kunczl in Szechy, 1966 )
........... .~ .............................. ............ ;... .....................
~
..., ,
.'
, 2B1
soil
D
, 280 ,
,'... IP/,
Bo=b
B1=b1
Tunnel
45 - <1>/2
Figure 2.4 Tunnel In Sand (after Terzaghl. 1943) .
Figure 2.5 The Pressure Bulb on a Tunnel

(after Blerbaumer In Szechy. 1966
Figure 2.6 Factors Required for Estimation of Jacking Forces
....................---------------------------------------
FIgure 2.7 Methods of Estimating (he Jacking Forces

,,
e e
~
§
...
2BO
...
CIl
J:
J: \::>
\::> +
+ U
u
cr h
Figure 2.8 Vertical Pressure on a Pipe Close to the Surface

( after Auld. 1982)
Civ
-------~---- '- -
, Il Il 'Il ~
Civ + self weight per rr?-
Figure 2.9 Ground Pressure on Pipes

(after Auld. 1982)
7 B , A
I
I 0 0 Measured Values
/,
6
•
z 0
0
e ,
~
&
5
4 ,I
I
0
0
• 0
•
- 72 kpa
""c I 0 0
);l
..,
~
~
3
I 0
2 ! .. ~~~~ ..........
.....C •• 72 kpa
f .............
....., ..
0
0 100 200
Jacking Steps
Figure 2.10 Jackinf. Forces for Several Drives In Clay
(after laslem. 1986)
z
e~
~
6 / .C·
.2 ..,........
,......
,-..•.•...
if 4 ...'.
);l . ..,-.-
..,
~
~
., ...............
........•...
o
o 100 200 300 400 500
Jacking steps
Figure 2.11 Jacldn~ Forces for Drive I
(after Has1em. 1986)
5 B
Z
e 4
"~
.2 3
'"
c
);l
~
.!l 2
/ c
.......
..... .........
....
.... ......
o
o 50 100 150
Jacking Steps
Figure 2.12 Jackin~ Forces for Drive M

(after Haslem.1986)
w
10000 ............... ... ........... .

,
A
............
'" ". A"' ..
~ .................................
7500 area
"
Experimental arrangement
'" S Relates to
.§ time delay
Scaled weight of
~'" 5000 1200mm OD pipe
l ,,
~
,,,
" ,,
~
'"
Cl
0
,, Experimental results
,,
U
,,,
2500 ,,
, Prediction of elastic theory
,,~____--~e~--~O
~
,~-e,
,,,
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Normal force (kN/m)
Figure 2.13 The Relationship Between Contact Area and Applied

Normal Stress (after O'Reilly and Rogers, 1987)
rIn A· Ass...-ntt. lUll tIuOrO"Cy conlOCI Cl cro-n

ro.c.
,,",H, L •. AU....,.,U l~ ~r . (Ql"i10(1 01 ",......,
•
ModolllfCl
prf'(hC:IJ(lt\S
""... on
~~""""'IQI
(0"110(1 OOIQ
Figure 2.14 Correlation Between Jacking Force Data and the Predictions
of a Range of Models (after O'Reilly and Rogers 1987)
20,-------------------------------------------~
Short weekend
12th Aug 1990
o
w
en Delay due to fractured water
0...
« r,P. inserted includes main. includes weekend
-'
w 'Weekend 4th, 5th Aug 1990 18th. 19th Aug 1990
en 10
~
o
Diverted clay pipe land drain
I.P. =instrumented pipe

O~~---.-----.------r_----,_----._----_r----~
o 20 40 60
LENGTH OF DRIVE (m)
1.4,---------------------------------------------~
BOLTON
1.2 +---------------------------------+,......,.------~
Z
::=.
w~ 1.0+---------------------------------.--+--------~
0'"
a:'g
om
~ ~ 0.8 -!~----------------------------------------~~-4------------_4
C!Jo 29.8 kN{m
z.c Waler main fracture
S2 C
25m from entrance
~ 0.6+---------------------------~~~--------------~
...,
0.4 +-------------;---+--rtt1boo:!lrrt.f'!.l'--'-----------------~
I--------to..- Heavy rain throughout

0.2 +-,....--,IJ)y.~~~L-----.I:====-.:...:......-=-_l
O.O+-----_r-----.-----,------r-----.-----~----~
o 20 40 60
LENGTH OF DRIVE (m)
Figure 2.15a Jacking Records for Scheme 1 (after Norris, 1993)

26
24
22
20
Mine shaft
0
18 encountered
r r- t
UJ
en
a.. 16
::5UJ 14
en ~ Weekend
~ 12 16th,17th
0
10 Feb 1991
8
6
4
2
0
0 10 20 30 40
LENGTH OF DRIVE (m)
2.6
NEWCASTLE
2.4 Mudstone
in the invert
.. I
Boukler cia
in the invert
~ r Mudstone ~
I in the invert
2.2
lA
Z
6
UJ<i)
O-c
2.0
1.8
I.P. inserted ,~y
\,' j(f \lIf' (
Cl: c: 1.6
o
u..
ctl
~ 1.4
~ trV
<!l
~E 1.2
:.:::
0
j ~. 'A. VII \ I
~
-, 1.0
0.8 "
,It..; "'
"I .
If
'
8 kN/m
UlfNC
\j';IJ
54 kNfm
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0 -r
o 10 20 30 40
LENGTH OF DRIVE (m)
Figure 2.15b Jacking Records for Scheme 2 [after Noms. 1993)

19
17
Weekend
16
16th,17th
15 March 1991
Cl
w
(/)
14
13
12
,I
a.. 11
:5W 10 Weekend
(/) 9 9th, 10th

>-
« 8 Match 1991
Cl
7
6
5
~
4
3
2
1
0
0 20 40 60 80
LENGTH OF DRIVE (m)
6.0
HONOR OAK
12 hourWOl'king Continuous working
5.0
Z
6 V
w~ 4.0
~_54kN/m
(J '"
a:-g
0
u..
. C!J
''""
::l
0 3.0
Z'::
~~(I
Face sampling
~~
t I~ ~
(J
«
-, I
TUnnel noticeably damper
2.0
\)ltL hr ~~
1
t
I.P. inserted
1.0
0.0
V
o
-,
40 60
, ,
80
20
LENGTH OF DRIVE (m)
Figure 2.15c Jacking Records for Scheme 3 (after Norris. 1993)

26
24 Short weekend
4th Aug 1991
22
20 t
0 18 Short weekend
W
(/) 28th Ju~ 1991
0... 16
~
w
(/)
14
~
Jl
12 Weekend
~ 21st, 22nd
0 10 July 1991
8
6 Pit bottom data
acquisition failure
4
2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
LENGTH OF DRIVE (m)
3.5 UNWBAICATED .. .. WBRICATED

ABBEY VILLAGE
3.0 Boulder clay in invert • I' .. I
limited trimming
~
z
,:. 2.5
w~ Trimming 20mm with shield
0'"
a:-g
0'" 2.0 ..
u.~
(!lO
z..c:
s;;:t:. 1.5 •
0 Running sand
Shield used
<I: in the invert.
...., ' - Intermittent trimming
Trimming B.C.
1Omm with sh;eld
1.0 In Clown 0
avoid tipping of
shield
0.5
Miner excavating 20mm past shield
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
LENGTH OF DRIVE (m)
Figure 2.15d Jacking Records for Scheme 4 (after Noms, 1993)

30
Further pipe
damage sustained
+
repairs
Interjack 2
20
incorJXlraled
0 Weekend 30th NOli
W
U) Weekend 16th. 1st Oec 1991
Q.
17th Nov 1991
SW
~
C3
Inlerjack 1
incorporated ~ ·f
Damage to pipe 34
10
Weekend 9th. first observed
Breakthrough
10th Nov 1991
1 into shaft 5 Weekend 23rd.
24th Nov 1991
+ t
LP inserted
0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
CHAINAGE (m)
CHELTENHAM
5i-----------------------__~--~--,_._------~
Z 4
e Lubrication
W
U
-;n commenced
a: "0c
0
u. ""' 3
+
z "
(!) 0
52 E.
u
~ 2
Misalignment 2 Closing-up interjack 1
160 200 240

LENGTH OF DRIVE (m)
Figure 2.15e Jacking Records for Scheme 5 (after Norrls, 1993)

... 0lil .... .nth. spoil
r......II.ocIing to
...'"
on
...j
VI
20
30
""hind
27th.28th
tong weekend
4th,Sth.!,h
I
lov ...oduction
_Hof.-J:..----
I
?c Apra i9l_5~ ________- I
'" 10 I
I
I
I
I
25 so 75 100 125 ISO
I
175 200 250 Z75 300
LENGTH OF DRIVE (melrts)
I I
I
700 I ' ...0lil •• vith "FC being
I
feI puonp"~ ~~di
t
600 ~~FC' j!
"continued to :
I
"Fe
be..,..
: usod"l
I
:
I I
500 I
~
~ 400
...
u
'" 300
:2
~ "FC b.ing •• od -
j><king pr..."," Iov"
""
u
!!i 200
.
100
25 so 75 100 125 ISO 115 200 225 250 215 300

LENGTH OF DRIVE Imetresl
Figure 2.16a Jacking Records for Drive E8-E7 (after Rogers et aI, 1989)
so
weekend
29th. 30th
40 June
weekend I
Very slow 22nd. 23rdt
progress
8VI 30 recorded weekend Junl
...
a.
.....
.....
weekend
15th. 16th
June
VI 20 weekend 8t~. 9th ~
...
>-
o
1$1. 2nd
June 1985
June! _ _---"1
50 75 100 ) 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300

) )
LENGTH OF DRIVE (metresl l
I ) I
)
"Jacking pressures I "FC b.ing .comm~ncod "FC b4ing
) dropp.d con,id ...b)y I ustd" u.ing FC" /1 puonp<!d
500 since Fe ring used" I "Pumping
• FC"
1 I . "sloth
FC")
)
400 I
~ 300
- o
.....
u FC·~
"Stoppod t
"Stopp\d
!5
... 200
I!I
IISing fC-
"Started
Z
;;: FC'·
:;;! 100
~
25 SO 75 100 125 150 175 200 22S 250 275 300

LENGTH OF DRIVE (metres)
Figure 2.16b Jacking Records for Drive E8-E9 (after Rogers et al. 1989)
_dry gm
8
• ___ . water at G.L 7m

7
Sm
Z 6
~
(])
u
~
S 3m
0
u.. gm
./
0>
c 4 . .// 7m
:;;: //
u Sm
..,'" ././
.// ;'
;'
3 // ,/ ., 3m
/ . / ./ ./ ,./
2 //
.
~
/'
./
;'
",,/
, ,-
// '/./..., ""'"
"'// . / ,., "".
7"// ~ '"
~/"
/..,,-'" ,
,/
0
0
i
SO 100
i
1S0 200
i i .-
Distance (m)
Figure 2.17 Variation of Jacking Forces with Cover
(after Stein, 1985)
OVERCUT RATIO (R) =( B - b )/ b
Figure 2.18 Definition of Overcut Ratio

(after O'Reilly and Rogers, 1987)
l.P. CHAINAGE (m)
9.9 10.3
7...~5__~_7~.~9__J -__~~__e_.7L-~__9_.~1__J -_ _L-~__- L__J -_ _L--!
8.3 9.5
5.0 ~
:;minute 4minuta 3.5 hour 2 minute
stoppage stoppege
"""""- sto~.
4.0
7"""'"
stoppage
\
+ "" .....
7 rr.ir.ute
I
~
~"N"""U""O""NQoeuy
It 2.D ..... ~
"M
1.0
• HONOROAK
•.•7:8
1 :'-......,::;---;;-;;-'-,,;;-.
B.2 B.B .0
,.. .~~,;:;.,:-" TOTAL JACKING LOAD
..\-__..:-__,.......!'•.;~~~_~.~E!:.. ---r---'--~:::---r--~::--'----:;:;.--r--:;;;;;-'
!,'
0.0 44 .0 44.4 44.S 45.2 45.6 46.0 46.4 46.8
DRIVE LENGTH (m)
a) Jacking load
400
+ TOP
350 ////'/
• RIGHT
" LEFT /"/ +
300 ~
BOTTOM ////
C?
a. 250 "
/"/"/
6 +
<.: 200 /"/" +
/" " "
::;; " /"/"+
(!l +
+
ii5 150 ,/////
" +
.
--'
<.:
z 100 /"/" +
u:: /"
/"
~c/l. 6A~
50
0
,.,~ ...:. •
/,/
-50
-50 50 150 250 350
INITIAL SIGMA (kPa)
b) Total radial interface stresses
Figure 2.19 Time Dependent Changes During Stoppages on Scheme 3

(after Noms. 1993)
Thrust
Force
(t) Inner Diameter of
A-~-- Reinforced concrete pipes
1,OOOnun
900
A-2--- - ditto - ~,OOOmm
800 A-3--- - ditto - l,lOOmm

B-lv--~ - ditto - l,200nun
700 B-2--- - ditto - l,200mm
600
500
400
300
Figure 2.20 Thrust Force Against Jacking Distance for Special

Jacked Pipes [after Tohyama and Koiwa. 1987)
Jacking pipes Hydraulic Jacks
Figure 2.21 Intermediate Jacking Station

Chapter 3 The Ideology of The Research
CHAPTER THREE
3 THE IDEOLOGY OF THE RESEARCH
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION
3.3 FACTORS INFLUENCING THE JACKING FORCES

3.3.1 TYPE OF SOIL
3.3.1.1 COHESIVE SOIL
3.3.1.2 COHESIONLESS SOIL
3.3.1.3 TIlE DENSITY AND DILATION OF
COHESIONLESS SOIL
3.3.3 OVERCUT RATIO
3.3.4 TIlE SIZE AND TIlE LENGTH OF THE PIPELINE
3.3.5 PIPE SURFACE
3.3.6 PIPE JOINTS
3.3.7 THE RATE OF JACKING
3.3.8 MISALIGNMENT
3.4 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
3.5 TESTING PROGRAMME
86
Chapter 3 'The Ideology of The Research
3 THE IDEOLOGY OF THE RESEARCH
3.1 INTRODUCTION
As reviewed in Chapter 2, most of the research work on jacking forces has been based
either on the theoretical aspects or on practical data obtained from various pipe jacking
contracts and from small research projects. Pipe jacking research has been mainly
concerned with improvement of construction methods and equipment, and the
reduction of the jacking forces by means of lubrication and intermediate jacking

stations. Most of the work has been carried out in Japan by the equipment
manufacturing industry, although similar work has also been carried out in Germany,
the USA and the UK .
The main interest of this research work is the study of jacking forces in model tests
with the aim that the results will be applicable to full size pipe jacking work after
appropriate adjustment by similarity analysis. All of the experimental work reported
herein is based on similar jacking equipment and methods of site operation to those
used in practice . Recent experimental research has been conducted at Oxford
University, where a small scale model has been used to analyse the cyclic loading on
jacked pipes (Milligan and Ripley, 1989) . A similar test set up, with due regard to the
particular problem being investigated here, has been used.
Other research work has been carried out on the improvement of jacking distance by
using different means of force reduction. None of these investigations have studied
rigorously the effect of the various influencing factors on the jacking force behaviour.
The most relevant theoretical work was carried out by Auld (1981), who developed a
87
Chapter 3 'The Ideology oJThe Research
relationship, based on the arching principle of Terzaghi, for calculating the jacking
forces from soil data and by Herzog (1985), which is based on the statistical analysis
of the data obtained from a particular situation.
There is still relatively little published information on the magnitude of jacking forces
in practice, with the significant contributions concerning the work carried out by
Haslem (1983,1986), Rogers et al (1989A and B), and Norris (1993) *. Also a little
work was done on the elastic theory of clay around the pipeline and its relationship to
the magnitude of the jacking forces generated during construction. There is scope for
this work to be built upon.
Therefore the aims of this project are to develop suitable equipment for measuring
jacking forces in relation to different parameters, to produce such data, and hence to
relate the effects of the various parameters to the likely magnitude of the jacking forces
generated during construction.
3.2 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION
There are several different techniques that can be adopted during the investigation of a
practical problem. Each technique has its own advantages and disadvantages for a
particular application.
To monitor the jacking forces during construction is the simplist method of
investigation. This will provide a wide range of data to estimate the magnitude of
jacking forces, in terms of the resistance per square metre of pipeline for a particular
, * Also O'Reilly and Rogers (1987)
88
Chapter 3 The Ideology oJThe Research
type of ground condition. Such a study on the drag forces occurring during pipe
jacking, based on existing evidence, is reported by Craig (1983) . Other researchers
have studied the relationship between site data and the jacking forces expected to be
encountered during construction, in particular Rogers et al (1989B) . The variation in
field data for a particular site may causeinaccuracy in the investigation. In addition,
the different construction methods used by different contractors can cause variation in
the jacking forces recorded . The most important problem with this approach,
however, is the necessity for very large amounts of information about the precise
ground conditions and the construction operations, and for these data to be collected
from a large number of sites to provide statistical significance. Neither objective is
easily met and the former is often not possible. Thus while high quality site data are
necessary for calibration of theoretical and laboratory models, they will not provide an
answer to the problem being addressed here.
Full-scale experimentation at a field site provides an accurate simulation of the

construction process, a high degree of certainty of ground conditions and good control
over site operations and instrumentation. Accurate site parameters, such as in situ
pressure
stresses, deformations and pore water'measurements, could be obtained and the data
obtained would have a high degree of accuracy. Instrumentation and logging facilities
are expensive to provide away from the laboratory. The other disadvantages of this
method include the high costs of both developing and performing the field
experiments, and the site specific nature of the results. It would also be difficult to
ensure uniform soil conditions, although the actual conditions could be well defined.
Significant variation of the soil type and state would be practically impossible.
89
In order to overcome some of the problems of full-scale field experiments, full-scale
model testing can be adopted in the laboratory. The overall control of the experiment
can be easily achieved. Applying surface loading, or surcharge due to overburden,

would require simulation and suitable test equipment would also be required if accurate
data are to be obtained. Preparation and testing can be slow, although a high degree of
accuracy can be achieved. In addition, the cost of providing appropriate simulation of
site operations, with proper site equipment, can be high, and the cost involved using
different soil materials can be significant. Thus if this approach were adopted, a
limited number of high quality, realistic experiments could be carried out.
Another laboratory technique is the use of scale model equipment. The advantages of
using this method are that there is a high degree of control over experimental
conditions, a reduction in the total cost of the experimental work and the facility for
carrying out a large number of tests in which different parameters can be studied. The
main purpose of using the scale model is thus to reveal the relationships between
various parameters in a pattern that can be investigated further either by full scale
model testing or by real site experiments. In addition, preliminary investigation can
be achieved with a high degree of accuracy for various parameters, whereas the use of
full scale testing for this would be costly and cause considerable delay. Similar
programmes of work were carried out at Cambridge University for scale modelling on
soft tunnels (Caimcross, 1973, and Atkinson et al, 1974 ) .
Theoretical work is another option for studying jacking forces. Most of the theoretical
work in this respect involves the use of earth pressure theory to estimate the vertical
and horizontal pressures around the jacked pipeline. The combination of the various
influencing parameters is used to establish a relationship that may predict the jacking
90
forces. Theoretical work in this area has been carried out by several researchers, but
only on a simplified level, probably because of the difficulty in modelling the
considerable variation in ground conditions . While sophisticated finite element
modelling could be carried out, it would require full-time attention over a long period
and would not guarantee accurate site simulation. Indeed, the only study in which
finite element analysis has played an important role is in the prediction of settlement
above, and the movement of soft ground around. tunnels by Attewell et al (1986) .
The validity of this method is dependent on the accuracy of the assumptions made
during the analysis. and can only be proved by experimental work and data obtained
from site in any case. These validation data do not currently exist in sufficient number
or quality .
Finally. it is important to appreciate that scale model tests. such as those initially
undertaken by Cairncross (1973). are not necessarily intended to reproduce precisely
to scale a real tunnel during construction . The main purpose in this case was to
illustrate the way in which soil around a circular cavity behaves as other parameters
vary so that. based on this understanding. the prototype situation can be designed for ..
The results of scale model testing provide a source of experimental data for
comparison with existing methods of calculation and with measurements from site.
The test results may thus lead to new methods of calculation for predicting the jacking
forces. A summary of methods of investigation is shown in Figure 3.1 . Scale model
testing was chosen as being the most appropriate method of investigation for this
work.
91
3.3 FACTORS INFLUENCING THE JACKING FORCES
There are many factors that influence the magnitude of pipe jacking forces. The
factors that have been considered in this research are shown in Figure 3.2 .
Lubrication and misalignment are the only two significant factors that have not been
included, because of their complex and variable nature as highlighted by Haslem
(1983, 1986) and Washbourne (1982,1986) .
3.3.1 Type of soil
3.3.1.1 Cohesive soil
The ideal ground for pipe jacking operations is stiff clay or dense fine sand with
apparent cohesion, as these soils require the minimum of suppon and can be easily
excavated. However, predominantly cohesive soils of a firm to stiff consistency,

cemented granular materials and component soft rocks are also suitable.
The reason for the suitability of these soils for pipe jacking can be explained by
considering their apparent cohesion. Coulomb's equation relates shearing resistance,
or shear strength ('t), of soil to normal stress as follows
t' =C' + cr' tan <p'
Cu , C' = undrained, effective cohesion,
<Pu. <P' :: undrained, effective angle of internal friction of the soil
92
cr. cr' = total, effective nonnal stress
Thus it follows that the shear resistance will equal the apparent cohesion if the normal
stress is zero, and immediately after excavation it will be the undrained cohesion that
will apply.
By assuming that (J = 0 at the face of the pipe jack, the cohesion of the soil is equal to
the undrained shear resistance, and, if the cohesion is sufficiently great, the face will
be self-supporting. This will apply equally to the excavated bore as the pipe is jacked
through it if the apparent cohesion, which is in reality a negative pore water pressure
unless the soil is cemented, remains.
The contact area between the pipeline and the surrounding soil is theoretically minimal
in such a soil, depending on the tidiness of the excavation, and is restricted only to the
area between the bottom of the pipeline and the soil at the invert of the excavation .
Progressive collapse of the soil will occur in such soils as the negative pore water
pressures reduce in magnitude, which will occur over time and depends upon the
permeability of the soil and the availability of water.
3.3.1.2 Cohesionless soil
Coarse sands, gravels and cobbles, or mixtures of these materials, having a loose
consistency often create difficulties, as their structure is disturbed by the jacking
process and the particles readily collapse onto the pipe, giving rise to high jacking
loads. It is usual to attempt to stabilize such ground by grout injection prior to jacking
in order, in effect, to make it self-supporting. In water bearing sands and gravels it is
generally necessary to dewater the strata to below the underside of the drive in order to
93
maintain stability, unless chemical stabilisation can be used in this case to reduce its
permeability and hence stop water flow.
Again the reason behind the difficulties in these materials can be explained by
Coulomb's equation, which in this case reduce;to
Shearing resistance = cr tan <1>
Since there will be no apparent cohesion. The shear resistance of the soil is zero if the
normal stress is zero, as in the case at the excavation surface, and hence the soil tends
to collapse around the pipeline such that the contact area would be at its maximum.
This results in a high total sliding resistance during the jacking process.
Very soft clays and silts are also liable to collapse since they have insufficient shear
strength to be self-supporting . These prove to be difficult strata for jacking
techniques, as- in any form of tunnelling, for they can rarely be stabilized
economically.
3.3.1.3 The density and dilation of cohesionless soil
The behaviour of cohesionless soil at constant volume and the behaviour under
constant confming pressure can be tied together as follows. If a dense sand is to fail in
shear, the high degree of interlocking must somehow be overcome. This can happen
either by shearing, hence fracturing, of the particles, or by an increase in the volume of
the soil as the particles rise up over adjacent particles in order to create a shear surface.
94
It will take more energy to cause either of these happenings than will be necessary
simply to slide soil particles over a plane shear surface. If the soil is free to expand,
the path of least resistance is to expand and to overcome the interlocking in this way.
If the soil is prevented from expanding, the path of least resistance may lie in
,
fracturing the soil particles, in which case energy is expended in the fracturing
process.
The case of shear at constant volume is of little importance when dealing with dry
typically:
sands ~ since their specific volumes will be'on the dry side of the critical state and the
energy required for particle fracture is, in general, for greater than that required for
volume expansion.
The angle of friction of a soil will vary with stress and density, which thus have a
great significance in any calculations. A number of theoretical models have been
developed by engineers to investigate this variation . They are reviewed by

Bolton(1979) as follows
1- A particular soil has a roughly unique ultimate angle of friction, no matter what its
initial density.
2- Initially dense soils have a peak strength that is higher than their ultimate strength.
Beyond the peak thin rupture zones can be detected in the previously uniform soil,
within which the density falls towards some critical value below which it will not
drop. The soil in this zone dilates (becomes larger) due to the reductions in density .
3- Soils that are initially very loose take a good deal of straining in order to mobilise
their ultimate strength. The soil sample contracts (become smaller) as it is sheared,
and the density rises towards the same order of critical density as that observed in the
95
Chapter:) The Ideology of The Research
rupture zones of dense samples.
4- The magnitude of the peak strength for dense soils is related to the rate at which the
soil dilates.
During the jacking process, the dilation of granular soil caused by shearing may cause
very high interface pressures between the pipe and the surrounding ground. These
pressures may be greater than the overburden pressure and, consequently, jacking will
be limited to a relatively small distance. This problem can be relieved by creating an
overcut, as described in section 3.3.3 .
3.3.2 Overburden pressure
The overburden pressure and surface surcharge haveaneffect on the resistance of soil
to collapse during excavation, and consequently on the total jacking forces required
during the process. In addition they will determine the normal stresses acting on the
pipe, and hence the frictional resistance of the ground. The total overburden pressure
on the pipeline is associated with the overcut ratio and the type of the soil surrounding
the pipes. Detennination of the normal stress on the shear planes surrounding a jacked
pipeline is thus a complex procedure.
3.3.3 Overcut ratio
The overcut ratio is the ratio of the gap between the excavation and the outer surface of
the pipe to the diameter of the pipeline (Figure 2.18).Overcut is used to reduce the
sliding friction between the pipeline and the surrounding soil by creatin g an annular
gap or by allowing granular soils to dilate. It will thus dictate the contact area and/or
96
contact pressures between the pipe and soil . The overcut ratio is detennined by the
to
contractor prior"Construction and is governed by the shield diameter.
3.3.4 The size and the length of a pipeline
The size of the jacked pipe clearly has an effect on the magnitude of the jacking
resistance. The larger the size of the pipe, the larger the contact area between the pipe
and the surrounding soil, hence producing more frictional resistance, and the larger the
face of excavation, hence producing more face resistance.
The length of the driven tunnel is dependent upon the jacking forces that can be
provided and the frictional forces generated while pushing the pipe into the soil. The
frictional resistance increases as the length of the drive increases and, in some cases,
contractors can only achieve a long drive by using techniques to reduce the ground
resistance. Face resistance is not affected by this parameter.
3.3.5 Pipe surface
The surface of the pipeline influences the sliding friction between the pipeline and the
surrounding soil. If the surface is rough, the soil in contact with the surface tends to
penetrate through the trough in the surface and therefore generates a resistance against
the forward movement of the pipeline. Consequently, extra jacking forces are needed
to overcome this resistance. It is important to investigate the magnitude of the jacking
forces for different types of pipeline surface.
97
Chapter 3 The Ideology qfThe Research
3.3.6 Pipe joint
Different types of joints are used in pipe jacking construction. Depending on the type
of the joints, they can act as a source of sliding resistance against the movement of the
whole pipeline. The gap in the joints creates a place for the sUlTounding soil to
become trapped and cause a bearing resistance as the pipe is advanced.
3.3.7 The rate of jacking
The rate of jacking the pipes into the ground is dependent on the type of soil and
method of excavation. The rate of jacking progress varies from one contract to
another. There is no consistent information on this subject, the contractors tending to
drive the pipeline at the rate they consider most suitable for productivity and the
ground conditions.
As the rate of jacking a pipeline reduces, especially in a cohesive soil, the jacking
forces increase. The soil tends to close in on the pipeline and increases the contact area
and/or the normal stresses with time, and hence increases the jacking resistance. In
addition, increases in the jacking resistance when restarting jacking operations in
clayey materials have been noticed, especially after weekend breaks during
construction . For cohesionless soil, delay is less critical because the soil tends to
collapse immediately after excavation around the pipeline. Therefore time contributes
very little to the magnitude of the jacking forces in a cohesionless soil .
98
3.3.8 Misalignment
Misalignment is an important factor to be considered during the jacking operation.

When the pipes tend to deviate from the proposed line of construction, the jacking
forces increase according to the magnitude of misalignment . In addition,
misalignment can cause a considerable stress concentration on the joints between the
pipes and sometimes breakage occurs, which causes a large extra resistance to the
movement of the pipeline.
3.4 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
The choice of the boundary conditions for experimental work is important in order that
an accurate simulation of site practice can be achieved. Figure 3.3 shows the
boundary conditions operational in the test box.
A large scale model was considered necessary to simulate the pipe jacking process
practically. The chosen soils were placed in the box, which has five rigid boundaries.
The front and back faces, through which the pipeline penetrates, impose a condition of
plane strain deformation during testing. The sides and the bottom of the box are
sufficiently far from the pipeline to prevent these boundaries from having any
significant influence on the behaviolllOf the soil surrounding the pipeline.
The soils chosen for the tests were uniformly-graded, coarse Leighton Buzzard Sand
and well-graded, medium River Sand. These were chosen because they represent
severe practical situations with high friction values, or drag forces, operating during
99
the jacking process. The Leighton Buzzard sand was placed dry while wet River
Sand, at approximately the optimum moisture content, was used . The pore water
pressure is likely to be negligible prior testing. The density of the soil was kept as
consistent as possible during all the tests. Two methods were used in order to achieve
the required density, free fall from a constant drop height followed by compaction by
applying a load of 200 kPa for the dry sand and uniform hand compaction for the wet
River Sand.
The pipe external diameter was kept constant at 0.200 m for the concrete covered pipes
and 0.197m for the steel pipes throughout all the tests. Misalignment of the pipe train
during jacking was avoided, for practical reasons, by specially designed joints.
A surcharge load was applied to the surface of the soil in the box by the use of a water
pressure of up to 200 kPa in a rubber membrane bag. Its magnitude was chosen to
represent the surcharge loads on a pipeline, buried at a typical depth of approximately
10m, from overlying soil. Different loading regimes, in general surface surcharges of
10, 100, and 200 kPa, were applied to the pipeline in the tests in order to examine the
influence of surface loading.
Other important parameters that have been investigated include the overcut ratio, the
length of the tunnel and the type of pipe joints. The overcut ratio, as defined in
Chapter 2, was varied from values ofD to a maximum 0.140 in order to examine its
influence on the jacking loads. The overcut ratio was created by varying the annular
gap between the shield diameter and the pipe diameter. The shield cutting face was
formed at an angle of 30 degrees in order to limit the resistance during excavation, the
chosen angle corresponding approximately to the internal angle of friction of the sand,
100
while the outer surface of the shield is smooth and parallel with the following
pipeline.
All the boundary conditions were kept under tight experimental control in order to
achieve standard testing procedures for verifying the influence of all parameters.
3.5 TESTING PROGRAMME
As stated earlier, research work on jacking forces using scale model equipment has not
been studied before. It is intended to illustrate the way in which certain parameters
affect the jacking forces. The results should also provide a source of comparison
between the available theoretical models and practical data.
A testing programme was consequently set up with the following objectives;
I-To study the magnitude of the jacking forces, by pushing a pipeline, installed in the
box during filling, through the soil with different normal surface loadings .
2-To study the effect of different soil thickness on the jacking forces by the same
procedure.
3-To measure the jacking forces generated from jacking the pipeline after excavation
was carried out at the face of the tunnel, under different normal surface loadings .
Different overcut ratios were used in this study.
4-To investigate the influence on the jacking forces of type of soil, type of pipe
surface and type of join ts .
101
Chapter 3 711e Ideology of The Research
The experimental work was planned to collect as much data as possible from each
test. Some 55 tests were conducted using both types of sand, the tests being repeated
in some cases, both to demonstrate repeatability and in caseswhere the results showed
some abnormalities. Further details of the experimental programme are given in

Chapter 5.
102
I
I
:~
I
i:
I.
m Total cost
} Experimental cost
~ Research time
D Experimental control }
H Experimental results
~ Field validation
Figure 3.1 Methods of Investigation of Pipe Jacking Forces

q
IJACKING FORCES
VARIOUS PARAMETERS
1 - - - OVERBURDEN PRESSURE ------( D • q )
- - - LENGTH OF THE PIPELINE ------( L )
1 - - - SIZE OF THE PIPE ----------- (B )
1 - - - OVERCUT RATIO ------------- ( R)
1 - - - - TIPE OF SOIL --------------- ( M;A: .• C'. Cu • 'Y , <1>', u
1---- THE PIPE' SURFACE ---------- ( Concrete. Steel)
L---JOINTS
"MIC = moisture content
Figure 3.2 Factors Iiilluenclng Pipe Jacking Forces

Figure 3.3 The Boundary Conditions Operational in the Test Box
Chapter 4 Material Characterization
CHAPTER FOUR
4 MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 GEOLOGY
4.2.1. LEIGlITON BUZZARD SAND
4.2.2 RIVER (CONCRETE) SAND
4.3 MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND LABORATORY TESTING

4.3.1 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
4.3.2 DENSITY
4.3.3 SPECIFIC GRAVITY
4.4 SHEAR RESISTANCE

4.4.1 DIRECT SHEAR TEST
4.4.2 TRIAXIAL TEST
4.4.3 SPECIAL SHEAR TEST
4.5 TEST RESULTS

4.5.1 SOIL PARAMETERS AND COMPARISON OF SHEAR
RESISTANCE
4.5.2 DILATION, CONTRACTION AND CRITICAL STATE OF SAND
4.6 THE CONCEPT OF SOIL/SOIL FRICTION AND ITS RELATION TO

SOIL/PIPE SURFACE FRICTION
4.7 THE NEED FOR LABORATORY TESTING AND CORRELATION

WITH PIPE JACKING SCALE MODEL TESTING
103
4 MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Characterization of the soil material was carried out in order to both detennine its
structural properties and to observe the behaviour of the soil particles during testing.
The ultimate aim was to correlate the results obtained from laboratory tests on the soil
with those obtained from the model test.
To enable the complete characterization of the materials used for this project, several
different methods of soil characterisation, including triaxial, direct shear, density and
particle size distribution testing, were used. Special tests were also carried out in
which the soil was sheared against concrete and steel in a typical shear box test
apparatus.
Two kinds of sand were used during the course of the research work, Leighton
Buzzard sand and River (concrete) sand. The sands were chosen for their distinctly
of
different engineering behaviour, because"their ease to use in laboratory testing, and
most importantly, their frictional characteristics are known to cause problems in

practice. The two main mechanisms controlling behaviour of the sand particles during
deformation are volume change (dilation or contraction), which is dependent on sand
density, and the relative motion between the particles. The sliding of the sand particles
over each other can occur at all levels, and the amount of the stress required for its
initiation is related to the normal initial stress and void ratio. These mechanisms are
generally inter-dependent, according to the deformation process which is acting in

different parts of the sand.
104
4.2 GEOLOGY
4.2.1 Leighton Buzzard Sand
Leighton Buzzard sand is a material quarried near Leigh ton Buzzard in Bedfordshire .
Its petrological name is Quartz sand, and its geological classification is Lower
Greensand . It is a yellow, single sized, clean sand with angular particles and has a
smooth, occasionally rough or honeycombed surface texture. Its constituents are
mainly Quartz (around 81 %), Quartzite (14%), and opaque (4%). The geological and
chemical details are given in Appendix I .
4.2.2 River (Concrete) Sand
This sand is quarried from Croxden in Derbyshire . It is classified as a Quartzite
material and was retrieved from a deposit of the Bunter Pebble Beds. The particles are
rounded with a crystalline surface texture. It consists mainly of Silica (97%), Iron and
Alumina (2.1%), and about 0.7% of Calcium .See Appendix I for geological and
chemical details.
4.3 MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND LABORATORY TESTING
The Leighton Buzzard sand was chosen for its single sized particles, in which the pore
passages had an average diameter of the same order of magnitude as the smaller
particle diameters and no effective combination of particles to form an aggregate was
possible. The mechanism of the movement of each particle is strongly influenced by
105
the position of the adjacent particles due to the soirs uniform nature. The shape and the
size of the particles contribute to the strength of the sand, the relative movement of the
particles, and hence the pattern of distortion of the sand grains as a whole.
River sand is a mixture of different sized particles. A weJI- graded sand is usually
stronger than a single-sized sand, although the magnitude of its strength is dependent
on several factors concerning the aggregation of particles within the sand structure.
For example the mechanical properties of such sand depends on the relative density
and the manner of packing of the sand particles.
AIl of the material characterisation tests were carried out according to British Standard
1377 (BSI 1975), whenever applicable, and are described in the foIlowing sections.
4.3.1 Particle Size Distribution
The particle size distribution test for soil is an important and fundamental classification
test . The sand particle sizes were determined by the method of dry sieving from
representative samples of the materials. The British Standard sieves were positioned
in increasing order of size with the largest sieve at the top, taking care to produce an
appropriate distribution of the sieve sizes for each material. A dry material of known
total mass was added to the top of the stack of sieves, which were securely clamped
and mechanically vibrated for the specified period of time (10 minutes) . The mass of
the material retained on each sieve was measured, the percentage passing each sieve
was calculated, and the particle size distribution curves were plotted on a logarithmic
scale. These tests were conducted to confirm the particle size distributions provided
from the sand suppliers.
106
The results of the sieve analyses of both sands are shown in Figure 4.1 .
4.3.2 Density Tests
The detennination of soil density is simple, its value being dependent on the void ratio
of the soil. There are two soil states of interest herein: uncompacted (Loose) and
compacted (Dense) states.
Leighton buzzard sand was used in a dry condition only. A series of tests was
conducted to measure the densities in both compacted and uncompacted states, as
shown in Table 4.1 .
Table 4.1 Results of Bulk Density Tests for Leighton Buzzard Sand
Compacted (Dense) Uncompacted (Loose)
Method Density (kg/m1 Method Density (kg/m3 )
#Rod Tamping 1543

#Vlbratlon 1708
'Funnel 1540
Vibrating Hammer 1691
B.S 1377(1975) '2000mml Cyllder 1520
Test 14
~ Drop Hammer 1530
B.S 1377(1975)
Test 12
#Applylng Dead Load 1556
Note:
, Described In Laboratory Testing In 5011 Engineering by Alcroyd (1964) .
# Methods used similar to model scale test conditions.
For the River sand, the bulk density was dependent on the water content of the soil \
and the state of compaction . A standard drop hammer method, according to B.S
1377(1975): Test 12, was used to obtain the optimum dry density. The results of the
107
tests are shown in Figure 4.2. A water content of 6% was used throughout the
research, which under conditions of standard compaction would yield a dry density
approaching the maximum of 'Yd at a water content of approximately 6.5% :=
1754kglm3 •
4.3.3 Specific Gravity
The specific gravity (Gs) of the soil is the ratio of the weight of a given soil particle to
the weight of the same volume of water. Specific gravity is used in the
determination of various soil parameters and is primarily dependent on the mineral
constituents of the soil. The determination of specific gravity for Leighton Buzzard
and River sands was based on BS1377 (1975) using the Gas-Jar method. The
specific gravity of three specimens of each type of sand was measured and recorded as
shown in Table 4.2, together with the average values.
Table 4.2 Specific Gravity of the sands

SOIL TYPE SPECIMEN AVERAGE
1 2 3
Lelghton Buzzard 2.676 2.673 2.675 2.67
River Sand 2.637 2.646 2.642 2.64
108
4.4 SHEAR RESISTANCE
Attempting to slide sand particles over each other causes friction between the grains,
and shear failure occurs by overcoming the frictional resistance generated by the
attempted motion. Interlocking of the grains can contribute considerably to the
strength of the material, especially in densely packed granular soil. The volume
change of the mass of soil particles and the relative motion between them constitute the
two basic mechanisms that control the deformation of granular soil . These
mechanisms are usually interdependent. At small stresses, crushing and fracturing of

soil particles is unlikely, but they become increasingly important when high stresses
are reached. For example, fracturing becomes important only when the stress level
exceeds 3.5MPa (Bell, 1983) .
The internal angle of friction of granular soil is caused by the friction generated during
the sliding, rolling and rotating of the soil particles against each other . A typical
stress-strain graph for sand is shown in Figure 4.3 for both dense and loose material.
The dense sand has a high peak stress (or strength) and is accompanied by volume
increase. Loose sand has a shear strength similar to the large strain strength of the
dense sand and it usually compacts under the shearing stress. To investigate the shear
resistance of the material used for this research work, three kinds of shearing tests
were carried out and these are described below.
4.4.1 Direct Shear Test
The shear box test is the oldest form of shear test and is considered to be the simplest
method of determining the internal angle of friction of a soil. The shear box simply
109
allows a soil sample to be compressed in a 100mm square split brass box under a
given vertical stress. The sample is then sheared when the two halves of the box slide
each
against'other by means of an electric motor. The vertical stress applied to the top of the
sample is obtained from dead weights placed at a predetermined lever arm on a
hanger. The driving motor slides the bottom part of the sample box at a constant
chosen speed, determined using a gear box. The shearing resistance of the soil is then
measured by means of a proving ring attached to the top part of the sample box. The
shear test data were recorded by a computer readout system, via LVDTs placed across
the proving ring and mounted on the frame to record the travel of the box .
Consistent procedures for preparation and testing of sampleswere used. The samples
were chosen randomly from a batch sample. The samples were placed and tamped in
two layers inside the shear box for both types of sands. Two rates of shearing were
used, fast (1.2mm/s) and slow (0.00192mm/s) . For dry Leighton Buzzard sand, the
weight of the soil in the shear box was measured and the density were computed to +
kN/m3
or - 0.5 Aof the compacted value. The same procedure was used for the wetRiversand,
but the water content was additionally measured to facilate the calculations. A series
of tests was conducted on similar soil samples . Both the moisture content and the
kNfm 3
density were kept within + or - 0.5 of optimum values. It must be stressed that the
method of placing and compacting the samples was intended to be similar to the model
testing. However, the density results of the samples show at least a 95% compaction
for the maximum density of the materials (Table 4.3) . The reason for adopting two
rates for shearing is to establish their effects on the results which then can be related to
the model testing. Different values of normal stresses were applied to the shearing
plane, as shown in Table 4.3 .
Due to equipment problems, only the lower range of normal stresses could be tested
and allowance for curvature at low normal stresses should be made when
interpreting the results.
110
Table 4.3 Testing Programme for the Direct Shear Tests

Type of SoU Nonnal Stress Rate of Shearing Moisture Density (Mg/m3)
(kPa) Content (%)
Lelghton Buzzard 10 Fast/Slow 0 1.68/1.64

River Sand 10 Fast/Slow 6.0/6.4 1.70/1.70
The magnitude of the shear force was recorded as a function of the shear
displacement. The results were then used to obtain the relationship between normal
stress and shear displacement by plotting data for various tests.
4.4.2 The Triaxial Test
Both drained and undrained triaxialcompression tests were conducted to characterise
both types of sand. Triaxial test procedures have been comprehensively described by
Bishop and Henkel (1962). A sample of 38mm diameter, 76mm in length was
prepared by placing the sand with appropriate water content in a rubber membrane
kN/m3 ,
inside a split former. The density of the sample was maintained within + or - OSof
the compacted sand density by tamping in thin layers of soil inside the former using a
thin plastic rod. The water contents for both samples were the same as those used in
the model testing.

A back pressure of 100 kPa was used for all tests and then released when the cell
pressure of 400 kPa or 700 kPa were applied to the samples.
III
Both drained and undrained triaxial compression tests were conducted. Standard
un drained tests were performed, in which the minor principal stress (()' 3) is
maintained at a constant value while the major principal stress ( ()'1) was increased until
sample failure occurred. The pore pressure was measured during testing in order to
obtain Mohr's circles from different cell pressure and enable a failure envelope in
terms of effective stress to be calculated. For the drained tests the sample was first
consolidated under a pressure of 300 kPa and then subjected to an increasing axial
stress at constant rate of 0.1524 mm/min until failure occurred. The pore pressure in
this case proved to be negligible. A summary of the testing programme is shown in
Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 Testing Programme for the Triaxial Compression Tests

Type of Soil Type of Test Cell Rate of Density BValue
Pressure Shearing
(kPa) (mm/Mln) (Mg/ffil)
Lelghton Buzzard Drained 400 0.1524 1.59 0.94
Lelghton Buzzard Drained 700 0.1524 1.61 0.94
LeJghton Buzzard Undralned 400 0.1524 1.58 0.99
Lelghton Buzzard Undralned 700 0.1524 1.59 0.99
River Sand Drained 400 0.1524 1.68 0.94
River Sand Drained 700 0.1524 1.67 0.97
River Sand Undralned 400 0.1524 1.68 0.97
River Sand Undralned 700 0.1524 1.68 0.96
4.4.3 Special Shear Test
Following both the direct shear and triaxial testing, it was apparent that a special shear
test was required to determine the relationship between the soil and the pipeline
112
surface . The primary purpose of this test was to obtain the appropriate frictional
coefficients.
An adapted shear box test was used in which concrete and steel blocks were made to
fit exactly in the bottom half of the shear box, Figure 4.4 . The soil was placed in the
top half of the box under the same conditions, and the test procedure was carried out,
as described above for the direct shear test. The applied normal stresses were in the
range of 0 to 50 kPa; in which the results could be compared to those used for mode!.
* Table 4.5 illustrates the testing programme. It is noticeable that no slow rate
testing.
of shear was conducted on the soil/steel for Leighton Buzzard sand as the other results
showed little significant changes in the results.
Table 4.5 Testing Programme for Special Shear Tests

Type of Soll Normal Rate of Moisture Density Interface Shear
Stress Shearing Content
(kPa) (%) (Mg/m3 )
Lelghton Buzzard 10 Fast/Slow 0 1.66/1.62 Soll/Concrete
Lelghton Buzzard 10 Fast 0 1.60 Soll/Steel
Lelghton Buzzard 30 Fast 0 1.63 Soll/Steel
Lelghton buzzard 50 Fast 0 1.63 Soll/Steel
River Sand 10 Fast/Slow 7.0/6.8 1.68/1.70 Soil/Concrete
River Sand 10 Fast/Slow 6.6/6.8 1.73/1.75 Soil/Steel
River Sand 30 Fast/Slow 6.2/6.5 1.76/1.74 Soil/Steel
River Sand 50 Fast/Slow 6.8/6.7 1.73/1.76 Soll/Steel
.
* It is believed that, even under higher surcharge loads, arching within the soil will
results in normal stresses on the pipes that approximate to this range.
113
Chapter 4 Material CharacterizatfDn
4.5 TEST RESULTS
4.5.1 Soil Parameters and Comparison of Shear Resistance
Three stress-displacement curves for the shear box tests carried out on Leighton
Buzzard sand are shown in Figure 4.5 . The results show that at early stages of the
tests, when the relative displacement of the two halves of the box is less than 5 mm,
the peak shear stress value, or strength, of the sand was achieved. After this point the
shearing force decreased until a displacement of 15 mm was achieved, after which the
tests were terminated. The results for River sand show similar behaviour to those for
the dry Leighton Buzzard sand, as iIIustrated in Figure 4.6, although with a markedly
less reduction in shear stress once failure has occurred and lower strengths recorded.
The mean parameters obtained from all tests are tabulated in Table 4.6 .
Table 4.6 Mean Direct Shear Results
Type of Soil Moisture Densl~ <l>s (0)

Content (%) (Mg/m ) [yeaJ<_ Ultimate
Lelghton Buzzard 0 1.66 49 37

River Sand 6.5 1.73 42 42
The results of the drained triaxial compression tests for 400 and 700 kPa ceII pressures
are iIIustrated in Figures 4.7 and 4.8 respectively for the Leighton Buzzard sand, and
Figures 4.9 and 4.10 for the River Sand. The peak stresses for both types of sands
were obtained at strains of less than 10%. The results of the undrained triaxial
compression tests similarly showed that the peak stresses occurred at a strain of
approximately 10% for both 400 and 700 kPa cell pressures, as shown in Figures
114
4.11 and 4.12 for Leighton Buzzard sand and Figures 4.13 and 4.14 for River sand.
The results of drained and undrained triaxial tests for Leighton Buzzard sand and
River sand are summarised in Tables 4.7a and b .
Table 4.7a Drained Triaxial Compression Test Results
'IJpe of Sol! a3 (kPa) a 1 (kPa) a 1 - a3

(kPa) G> 'P
2 ( 0 ) ( 0 )
Lelghton Buzzard 400 1389 494.5 39 13
Lelghton Buzzard 700 2260 780.0 39 10
River Sand 400 1140 370.0 29 6

River Sand 700 1755 527.5 29 7
Table 4.7b Undralned Trlaxlal Compression Test Results
'IJpe of Soil i<r3 (kPa) a 1 (kPa) a 1 - a 3 au oAr <l>u

(kPa) (kPa) ( 0 )
2
Lelghton Buzzard 400 525 62.5 400 -0.787 17
Lelghton Buzzard 700 1004 152.0 400 -0.415 17
River Sand 400 521 60.5 380 -0.737 19
River Sand 700 946 123.0 385 -0.411 19
Note l.t.u is the change in pore water pressure (kPa), and A is Skempton's pore
pressure parameter at failure. ;

I*AJ values are believed to be low due to experimental error ..
The load displacement curves for the special shear tests are shown in Figure 4.15 for
concrete/soil and Figure 4.16 for steel/soil, and the parameters obtained are
summarised in Table 4.8 . The results indicate that the values of the internal angle of
friction for these tests are less than those for soil/soil, as expected, and that the results
for the steel interface are only marginally lower than those for the concrete interface.
The results of the Leighton Buzzard sand with both concrete and steel surfaces are
115
~------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 4 Materia! Characterization
very close to the critical state value, as they are for theRiver sand (see Table 4.7a) .'
Table 4.8 Special Shear Test Results

Type of Soil
<!>'s/c <!> ~/st
Lelghton buzzard 38 37
River Sand 28 27
It is noted that the internal angle of friction for Leighton Buzzard sand is greater than
that for River sand, due to its unifonn, large, angular grains. These types of panicles
will create larger interlocking forces during shearing, especially when dense. The
ultimate angle of friction for a particular soil is unique, regardless of its initial density
(Bolton, 1979), and this can be observed from the triaxial test results. The effects
of shearing rates show little significant differences between the peak resistances .
Many studies have examined the results of both direct shear and ttiaxial tests on sand.
It shows that the ignored intermediate principal stresses in direct shear tests can
contribute significantly to the behaviour of soils tested under plane strain conditions.
The results obtained from triaxial tests can be considered more reliable than those of
the direct shear test, due to the horizontal plane in the shear box not equating to the
plane of maximum shear stress (Cole, 1967) .
The critical state results from both direct and triaxiaI shear tests are shown in Table
4.9 for both types of sand and the parameters obtained are summarised in Table 4.9 .
Atkinson and Bransby (1978) stated that the most convincing experimental
demonstration of the existence of the critical state line for sands is provided by the data
116
Chapter 4 Material CharacteriZation
from the (plane strain) direct shear apparatus. The results from the,: shear tests
for the Leighton Buzzard sand show that the material was in a denser state than the
critical value. This material dilated during the shearing process which caused an
increase in the effective stresses and hence the internal angle of shear :, as did the !"
River sand but to a lesser degree since its angle of dilation is smaller (see Table
4.7a) .
Table 4.9 The Critical State Results

Direct
, Shear Triaxial
, Shear
Type of Soil
<l>c M <l>c M
(0) (0)
Leighton Buzzard 37 1.50 39 1.59

River sand 42 1.72 29 1.16
NB <Pc =42° for River sand is believed to be in error.

4.5.2 Dilation, Contraction and Critical State of the Sand
The main parameters that influence the effective internal angle of friction (<1>') for
sand are effective normal stress, pore water (and in some cases also pore air) pressure,
density, particle angularity and particle size distribution. It is significant for the
theoretical modelling of the experiments to establish the variation of <1>' with stress and
density for the material tested, as shown in Figure 4.18 .
The critical state concept is briefly explained herein due to its complexity and is
primarily used to verify the observed behaviour of the sand particles when sheared at
different densities. The concept of dilatancy, contraction and the critical state of sand
is interrelated with the initial density of the material. At the critical state, the sand
117
particles when sheared will flow in a constant movement (i.e at constant volume) .
Where the shear stress (q') to mean normal effective stress (p') ratio is equal to the
angle of friction of the soil material on the shearing plane, the soil is said to be at its
critical state, defined by a straight line relationship in q', p' space. Figure 4.19
shows the critical state line for a typical sand in q' , p' , v (specific volume) space, in
which the constant M is defined as the gradient of the line in q , p' space.
If the soil is denser than the critical state, then the particles need to push apart as the
soil is sheared. This phenomenn~is called dilation and can readily be visualised in the
shear box test by vertical displacement of the top cap upwards while the horizontal
plane of shear is created by the opposite movement of the two parts of the shear box.
This analogy can be used to explain the behaviour of the sand particles surrounding a
pipeline during jacking. Although the external surface of the pipeline is circular, it
defines the shear plane between the pipe and the surrounding soil. As the pipeline is
pushed forward the soil particles tend to move away from each other to permit shear
movement in dense material. It should be noted that sand is almost always dense, in
relation to the critical state, and dilation will almost certainly be necessary .
The laboratory test results show that the sand density was above the critical density
and that the sand dilated during shearing,as demonstrated in Figure 4.20 . Dilation
sand·
was obvious for Leighton Buzzard'during shearing in the shear box test when the top
cap was pushed upwards during the course of the test . The results of continuous
shearing of the sand in forward and reversal directions are shown in Figure 4.21,
which shows a steady state (or critical state) shear stress below that achieved during
the first traverse for all normal effective stresses. Considering the behaviour of the
sand during the jacking process, a similar philosophy of dilation can be discerned, in
118
which forward movement of the pipe creates a disturbance zone around the pipeline
and consequently causes soil movement. Soil movement around a pipeline is a subject
on its own will not be examined in more detail here, although confinement will restrict
the ability of the soil to move away from the pipeline and this will result in high
jacking resistance through the difficulty of sand dilation.
Analysis presented by Hughes et al (1977) on the expansion of a cylindrical cavity in
sand, assumed that in the strain region around the cavity, the sand may be considered
as elastic-perfectly plastic in its stress/strain response and to have a constant angle of
dilation (1jI) associated with the plastic deformation, as shown in Figure 4.22 . The
relationship between volumetric and shear strain is thus:
v=c-ysin1jl
where v =volumetric strain, c =constant, and y =shear strain

The angles of dilation (1jI) for drained triaxial tests are summarised in Table 4.7 and
may be useful in determining the behaviour of the sand particles around the jacked
pipeline.
Contraction is the opposite process to dilation, where the sand particles tend to become
more compact than in their original state. The density of the soil sample in this case is
lower than the critical density of the soil and the effective stress paths lie below the
critical state line in q' p' space, (Figure 4.19) . For the jacking process, this is mostly
likely to occur when. a loose sand is created just behind the excavation shield. The
loose sand particles, caused by local collapsing into the gap around the shield, will be
caused to contract during the pipeline forward movement, although high insitu stresses
could force the density of this sand to rapidly increase above the critical.
119
4.6 THE CONCEPT OF SOIL/SOIL FRICTION AND ITS RELATION

TO SOIL/PIPE SURFACE FRICTION
The principle of pipeline surface/soil contact is similar to that of soil/soil contact in a
sense of friction between two bodies. In all types of soil, friction is generated when
the particles are sheared, or moved across, each other. The magnitude of frictional
resistance is dependent on various factors such as particle shape and size, density,
void ratio and normal effective stresses. For many soils ranges of frictional resistance
have been established for experimentally and practically determined angles of friction.
In pipe jacking, values of soil/surface friction were established based on data obtained
from pipe jacking contracts. Herzog (1987) reported tables for these values from
various different case studies, as shown in Table 4.1 O.
Table 4.10 Coefficient of Pipe/Soil Friction, (after Scherle, 1977)

Surface Contact Type of Friction Coefficlent of Frictlon ( fL)
Concrete/Soli Static 0.5 to 0.6

Concrete/Soil Sliding 0.3 to 0.4
Steel/Soil Static 0.3 to 0.4
Steel/Soil Sliding 0.2 to 0.3
It is important to acknowledge that the soil/pipe surface results from laboratory testing
could differ from those obtained from model testing due to differences in surface
profile and joint profile . In laboratory testing it was proposed that steel/soil and
concrete/soil shear would be adequate to give an indication on the type of friction
which could be generated, but that interpretation of model testing results would have to
be carried out with due caution.
120
Chapter 4 Materta[ Characterization
An important factor in determining the frictional response is the vertical overburden
pressure and, more importantly, the variation in effective normal stress around the
pipe. An investigation into this subject would be necessary in order to define the
relationship between the results, and this could be done by examining the relationship
between model and shear test results and to backcalculate the mean normal effective
stresses that appear to be acting on the pipe. This will be further discussed in
Chapter 7 .
4.7 THE NEED FOR LABORATORY TESTING AND CORRELATION

WITH PIPE JACKING SCALE MODEL TESTING
Some assessment of soil behaviour must be obtained from a combination field and
laboratory testing prior to conducting a pipe jacking operation with respect to its
strength for face excavation, the resistance to penetration and friction generated from
jacking and the magnitude of soil stresses behind the jacking wall . The most important
laboratory tests needed for pipe jacking are listed in Table 4.11 .
Table 4.11 The Essential Laboratory Tests For Pipe Jacking

Test Type of Soil Reason For Testing
Grading Sand Particle Size Distribution Curve.

Water Content Sand Water Content
Permeability Sand kValue
Triaxial Test Sand Internal Angle of Friction
and Cohesion [Drained And
Undralnedl, and dilation angle
Direct Shear Test Sand Internal Angle of Friction and
Cohesion as above, and
soil/ structure parameters
I
'" NB "cohesion" in sands refers to cementation or porewater suction effects in tests

that are not fully drained.
121
However, laboratory tests have not been used to predict the forces that may be
encountered from the friction generated between the pipe surface and the surrounding
soil . It is therefore essential in this particular piece of research to determine the
relationship between the laboratory test results and the magnitude of forces obtained
from pipe jacking to facilitate development of predictive methods. Other laboratory

results, such as soil strength, are required to establish the stability number, which can
be used for calculating the resistance of the soil against collapse around the pipeline, or
deformation of the face of the excavation, for clays.
122
B.S TEST SIEVES
C') ID 0 o o 00
CD
o
C'I 0 o ID 00
.;0 CD o ~ oC') 0 .;0 0
c:i
I I I I
c:iI 0
I I
C'I C')
I
to cD r-4
I
r-4
I
~
I I I
100 100
I'i1
;11
90 90
80 /' Cl
80
W1I
't1
./
River sand 70
~
70
60
,. L
60
0
t'l
Z
~
50 I Lei hton Buzzard Sand 50 Cl
t'l
I
-~
I L
40 40
I
30 :1 30
Z
t'l
tj
20 I 20
/
10 J 10
V
o ./ o
O. 001 0.01 " 0.1 .0 10 10o
PARrICLE SIZE (mm)
0.002 0.06 2 60
Fine I MedIum I Coarse FIne I MedIum I Coarse Fine I MedIum I Coarse
I Silt Sand Gravel J

Particle Size Dist ribution
Figure 4.1 Particle Size Distribution of Leighton Buzzard and River Sand
1.85 ,--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _---,
~
1.80
C1;!
l
~
1.75
-.,'"
.eo
~
;:
1.70
e:-
A
1.65
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Moisture Content (%)
Figure 4.2 Optimum MOisture Content for River Sand

Dense
Displacement (mm)
Figure 4.3 Typical Shear Test Curves For Sand
Force
Figure 4.4 Special Shear Test Apparatus

80
60
.,.........
40
. '-
• .~
X
_A
30kPa
20
.X
~ lOkPa
. . ·'~+".I.i·H'''!J.~
o
o 5 10 15 20
Displacement (mm)
100
El Peak Values
80 • Ultimate Values
'2
-."'
~
"'
60
....Cl)"
.... 40
"
.et
Cl)
20
o 20 40 60 80 100
Normal Stress (kpa)
Figure 4.5 Results of Direct Shear for Leighton Buzzard Sand

80 .-----------------------------------1
60
'2
-..,..,.,
~
40
..... 40kPa
(Jl
..,1;1 7_73 III

.=
(Jl
20
o 5
Displacement (mm)
80
Peak Values=U1tlmate Values
60
40
20
o
o 20 40 60 80
Normal Stress (kPa)
Flgure 4.6 Results of Direct Shear Test for River Sand

* Best fit line through the origin was chosen for ideal situation, or alternatively best
fit line through the points with an intercept can be plotted .
2000 r-----------r=============:;]
~= 400 kPa
1500
-~
co
1000
III
.
III
...."
en
500
a 5 10 15 20 25 30
Strain (%)
0.01 r----------------------,
0.00
~
...
......
e -0.01
~co
.=
u
-0.02
"
~
~
-0.03
-0.04 L---"_....1.._..L-_.1.---"_-'-_-'-_.1.--'~_'__~_..J
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
Strain (%)
Figure 4.7 Results of Drained Triaxlal Test for Lelghton Buzzard Sand
3000
C!3= 700 kPa
2500 I-
(i
2000 I-
-
-~'"'" 1500 I-
...".
rJJ
1000 I-
500
0 I I 1, I L I
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Strain (%)
0.01 .--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--,
0.00
~...
G
"
'OIl
-0.01
.==
os
u
§"
~ -0.02
-0.03 1---'_-'-_...J....._-'----'_--'-_-'--_-'----'_-'-_...J.....--'
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
Strain (%)
Figure 4.8 Results of Drained Triaxial Test for Leighton Buzzard Sand
1200 ~= 400 kPa
900
~ 600
'"....'o."
.
Cl)
300
o
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
Strain (%)
0.02 r-----------------------,
0.00
~
.....
...
e-o.
'cl)
I:: -0.02
os
.<:
()
]"
-0.04
~
-0.06 L-..----'-_-L_--'-_L__----'-_ _1._~_L___'_ _1._~______I
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
Strain (%)
Figure 4.9 Results of Drained Trlaxlal Test for River Sand

2000
~= 700 kPa
1500
Ci
~ 1000
en
..
en
Cl
....
Ul
500
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
Strain (%l
0.01
0.00
~...
G
:n
=
os
.<:
-0.01
(.)
Cl
-
§
~
-0.02
-0.03
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
Strain (%l
Figure 4.10 Results of Drained Triaxlal Test for River Sand

600
~= 400 kPa
500
400
'2
~
300
'"
...'"."
CIl
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Strain(Ofo)
0.2
-0.0
-0.2
A -004
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Strain(%)
Figure 4.11 Results of Undrained Triaxial Test for Leighton Buzzard Sand
--------------------------- ----------
1200
~= 700 kPa
1000 r-
800 r- ""'-
<;'
~
~
. 600 t-
~
....
rn
400
200
0 1 1 I 1 _I
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Strain(%)
0.4 ,...-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- - ,
0.2 !-
0.0
"\
A
-0.2 f-
-0.4 r-
-0.6 L----I._-'i'----'-_....Li_-'.'-_.l-
1---1._-,1,--_,-_-,-
1-,,---,
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
Straln(%)
Figure 4.12 Results of Undrained 1'riaxial Test for Leighton Buzzard Sand
600
0"3= 400 kPa

500
400
'2
~
~
300
''""
....~
(/J 200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Straln(%)
0.2 , -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--,
-0.0 11--------------------
-0.2
A -0.4 _
-0.6 _
-0.8 _
'_''---<-_-'-
,_..1.L..-_..l."---_-'-
-1.0 L---I..'---'- ,---'_-','----'-----'
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
Straln(%)
Figure 4.13 Results of Undralned Trla'CiaI Test for River Sand

1000 r-----------r========il
~= 700 kPa
800
Ci 600
-.,"''"
~
.
....
rJ)
400
200
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
Straln(%)
2.0 . -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _---,
t-
1.5 t-
1.0
"\
A
0.0 ~
-0.5 r- ----------_
-1.0 L----'-_.l.-
,---'_..J.'_-'-'-_ _iL----'-_..l-'-----'-_.l.-
'---'_..J
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
Straln(%)
Figure 4.14 Results of Undralned Trlaxlai Test for River Sand

80 r---------------------------------------,
60
-....~
.,r .. =__ _ r
40
L 40kPa
• Lb
20
lOkPa
~.i.ii+!ii.i.i.i.!.I.iJ.I.i.I.j.I.I.j.!.i3.I.!.!+iJ.i.i1.i,j.jQ:rrry:rCl:1
o
o 5 10 15 20
Displacement (mm)
Leighton Buzzard
80
13 Peak Values
60
• Ult!mate Values
~
OS
~
~
.,.,
.....
~
UJ
40
OS
"
.<::
UJ
20
o L-__~____L __ _~_ _ _ _L __ _~_ _ _ _L __ _~_ _~
o 20 40 60 80
Normal Stress (kPa)

Lelghton Buzzard
Figure 4.15 Results of Shear Test for Concrete/Soil Interface

80~------------------ __________________--.
60
~
:::!
.....
III
III
40
..=..
m
os 50kPa
m
20 "mmc =I~IOII~I:Q~Q~O kPa
• lOkPa
~tf.if3~!JJ3·t?zdj.IJJ.IJJ.i.it.Elna:S
o 5 10 15 20
Displacement (mm)
River Sand
80 r-------------------------------____--,
Peak Values=U1timate Values
60
40
20
o L---~ ____L-__- L_ _ ~L- __- L_ _ _ _L__ _~_ _~
o 20 40 60 80
Normal Stress (kPa)
River Sand
Figure 4.15 Continued. Results of Shear Test for Concrete/Soil Interface

80 r---------------------------------------,
50kPa
?EJI'In "_E' ""-AP
- 30kPa
10 kPa
~:tI::lJlI.IJmtJj'ij..::m::!
.... :m:::..'llI:J:'~~dkJ
10 15 20
Displacement (mm)
100
80
~
IV
D-
0. 60
If>
'"
!!
iii
~
IV 40
"
.c
Cl)
20
o
o 20 40 60 80 100
Normal Stress (kPa)

River sand
Figure 4.16 Results of Shear Test for Steel/Soil Interface

------ - ----- -----
80r-----------------------------~----__,
60
<i
-~
on
.
{/)
...."
40 40 kPa
~ke'
UJ
...
to
.="
UJ
20
~ 10 kPa
1+' '+14 +t;lj.I.,.j.jJ '1-[3
•
o~~~----~--~----~--~~--~----~--~
o 5 10 15 20
Displacement (mm)
Leighton Buzzard sand
80 ~--------------------------------------__;
60
<i
-.
Po.
."i
{ /)
{/)
40
...."
.
UJ
to
.="
UJ
20
o L-__ ~ ____L __ _ ~ _ _ _ _L __ _ ~ _ _ _ _L __ _ ~ __ ~
o 20 40 60 80
Normal Stress (kPa)
Leighton Buzzard sand
Figure 4.16 Continued. Results of Shear Test for Steel/Soil Interface

60~ __________________________________ ~~~
50
40
30
20
10 IJLelghton Buzzard
• RiverSand
, oL-~L-~L-~L-~C=~C=~
I o 10 20 30 40 50 60
Normal Stress (kPa)
Figure 4.18 Shear Stress against N01mal Stress for Vartous

Densities of the Sands Tested In Direct Shear Test
q
(kPa)
Crttlcal State Line
.' .'.' p' (kPa)

l·~·i·
Projection on v : p'
Figure 4.19 Position of Critical State Line

Dense Sand
Dilation
Zone
-::::::====== Critical State
Contraction
Zone
Loose Sand
Displacement
a- Dilation And Contraction for Dense and Loose Sand
q'
ESP= Effective Stress Path
Dilation
Zone
ESPs for
dense sand
Contraction ESPs for

Zone loose sand
p'
b- Dilation And Contraction Zones In Critical State Space
Figure 4.20 The Principle Of Dilation and Contraction for Sand

BOr-------------------------------------,
60
• •••• • •••
40
•
X X X X X X X X X X- x ,,~I
.
...
• . . . . . 50kPa
X~
~~x'(~kPa
20
G El El Cl G G G GClG lOkPa
I:!J~
,.[!1.,.i·'·ZZt;;!
o 2 3 4 5
Strain (%)
a Leighton Buzzard Sand
80
60
-'"
Il.
.><
~
III
50kPa
III 40
I!
1ii
.,'"
~
.<:
CIl
o 2 3 4 5
Strain (%)
b River Sand
Figure 4.21 Results of the Reversal Shear Test

'y---------- <1>'
Shear Strain
a- Constant mobilised angle of friction In plastic phase
shear strain
C ••
....
b- Asoclated Ideal!sed volumetric response.

Constant mobilised angle of dHation, 'If •
In plastic phase
Figure 4.22 Idealised Elastlc - Perfectly Plastic Response

of Sand (after Hughes et al 1977) .
Chapter 5 Experimental Study oJ Pipe Jacking
CHAPTER FIVE
5 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF PIPE JACKING
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 EQUIPMENT
5.2.1 THE1ESTBOX
5.2.2 THE 1ESTRIG
5.2.3 APPLICATION OF OVERBURDEN PRESSURE
5.2.4 THE MODEL PIPES
5.2.5 THE JACKING ARRANGEMENT
5.2.6 THE EXCAVATION 1ECHNIQUE
5.3 INSTRUMENTATION
5.3.1 MEASUREMENT OF JACKING FORCES
5.3.2 MEASUREMENT OF PIPE DISPLACEMENT
5.3.3 MEASUREMENT OF OVERBURDEN PRESSURE
5.3.4 DATA LOGGING ARRANGEMENT
5.3.4.1 SIGNAL CONDITIONING MODULE
5.3.4.2 A-D CONVERTER
5.3.4.3 MICRO-COMPU1ER
5.3.4.4 DISPLACEMENT TRANSDUCER
5.3.4.5 LOAD CELL
5.3.5 INSTRUMENTATION ACCURACY AND TOLERANCES
5.4 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

5.4.1 EXPERIMENTAL PREPARATION
5.4.2 EXPERIMENTAL INSTALLATION PROCEDURE
5.4.3 METHOD OF EXCAVATION
5.4.4 MEASUREMENT OF OVERCUT RATIO
5.4.5 MEASUREMENT OF JACKING FORCES AND PIPE DISPLACEMENT
5.4.6 COMPLETION OF THE TEST
5.5 PROGRAMME OF EXPERIMENTAL WORK
123
ChapterS Experimental Study of Pipe Jacking
5 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF PIPE JACKING
5.1 INTRODUCTION
After deciding on the use of a scale model as the main research tool, the entire testing
rig had to be manufactured at Loughborough University. Due to the necessarily
large size of the testing equipment, considerable effort and time had to be spent on
building the apparatus. Once previous experimental work on this subject had been
reviewed, careful design of the testing rig and the instrumentation was essential in
order that experimental work could be carried out efficiently. It was mentioned in
Chapter 3 that a large scale model has relatively small experimental boundary effects
during testing and careful consideration in the design of the testing equipment was
taken to minimise the effect of the boundary conditions and to keep these effects
consistent throughout the test programme. In addition a full test programme is
required and thus the cost and time required to conduct each experiment should be
kept to the minimum.
Preliminary tests were required in order to define an appropriate experimental

methodology, to test the equipment and instrumentation, and to ensure that the test
programme could be carried out without any difficulties. The test programme was
reviewed and updated frequently during testing to ensure efficiency.
124
5.2 EQUIPMENT
The scale model testing rig was designed to simulate the entire pipe jacking operation
in practice. Figure 5.1 shows the general arrangement of the rig . It consists of a
large test box, a frame for the support of the jacking equipment, model pipes, a
rubber membrane pressure bag and a data logging system.
5.2.1 THE TEST BOX
The idea behind building a large test box is to enable the creation of a medium
through which the jacked pipe line is to penetrate . The test box was designed to
contain the soil. In addition, the box supports a loading arrangement in order that a
vertical effective stress can be applied to the soil, further details of which are
discussed in a later section.
The test box used in the course of this research has internal dimensions of 1.8m long
X 1.5m wide X 1.5m deep. The test box is made of steel and was designed to
withstand a pressure of up to 250 kPa on top of the soil sample inside the box. The
box is fixed to laboratory's floor to prevent any movement during testing.
The principle of using the test box is that it would provide rigid boundaries and
impose a condition of plane strain deformation on the front and rear faces, while the
sides and the bottom walls are sufficiently far from the pipeline to produce no
significant influence on the deformations of the soil around the pipeline. In addition,
it is important to reduce the shear stresses between the soil sample and the box walls,
therefore smooth steel sheets are used for this purpose.
125
The detailed design of the test box is represented in Figure 5.2 . It consists of I.5m
x 1.5m front and rear panels, 1.8m x 1.5m panels for the sides and a 1.8m x 1.5m
panel for the bottom face; Steel sheets of 6mm thickness were used to build the
panels and these were strengthened by 120 x 60 x 10mm steel box sections, welded
together to form a rigid frame for the box. The bottom face was strengthened by
two small steel sections from the inside. The test box was fixed to the floor of the
laboratory inside the test rig .
The front and rear faces of the test box have 500mm square openings in order to
allow the pipeline to penetrate through the box. To provide a circular entrance and
exit for the pipeline, two steel plates were positioned inside the square openings .
These plates contained holes framed by two rings of rubber and steel to provide the '
required size for the pipeline opening by adjusting their circumferences.
It was clearly important, in determining accurately the jacking forces, to account for
the friction generated between the surface of the pipeline and the surrounding rubber
seals during penetration through the two openings. Similarly it is essential to contain
the soil sample inside the test box and thus allow no gaps around the pipeline for the
sand to escape through . Two types of rubber seals were used, one for each
opening. Soft rubber was used for the front because it is capable of folding slightly
inwards in the direction of the movement of the pipeline. For the rear opening the
situation is a little more complex because the pipeline in this case is leaving the test
box. It therefore carries the sand particles along its surface, due to adherence, and
tries to push the rubber outwards at the same time, which consequently causes a gap
for the soil to escape. To overcome this problem without creating high frictional
forces, a black hard thick rubber was used as a seal in this case. These solutions
126
ChapterS Experimental Study ofPipe Jacking
were chosen following a trial and error approach using different rubber of different
thicknesses and stiffnesses .
At the rear opening an adjustable plate, capable of moving horizontally and
vertically, was used. The purpose of this was to facilitate adjustment of the position
of the opening for the pipeline as it leaves the box in order that no resistance would
be caused from misalignment of the pipeline.
5.2.2 The Test Rig
A frame was used to contain the testing equipment and this is shown in Figure 5.3.
It is simply a steel frame made out of 100 x 100 x lOmm steel box section
surrounding the test box and creating the jacking facility. It is fmnly fixed to the
floor by means of heavy duty screws and is also used to clamp the test box on the
floor to prevent any uplift movement during the application of vertical loading .
The jacking equipment was mounted on the frame horizontally. The test box is
situated at one end of the rig and the jacking arrangement is placed on the other side.
An adjustable guide rail for carrying the pipes was used to maintain the required level
and direction of the pipelines as they enter the test box. This guide rail is also fixed
to the main frame at the front opening of the test box.
5.2.3 Application of The Overburden Pressure
As mentioned earlier, a vertical uniform stress was required to simulate the surcharge
of the overlying soil imposed on the pipeline. There were few options available
127
ChapterS Expertmental Study ofPIpe Jacking
including the use of a static dead load arrangement applied to the top of the sand
sample or by using water or air pressure. It was decided to use water pressure for
both practicality and safety, and therefore a rubber membrane was placed underneath
the lid and secured by clamping joints around its edges, as shown in Figure 5.4 .
The choice of the rubber material was made such that it would be able to take the
water pressure and expand without letting the water escape through the joints. The
rubber used for this device was a soft white rubber of 6 mm thickness and capable of
stretching to eight times its original length .
The water was delivered from the mains through an opening valve, then through a
water pressure regulator and then into the gap between the inner surface of the lid
and the rubber membrane (water bag) . The water pressure was controlled by
adjusting the water pressure regulator until the required normal stress was achieved.
The magnitude of the water pressure was monitored by the water pressure gauge, as
discussed in detail later . The reason for using this loading system was to impose an
artificial soil overburden pressure and thereby to simulate different depths of the
pipeline during jacking. The use of 200 kPa as a maximum overburden pressure
was modelled on the basis of an overburden of 12 m of soil, assuming a bulk
density of 16.5 kN/m3 for sand, or alternatively lOm of soil at a bulk density of20.0
kN/m3.
5.2.4 The Model Pipes
With the aid of appropriate modelling, the surface structure of the pipeline can be
accurately simulated .
128
Chapter 5 Experimental Study oJ PIpe Jacking
It has been mentioned in Chapter 3 that two types of pipe surfaces were used for this
research work, concrete and steel surfaces. It is important to acknowledge that the
strength of the pipes and the joints are not important for this research work and only
the surface texture was taken into consideration during the research. Therefore,
model pipes were required regardless of their loading strength and other pipe jacking
specifications, but with durable surfaces, i.e those able to withstand the friction
generated from the soil sample without damage. Details of the pipes are given in
Figure 5.5.
5.2.4.1 Concrete Pipes
These pipes are of 200mm external diameter and consist of steel pipes covered with
micro-concrete. A Smm thick steel pipe section of 167mm external diameter was cut
into 240mm long sections. Steel pipes were used to avoid the manufacture of
reinforced concrete pipes. They also can withstand, and transfer the jacking loads
during the jacking process and thereby reduce the stress on the concrete walls of the
pipes to an acceptable level . Another advantage of using the steel pipes as a
permanent central former was to ensure no misalignment in the joints of the pipeline,
tight-fitting joints being created between the pipes to achieve this. The steel pipes
were milled around both ends in a manner that allows one end of the pipe to be fixed
onto the opposite end of a second pipe by causing the joint's ends to be groved by
half the thickness of the pipe.
Each section represents the length, when scaled, of the prototype pipe . Before
casting the concrete around it, steel reinforcement sections were welded around the
steel pipes to act as a frictional key between steel and concrete and thus to prevent the
129
ChapterS Experimental Study of PIpe Jacking
concrete surface from slipping along the steel surface during jacking. The concrete
surface thus simulates the surface of prototype concrete pipes in contact with the
surrounding soil in practice.
5.2.4.2 Steel Pipes
The steel pipes were manufactured using the same principle, but without coating
with concrete. Steel pipe, 194.7mm in external diameter by 5 mm thick, was cut
into 240 mm long sections. These sections were milled to have the same joints as
those described above for the concrete pipes. It is necessary to note that the size of
steel pipes was chosen as a result of the availability of steel pipes in the market. It
would have been preferable to use the same diameter pipe as for concrete pipes for
easier comparison of the results, but this proved impossible. (The concrete pipes
were manufactured fIrst.)
5.2.5 The Jacking Arrangement
The jacking equipment provides the necessary jacking capacity to push the pipeline
through the test box . An hydraulic 50 tonne jack with a stroke of 120mm was used
as the main jack and was placed in a position that gave a perfect alignment for the
pipeline as it enters the test box. It was supported by a 100 x 100 x 10 mm steel
frame placed at a distance of 500mm from the front face of the test box and spanning
across the main testing frame. The jack was secured in position by means of a
large adjustable screw, in order to allow the jacking frame to be fmnly positioned
before jacking commences. A thick steel plate was welded on the jacking frame with
different sets of screw holes to allow the main jack to be positioned at different
130
ChapterS Experimental Study ofPipe Jacktng
levels if required.
Hydraulic pressure was used to supply the main jack with oil during the jacking
operation. After completion of each loading cycle, the main jack had to be retracted
mechanically. Two small hydraulic jacks, each of 1 tonne capacity, were used to
pull the main jack back to its original position. These were positioned on each side
of the main jack and were connected to the steel plate, as shown in Figure 5.6 . After
retracting the main jack, the small jacks were released back to their normal position
and retracted themselves to allow the main jack to perform.
5.2.6 The Excavation Technique
Excavation in practice is carried out at the face of the tunnel, often in front of the
driving shield. In pipe jacking, excavation at the front of the pipeline has an
important influence on the behaviour of other jacking parameters.
Excavation equipment for the experimental work had to be carefully designed to meet
the objectives of the project. A cage was used as a working access for excavation
and was situated between the load cell and the pipes. The cage was supported by a
steel rod through a hole in the load cell. The steel rod was welded to a circular steel
plate of 240mm diameter and connected to a circular ram by four 24mm diameter,
300mm long steel rods. The steel ram was cut to allow the pipes to be fitted in with
no movement, as shown in Figure 5.7.
At the front of the pipeline, ahead of the leading pipe, a steel shield with sharp
edges, a smooth outside surface and angled inner face of 300 was used (Figure
131
ChapterS Experimental Study ofPIpe Jacking
5.8) . Two methods of excavation were adopted for this work, one for the dry sand
and the other for the wet sand . A suction technique was used to excavate and
remove the sand from the face of the tunnel just in front of the shield for the dry
sand. For the wet sand, an auger was rotated and pushed at the same time to cut the
soil, and subsequently dragged backwards to remove the sand through opening
flaps. Further details are given in section 5.4.3 .
5.3 INSTRUMENTATION
5.3.1 Measurement of Jacking Forces
Jacking force is the most important performance parameter and its accurate
measurement was essential. The generation of the jacking forces during testing
should solely represent the real resistance between the surface of the pipeline and the
surrounding material (and in addition face resistance where relevant) . Friction due to
the contact between the pipeline and other materials should be either kept to a
minimum and calibrated out, or eliminated completely. As explained earlier, the use
of the rubber seals for the holes in the test box was studied carefully and any extra
forces generated from their resistance were later deducted from the measured jacking
forces. Misalignment was kept to a minimum by adopting the jointing techniques as

described earlier. Face resistance, or shield resistance, was modelled as accurately as
possible.
A data logging device was used to monitor the magnitude of the jacking forces. The
load cell mounted between the cage and the main jack measured the forces as an
132
ChapterS Experimental Study oJ Pipe Jacking
analogue signal, which was passed to the A-D converter through a signal
conditioning module. The A-D converter converted the analogue signals into digital
signals, which were passed to the BBC micro-computer for data recording .
Software was written to handle the data thus obtained. Data were recorded every 2 to
3 seconds throughout the jacking process to enable a continuous record of the forces
to be obtained and printed through a line printer.
5.3.2 Measurement of Pipe Displacement
The magnitude of the jacking forces encountered during construction is usually
related to the jacking steps (Haslem, 1983 and 1986 ) or to the total length of the
jacked pipeline (Stein at aI, 1986) .
The pipe displacement in this research work was measured by Linearly Variable
Differential Transformers (LVDTs) fixed onto the supporting frame. As the jacks
moved forward the transducer arm extended and the distance signal was passed
through a conditioning box to the A-D converter. The signal was converted from an
analogue to a digital form and passed to the BBC microcomputer, which recorded
and printed the data.
5.3.3 Measurement of Overburden Pressure
Overburden pressure above the pipeline is of interest in determininig the response of
the jacking forces to different loading conditions. Little research effort, if any, has
been devoted to this parameter and most of the methods of estimating the jacking
forces ignore this parameter, although it was considered important herein. The
133
simulation of the overburden pressure was achieved by a rubber membrane bag
placed above the soil. A water regulated pressure from the main of up to 15 bar was
used to pressurize water within the rubber bag to obtain the required nonnal stress,
which was measured by a Budenberg water pressure gauge situated on the lid of the
box. The gauge is graduated from 0 to 10 bar and each bar is sub-graduated in
increments of 0.05 of a bar . The pressure was monitored and controlled by a water
pressure regulator. In each test, the required pressure was applied and kept at that
level throughout the whole test.
5.3.4 Data Logging Arrangement
The data were monitored via a signal conditioning module, a voltmeter, an A-D
converter and a BBC micro-computer. These devices are interconnected in the
arrangement shown in Figure 5.9 .
5.3.4.1 Signal Conditioning Module
This is used to operate all of the tranducers . It consists of three channels, one being
used for load and the others to measure the pipe displacement. The input voltages to
each transducer can be individually adjusted and measured. The output voltage from
the transducers can be monitored directly from each channel.
5.3.4.2 A-D Converter
An eight channel PCI 6380 analogue-to-digital converter made by C.I.L. was used
as a part of the instrumentation package. It received the analogue signals from the
134
ChapterS Experimental Study oJ Pipe Jacking
load cell and the transducer, and then translated them into a digital form compatible
with the computer. It required an input voltage for each channel depending on the
output range for the measuring devices. Then each channel can be transmitted to the
computer in a digital form with + or - 15 Bits resolution, which allowed
transmission of 32767 units for every 10 volts as a digital signal to the computer.
5.3.4.3 Micro-Computer
A BBC Master, 128k micro-computer was used to monitor the jacking load at
regular time intervals together with the pipeline displacement. It was interfaced with
a 50 T load cell and the displacement transducer through an A-D converter. The
measured data were recorded on a floppy disc for storage and printed on a line
printer for data presentation.
Software was developed to record the data with a list of options. These options
include the time interval at which the data are taken, pausing the recording, and
readjustment of the intervals and to allow additional data to be taken.
5.3.4.4 Displacement Transducer
The jacking displacement was measured using a linear variable differential
transfonner (LVD1) • To measure the jacking displacement, it was decided to measure
the relative displacement between the excavation cage and the jacking frame. The
core of the L VDT was attached to the jacking frame in a stationary position and the
body was attached to the moving cage. The LVDT had a linear range of 155mm and
was adjusted to give an output of 4650mV per millimetre deflection.
135
Chapter 5 Experimental Study of Pipe Jacking
5.3.4.5 Load Cell
The jacking forces were measured using a load cell . The load cell was an
M.C.B./M.R.E. 50 Tonne cell and measured the load directly from the jack. It
provides an electrical signal proportional to the applied load. The load cell had a
range of 500kgf and a sensitivity of lOmVIN .
5.3.5 Instrumentation Accuracy and Tolerances
Having decided what instruments to use for this research work, it is essential to
judge the value of the data obtained. It is also important to acknowledge the accuracy
and resolution of the load cell and transducer used for monitoring the jacking forces
and displacement. The instruments were regularly calibrated and checked during the
course of the research work.
5.4 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
It is important to adopt a well defined experimental procedure in order to provide
consistent experimental data throughout the entire test programme. This precaution,
together with isolation of the factors that influence the installation procedure and the
determination of the boundary conditions which may effect the performance

parameters, should result in reliable experimental data. Pipe jacking construction
practice was simulated wherever possible, and the installation of the equipment and
instrumentation were conducted in a manner such that no disruption of the soil or

construction practice could occur.
136
The experimental procedures described hereafter were tested and examined in

preliminary experiments and, therefore, were well defined and remained unaltered
throughout the research work. The characterization of the soil used in the work is
discussed in Chapter 4.
5.4.1 Experimental Preparation
In order to ensure that the installations were fully ,representative of site practice and
achieved the required objectives of the research work, the model was prepared and
built as described earlier in sections 5.2 &5.3 .
The pipe jacking model testing rig is shown in Fig 5.1, and the jacking equipments
, \' ere placed at one side of the box. Model steel and concrete pipes were used to
form the pipeline. The scale ratio of the tunnel diameter (B) to the width of the box
is 1:7.5 .
A uniform surcharge pressure is exerted by means of a water rubber membrane bag

on top of the soil. The whole apparatus was supported and fixed to the ground by
a steel frame.
5.4.2 Experimental Installation Procedure
The pipe installation method has the greatest potential influence on the results. It
was evident that an approximately uniform distribution of the soil material in the test
box was necessary in order to assess realistic soil behaviour and achieve consistent
results during anyone test.
137
ChapterS Experimental Study ofPipe Jacking
The test box was filled with the appropriate sand to the required density and moisture
content, and then an appropriate nonnal stress was applied to its surface. Two basic
procedures were adopted: Type I where the whole pipeline is placed in position
before filling the box, and Type H where the box is filled completely with sand and
the pipeline is jacked into the soil via the entrance opening. Both types of tests have
similar boundary conditions during testing.
Leighton buzzard sand passing the 2mm sieve and retained on the I mm sieve was
used as a unifonnly graded sand. The behaviour of the sand will be similar to
granular soil occurring naturally above the ground water table with maximum
frictional resistance. The dry sand had a high void ratio and air penneability due to
the uniformity of its large particles. Pore water pressure and drainage in this case
will not arise at the rates of stress applied and therefore the total and effective
stresses within the soil will always be equal.
The sand was placed by pluviation from a hopper, falling through a constant height
of approximately 60mm into the testing box as the hopper moved across the test
box. For Type I tests, the pipeline was positioned in place inside the box, and
through the openings on a bed of sand. The sand was then poured around the
pipeline and compacted locally (particularly under the pipe haunches) to achieve a
uniform density before filling the remainder of the box . For tests of Type H, the
sand was poured straight from the hopper until the whole box was filled. The top
plate with the rubber membrane bag was placed on top of the sand and an initial
nonnal conditioning pressure of 200kPa was applied before testing to maintain a
consistent compacted state within the same boundary conditions for all types of test.
Once the initial stressing was complete, the stress was released and the surcharge
138
ChapterS Experimental Study DJ PIpe Jacking
pressure raised to the required level for testing. On completion of each test, the
was checked and
density of the sand"for all tests was found to be within 16.0 + or - 0.5 kN/m2 .
The well-graded River sand had a moisture content of approximately 6% . Due to the
high permeability of the sand, pore pressures would be dissipated relatively quickly
and, at the rates of stress applied, the sand can be considered to be in the fully
drained equilibrium state.
For tests of Type I, sand was compacted in layers below the pipe, carefully
compacted around the pipeline, and compacted as before above the pipeline . For
tests of Type n, the sand was compacted in layers throughout the whole depth of the
test box. The sand for both types of tests was placed in layers of 150mm thickness
and compacted by a drop hammer of weight of 8.87kg falling through a height of
300mm three times. This method of sample preparation produced a uniform density
of 16.5 + or - 0.5 kN/m2 and a moisture content of 6.0 + or - 1 % . The density and
moisture content were measured at the end of each test to ensure uniformity between
tests.
After filling the box, the same procedure as that described for the uniform sand
thereafter was adopted with the exception that for this sand the test was carried out
on the second day after preparation to ensure that the water content (and any pore
water pressure generated) had reached steady state conditions before testing.
139
5.4.3 Method Of Excavation
Two methods of excavation were used depending on the type of the sand. Leighton
Buzzard sand excavation was carried out by means of a suction operation. The dry
sand was sucked behind the cutter shield until it reached its natural angle of repose.
Great care was taken to ensure that the sand was extracted without causing any
disturbance to the soil in front of the shield. The pipeline was jacked in by 80 to
90mm prior to the removal of sand, the procedure being repeated throughout the test,
and a constant stress was applied to the pipeline to help ensure no overexcavation .
The face resistance was minimised by using a sharp cutter shield with an inside
angled surface of 300 , an angle that approximately simulates the angle of internal
friction of the cohesionless soil. It should be noted that some face resistance will
have occurred as a result of arching in the sand in front of the shield, but that this
could not, and should not, have been affected.
For the well-graded River sand excavation was carried out by the rotation of an
auger on the central axis of the cutter shield. The excavation distance was fixed at
80mm in front of the shield. The soil was extracted by the reverse rotational action
of the auger and the pipeline was then jacked forward by a corresponding distance
of 80mm . Collapse of the sand did not occur prior to advancement of the shield at
anyone cross-section during this operation, which was carried out as swiftly as
possible. The same shield cutters were used as for the Leighton Buzzard sand.
140
5.4.4 Measurement of Overcut Ratio
The overcut ratio is defined as the ratio of the amount of over· excavated radius,
bounded by the shield, to the radius of the pipe. It determines the amount by which
the soil can collapse onto the pipe once the shield has passed, and thereby also set up
arching mechanisms within the soil above the pipe. The over-excavated area around
the pipeline was achieved by using a larger diameter cutter shield than the pipe
diameter. Steel cutter shields of various diameters were used to obtain different
overcut ratios, as shown in Table 5.1 .
Table 5.1 Overcut Ratios used in the Experimental Work *

Shield Pipe Type of Overcut
diameter diameter pipe ratio
(mm) (mm) (R)
196 196 steel 0

200 196 steel 0.016
206 196 steel 0.048
213 200 steel 0.084
200 200 concrete 0
206 200 concrete 0.030
213 200 concrete 0.064
228 200. concrete 0.140
[ If r is the external radius of excavation and b is the external diameter of the pipe,
the overcut ratio (R) is calculated by the difference between rand b divided by b . 1
5.4.5 Measurement of Jacking Forces and Pipe Displacement
Preliminary tests were carried out to monitor the jacking forces in order to find out
how accurately the forces could be measured, this procedure being repeated a
number of times. It was found that the readings were consistent and represented the
magnitude of the forces generated fro~ the jacking resistance within the tolerances
* Overcut ratio of zero for the steel pipes was achieved by cutting down the cutter
diameter of overcut ratio of 0.140 . It was used at the latter stages of testing.
141
described earlier. Initially the pipeline was jacked through the test box without the
surrounding soil and the forces were recorded. These forces represented the
resistance of the seals around the opening and friction from the portion of the pipe
resting on the guide rail. Seal tests were repeated and a constant friction was
achieved. The forces were subtracted from the forces obtained from the jacking tests
of the pipeline in the soil .
The total jacking distance of the pipeline was obtained by adding together the jacking
increments after completion of each test. Pipe displacement measurements thus
represent the jacking steps in which the pipeline is jacked forward.
5.4.6 Completion of the Test
On completion of each test, a number of steps were taken to ensure that all test
procedures were conducted, and results were recorded, in a manner that reduced the
potential for experimental errors and allowed the programme of experimental work
to be undertaken according to plan.
The test results were monitored by the micro-computer during the experimental work
and recorded on a print out by scanning at regular intervals. This allowed a good
definition of force generation throughout the test and enabled rogue results, for
example by power surges, to be isolated. When the jacking process was completed
for each step, the computer programme was paused, and monitoring stopped, until
the experimental work was restarted again.
142
When the testing was completed, the first operation was to ensure that the applied
overburden pressure above the soil was released and the water drained out of the
pressure bag. Then the box lid was removed and various checking operations were
performed. The soil material was dug out if required depending on the type of the
test series. The vertical and horizontal misalignment of the pipeline was measured at
the end of the box to determine their effects on jacking forces and, where relevant,
ensure that they were kept to minimum. The moisture content for the River sand
was measured from samples taken from positions near to the top of the box and
adjacent to the pipeline.
The pipe surfaces were checked for damage such as surface cracks or any surface
roughness incurred from friction around the pipeline during the jacking process.
The pipes were then cleaned and replaced if necessary, and set aside for the next
test.
5.5 PROGRAMME OF EXPERIMENTAL WORK
The main aim of the experimental programme was to simulate current site practice
using a scale model and to gain knowledge of the various parameters that mayor
may not have any effect on the behaviour and magnitude of the jacking forces. A
series of preliminary tests was performed using the scale model in order to develop
a standard method of operation, to which other tests should be conducted
accordingly. The preliminary tests also provided a basic understanding of the
behaviour of the jacking forces in relation to various parameters. Additional
preliminary tests were conducted to investigate the loading pattern and the behaviour
143
ChapterS Experimental Study of Pipe JackfIlg
of the water bag, and in particular the magnitude of the maximum overburden
pressure which might be applied safely.
After completion of the preliminary testing, and assurance of the accuracy and
consistency of equipment and instrumentation, a programme of tests was devised.
Details of these tests and installations are given in Table 5.2 .
The research work was divided into two main series of tests, the fJI'st (1) where the
pipeline was placed in position inside the test box and through the openings, and the
second (H) where site practice was modelled as the pipeline was jacked inside the
box while excavation was carried out at the lace. The tests were carried out in
Leighton Buzzard sand and River sand with an overburden pressure of up to 200
kPa.
The first test series(Type I) was conducted to establish the influence of varying
overburden pressure on the magnitude of the jacking forces by determining the
friction between the pipeline and the surrounding soil. Various cover depth (D) to
pipe diameter (R) ratios were thus adopted. The results of the second series of tests
(Type mshows the relationship between the magnitude of the jacking forces and the
overcut ratio, length of jacking and the type of the pipeline surface.
144
........................-------------------------------
Table 5.2 Details Of Experlmental Installations
Test No. Test Reference Test Series DjB q (kPa) 1yPe Of Pipes 1yPe Of SoIl R Type Of Joint
1 la I 3.75 0-200 concrete L 0 ID

2 Ib I 1-3.5 0 concrete L 0 ID
3 2a 11 3.75 10 concrete L 0 ID
4 2al 11 3.75 150 concrete L 0 ID
5 2a11 11 3.75 100 concrete L 0 ID
6 2alll 11 3.75 150 concrete L 0 ID
7 2alv 11 3.75 200 concrete L 0 ID
8 2b 11 3.75 10 concrete L 0.030 ID
9 2bl 11 3.75 100 concrete L 0.030 ID

10 2b11 11 3.75 200 concrete L 0.030 ID
11 2c 11 3.75 10 concrete L 0.064 ID
12 2cl 11 3.75 100 concrete L 0.064 ID
13 2c11 11 3.75 200 concrete L 0.064 ID
14 2c11l 11 3.75 10 concrete L 0.140 ID
15 2clv 11 3.75 100 concrete L 0.140 ID
16 2cv 11 3.75 200 concrete L 0.140 ID
17 3a I 3.75 0-200 sleel L 0 SM
18 3b I 3.75 0 steel L 0 SM
19 4a 11 3.75 10 steel L 0.016 SM
20 4al 11 3.75 100 steel L 0.016 SM
.........................---------------------------------
Table 5.2 (Continued) Details Of Experimental Installations
Test No. Test Reference Test Series DIB q (kPa) 1ype of Pipes Type Of Soil R Type Of Joint
21 4all II 3.75 200 steel L 0.016 SM
22 4b 11 3.75 10 steel L 0.045 SM
23 4bi 11 3.75 100 steel L 0.048 SM
24 4bU 11 3.75 200 steel L 0.048 SM

25 4e 11 3.75 10 steel L 0.084 SM
26 4cl 11 3.75 100 steel L 0.084 SM
27 4eH 11 3.75 200 steel L 0 ID
28 Sa I 3.75 0-200 concrete RS 0 ID
29 5b I 1-3.75 0 concrete RS 0 ID
30 fa 11 3.75 10 concrete RS 0 ID
31 6aI 11 3.75 100 concrete RS 0 ID
32 6al! 11 3.75 200 concrete RS 0.030 ID
33 6b 11 3.75 10 concrete RS 0.030 ID
34 6bl 11 3.75 100 concrete RS 0.030 ID
35 6bU 11 3.75 200 concrete RS 0.064 ID
36 6c 11 3.75 10 concrete RS 0.064 ID
37 6el 11 3.75 100 concrete RS 0.064 ID
38 6ell 11 3.75 200 concrete RS 0 ID
39 7a I 3.75 0-200 steel RS 0 SM
40 7b I 3.75 0 sleel RS 0.016 SM

Table 5.2 (Continued) Details Of Experimental Installations
Test No. Test Reference Test SerIes DIB q (kPa) TyPe Of PIpes Type Of Soil R Type Of JoInt
41 &l 11 3.75 10 steel IS 0.016 SM

42 Ba! II 3.75 lOO steel IS 0.016 SM
43 Sall II 3.75 200 steel IS 0.016 SM
44 Bb 11 3.75 10 steel IS 0.048 SM
45 Sb! 11 3.75 100 steel IS 0.048 SM
46 8bH II 3.75 200 steel IS 0.04S SM
47 8c 11 3.75 10 steel IS 0.OB4 SM
48 Bc! I 3.75 100 sleel IS 0.084 SM
49 Scll I 1·3.75 200 sleel IS 0.084 SM
50 8d 11 3.75 10 steel IS 0 SM
51 8d! 3.75 lOO steel IS 0 SM
52 8dU " 3.75 200 steel IS 0 SM
53 lli
"
I 3.75 0-200 concrete IS 0 SM
54 9b 11 3.75 200 concrete IS 0 SM
55 lOa I 3.75 0-200 concrete RS 0 SM
56 lOb 11 3.75 200 concrete RS 0 SM
KEY:
RO=Rough
SM = Smooth
L = Le!ghton Buzzard Sand
RS =River Sand
R = Overcut
Wfl(fFR INLET
WATER
..
~
A
...
~
A
A
...
A A
A
".
#>
A
#>
A
A
A
A
#>
A
A
A
A
A
A A A A A
A A A A
A A
A"
A A
" .. ..
'" A....
.. ..
..
.. "","
EXIT
JA'CKlING SPACERS
STEEL BOX
PIPE SUPPORT
DATA LOGGING PANEL

- A TO D CONVERTOR
- COMPIJI'ER RECORDING
Figure 5.1 Cross-sectional View of Pipe Jacking Apparatus
Rear Elevation Side Elevation Front Elevation
Figure 5.2 Test Box Detalls

Jack
'--MoIM
Frame Cell
~f ~,,,'
L-Exca,vat:lon Cage
Pipe Guide
Figure 5.3 The Testing RIg
Water Regulater
Water Outlet ...~I-__ Water Inlet
L_:Rulbb<" Membrane Rubber Membrane Mounting
Figure 5.4 Pressure Bag Details

168mm
16mm -'-1 f.l1.t-~=':::""--I~~1 !+ 16mm
. ·· ···
·· ··
··· ··
··
~Co ncrete Cover
···
240 mm Steel Pipe
··
··· ·· V Steel Bar Reinforcement
·· ··
·
~ ~~,~---------------------- ·
Concrete SuIface Pipe
194mm
240mm
Ir
Steel SuIface Pipe
Typical Pipe Joint Detail
Figure 5.5 Model Pipes Details

Auger ~otatlng Bar
Jack Mo~n1:lng
Excavation Cage
Connection
Pipes
Figure 5.6 Loading Arrangement
Fitting groove for the pipes

24mm
\\\~\\
E!,il======:s~• ~• ~
~ II:.zzzzz:zzzz:z:zzz:z:zzz:~ i ~
I· ·1
300mm 290mm
Figure 5.7 Excavation Cage Details

--------------------------------------------------------------- -
Leading Pipe Steel Cutter
I..·.·' ·. ·.'·. ,.....

·. ·'.·, .·.··.·•. •. •.•. •.'.'. .'.•. '.• .• .'.•. . •'.....::);::;f~f::::~;
,. ,.'.".,." .• ".•.}}:;::;:i:::':':;:;.
. . ,""',.::.:., . •,. . •. . •. .'. .'. '. . ..
Figure 5.8 Cutter Details

........................-------------------------------
I
Signal
Voltmeter Condltlonlng -
Module
A-D Convertor
BBC Computer
~ ________________ ~r--
Signal
Conditioning -
Module
Printer
\.'--------
L.V.D.T
( Load Cell )
- Figure 5.9 Data Logging Arrangement

Chapter 6 Results ofExperimental Work
CHAPTER SIX
6 RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTAL WORK
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 PRELIMINARY TEST RESULTS
6.3 MAIN TEST RESULTS
6.4 JACKING FORCES BEHAVIOUR

6.4.2 OVERCUTRATIO
6.4.3 THE TYPE OF SOIL
6.4.4 PIPE SURFACE
6.4.5 JACKING DISTANCE
6.4.6 PIPE JOINTS
6.S CONCLUDING REMARKS
145
6 RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTAL WORK
6.1 INTRODUCTION
It has been established earlier that the magnitude of the jacking forces generated
during pipe jacking operations is the critical factor in detennining the required pipe
strength, the size and capacity of the thrust wall, the requiredjacking equipment and
the total length of the jacked pipeline. The results of the research work presented in
this chapter have the objectives of illustrating both the behavioural trends and the
absolute magnitude of the jacking forces arising from variation in the influencing
factors. Parameters have been introduced to explain the behaviour of these results
where appropriate. Consistency in measurement of test results was assessed by
repeating certain tests, while the majority of the tests concerned varying one or more
parameters. The results of the soil material testing, one of the variable parameters,
were fully discussed in Chapter 4 .
It is important to acknowledge the difficulty in putting all the results into perspective
due to the intercombination of the variable parameters that had to be investigated
during the course of this work. It was considered, therefore, that the results should
be explained in a simple, understandable manner to avoid confusion. Simplification
was achieved by looking at the effect of each parameter on the jacking forces as the
kept constant.
other factors were ;- in order to isolate their influence.
The preliminary tests were conducted with the aim of setting a standard testing
procedure for the main testing programme. The jacking forces, as described earlier,
are the forces needed to advance the pipeline and these are presented for the main test
146
programme in detail hereafter. The interpretation of these results, and their

comparison with other findings, are fully discussed in Chapter 7 .
6.2 PRELIMINARY TEST RESULTS
Several preliminary tests were carried out in order to establish a clear indication of
how the jacking forces will vary during the main test programme and to develop
standard test procedures. Each test was repeated at least twice, and typically four
times, under the same experimental conditions so that consistency of results could
be assessed and repeatable results achieved.
The preliminary tests, in which the pipeline was placed in position inside the test box
and surrounded by soil under vertical stresses of between 10 kPa and 200 kPa,
produced interesting trends. The jacking forces obtained from these tests are plotted
in Figure 6.1, in which it can be seen that a clear relationship exists. A straight line
could be drawn to describe the points, though has been omitted for clarity. The
intercepting point of the straight line with the jacking forces axis (starting
resistance), which is equal to 17 kN is caused by the normal stresses alone due to
the height of the surrounding soil above the pipeline* . At the same time a
force/displacement relationship for each jacking operation was established as
illustrated in Figure 6.2 . This is typical of the general trend of how the jacking
forces vary with displacement, regardless of overburden pressure which simply

affects the magnitude of the resistance. For a short displacement of up to 2Omm, the
jacking force increases steadily until it reaches a peak, after which it to levels off and
then decreases to a residual value. This relationship is similar to the force
* in addition to the resistance provided by the rubber seals as the pipe e;tered and
left the box.
147
Chapter 6 Results ofexperimental Work
displacement curve for a direct shear test in the shear test box, as would be
expected. The results of the force/pressure relationship are also similar to the
relationships from direct shear tests . This similarity will be further discussed in
Chapter 7 . From the results of the preliminary tests, it was decided that a series of
relationships should be established based on this analysis.
6.3 MAIN TEST RESULTS
The main test programme was structured according to the results of the preliminary
tests. The boundary conditions imposed by the test box, while remaining constant
between tests, were potentially influential on the results and likely to exaggerate any
differences in soil properties, such as water content and density. By keeping the
differences in soil properties to a minimum through good experimental techniques

and by measuring the properties of soil used in each test, boundary condition
influence was minimized. In addition, by choosing the boundary conditions to
match those in the field and maintaining constancy during testing, good quality test
data, and particularly comparative data, were obtained .
The stress applied to the surface of the soil to simulate overburden pressure was
chosen to cover likely practical load cases, the maximum stress of 200 kPa
simulating typically 10m of overburden . However interpretation of results should
be based on experience of stresses under actual site conditions. The comparisons of
behaviour between practical loading and the experimental loading, applied to the
surface of the soil as a uniform water pressure, are important in this respect.
148
Chapter 6 Results ofExper!mental Work
6.4 JACKING FORCES BEHAVIOUR
Jacking forces were found to be dependent upon several factors and varied
considerably between tests. The magnitude of the jacking forces was mainly
influenced by overburden pressure, overcut ratio, type of soil, pipe surface, pipe
joints and the jacking distance. A full explanation of the effect of these parameters is
discussed in the following sections.
6.4.1 Overburden Pressure
Overburden pressure was expected to be a dominant influence on the jacking forces
in sand. In practice, pipelines of 900mrn or more in diameter are typically jacked at
depths of at least 2m below the ground level and, therefore, it was important to
simulate the stress levels acting at such depths. Results were obtained for two series
of tests, one in which the overburden was applied naturally, as only the height of the
soil above the crown of the pipeline, and the other by applying a uniform normal
stress to a layer of soil above the the pipeline.
The results of the first series of tests (Type I), which was to investigate the effect of
the soil height above the crown of the pipeline, are shown for both types of soil and
pipe surfaces in Figure 6.3 . The jacking forces increased steadily as the pipeline
was moved forwards until maximum forces were reached at a displacement of
10-20mrn, after which the forces remained approximately constant or rose slightly.
This relationship can be compared with the force/displacement shear test results for a
loose material (Figure 4.5 and 4.15) . The results of these tests are summarised in
Table 6.1.
149
Table 6.1 Influence of Soil Cover on Jacking Forces

Type of Soil Pipe Surface Soil Cover Jacking Forces (kN)
(ml D!splacement: approx.
20mm 80mm
Le!ghton Buzzard Concrete 0.6 22.0 23.5
Le!ghton Buzzard Concrete 0.3 11.5 12.0
Le!ghton Buzzard Steel 0.5 1.25 1.25
Lelghton Buzzard Steel 0.3 0.73 0.85
River Sand Concrete 0.5 8.00 8.10

River Sand Steel 0.55 8.00 7.50
River Sand Steel 0.25 3.20 3.20
The relationship between the jacking forces and the height of the soil cover indicates
a consistent pattern in which the jacking forces increase linearly with cover depth,
starting from a minimum height of O.lm, as shown in Figure 6.4 . As the depth (D)
increases to approximately 0.5m, the jacking forces tend in one case to reduce
slightly and the gradient of the line decreases, although the fall lies within the
experimental variation, or scatter, recorded in the data and in general the linear
pattern is conformed to well. Higher jacking forces were recorded for the Leighton
Buzzard sand with concrete pipes, indicating higher skin resistance (together with
any joint resistance) between the concrete and the uniformly sized sand particles _
of kN/mlhe River sand generated a lower skin resistance of 20kN/m between the
concrete pipes and the well graded sized sand particles. Similar hehaviour was also
produced between the steel pipes and both Leighton Buzzard and River sands with
skin resistance of 25kN/m and 19kN/m respectively.
The starting resistance for steel pipes is approximately zero while it exists for
concrete pipes in both types of sand. The difference in the starting resistance is
150
Chapter 6 Results ofExpertmental Work
attributed to a bearing resistance in which concrete surface irregularities and joints

between the concrete pipes combine to act as a bearing surface. This bearing
resistance would then need to be overcome prior to movement and frictional

resistance thereafter. Such a bearing resistance could only occur in steel pipes at the
joints,.and then only if a slight misalignment caused the joint to open slightly
(Rogers and Yonan, 1992) . It should be noted that the jacking distance is not
considered in this case since the pipelines were pushed through the entire box (ie x,
the distance jacked, divided by L, the length of the box, is unity) .
The study of the influence of overburden pressure produced the graphs shown in
Figure 6.5 . The pattern of these results is once again very similar to the stress/strain
relationship of the materials with the exception that in this case the forces reduce
once the peak force has been achieved, typically before 20mm displacement as
before, and hence the results reflect those of dense sand. The reason for this
discrepancy is believed to be that in the latter tests the material was fully confined,
and thus a distinct shear plane would necessarily be formed between the pipe and the
sand, whereas in the tests with soil cover alone some draw-along of material was
possible and this would have been resisted by the end of the box . Shear plane
development might not have been as well defined in this case . The graphs also
show a consistent pattern of higher jacking force peaks with higher overburden
pressure for all tests. Leighton Buzzard sand and concrete pipes produced the
highest jacking forces as before.
The jacking forces are plotted against overburden pressure (q) in Figure 6.6. The
jacking forces showed a linear increase with overburden pressures from 0 to 200
kPa . The effect of the soil type on the jacking forces is illustrated by higher forces
151
-----_ .. _-
Chapter 6 Results of Experimental Work
in Leighton Buzzard sand than River Sand. Similarly higher forces were required
for concrete pipes than for steel pipes. A summary of the results of this series of
tests is shown in Table 6.2 .
Table 6.2 Influence of Overburden Pressure on Jacking Forces

Type of Soil Pipe Surface Jacking Forces (kN) Overburden D!splacement
approx. D!splac.
20mm 80mm
Pressure
(kPa)
(mm)
.'
Le!ghton Buzzard Concrete 105 94 200 15
Le!ghton buzzard Concrete 62 58 100 12
Le!ghton Buzzard Steel 44 38 200 5
Le!ghton Buzzard Steel 26 24 100 2
River Sand Concrete 59 54 200 10
River Sand Concrete 31 31 75 10
River Sand Steel 30 29 200 18
River Sand Steel 13 12 75 10
,* Displacement at maximum jacking forces. ,
From these data it is clear that both sand type and the pipe material greatly influence
the resistance to jacking. For the maximum overburden pressure of 200kPa a force
of 105kN was achieved for concrete pipes in Leighton Buzzard sand, while for the
steel pipes the corresponding force was only 44kN . The jacking forces in River
sand for concrete pipe and steel pipes were 59kN and 30kN respectively. The effect
of the overburden pressure on the rate of frictional increase during the jacking
operation would be fully explained in section 7.2.2.1, Chapter 7 .
Where no surface surcharge was applied (q=O), a starting force was required in all
cases to overcome the skin resistance between the pipeline and the surrounding sand
and any bearing resistance. This starting force should correspond to the values
obtained from the ftrst series of tests at maximum depth when the only overburden
152
on the pipeline is exerted from the soil cover itself, (Rogers and Yonan, 1992) .
6.4.2 Overcut Ratio
Overcutting or over-excavation of the face of the tunnel influences both the

behaviour and the magnitude of the jacking forces, as discussed previously .
Overcut was achieved by using a larger diameter cutter shield than the pipe
diameter. Experimental study of this phenomencnhas not been conducted in such a
manner before and no guidance was available, for example, on the influence of scale
(overcut ratio to particle size) on the resul ts .
The investigation of the influence of overcut ratio on the jacking forces was studied
using different overburden pressures, two sand types, two pipe surfaces and
varying jacking distance. The overcut ratio used for all tests ranged from 0 to
approximately 0.14, as discussed in Chapter 5. For each size of overcut ratio,

therefore, a complete interaction with the other parameters was established.
The results of the testS using concrete pipes in Leighton Buzzard sand are presented
in Figure 6.7a for an overcut ratio (R) of zero and four levels of overburden
pressure. An approximately linear trend was achieved in all cases, once initial
resistance had been overcome, although some curvature occurred after 11 OOmm at
the higher stress levels, most notably for the surcharge pressure of 200kPai. The
initial resistance was similar for all overburden pressures for R=O, but both varied
with overburden pressure and increased as R increased (Figures 6.7b to d) . The rate
of increase in the jacking forces with distance under higher pressures reduced
markedly as R increased such that the forces increased only marginally with distance
153
at the higher R values.
The magnitude of the maximum jacking force began to decrease as the overcut ratio
increased until it reached an overcut ratio (R=0.140) where the jacking force
increased, as illustrated in Figure 6.7d . The maximum force under the 200 kPa
overburden pressure was 100 kN for R=O, 45 kN for R=0.030, 100 kN for
R= 0.064 and 143 kN for R= 0.140, indicating that an overcut ratio of 0.030 was
most beneficial. However the rates of increase in the forces indicate that a higher
overcut ratio would be better in practice, there being no apparent difference between
the gradient for R = 0.064 and R = 0.140.
Similar, though somewhat more erratic, behaviour was observed for steel pipes
when jacked in Leighton Buzzard sand with different overburden pressures, as

shown in Figure 6.8 . For R=0.084 the maximum jacking force was 32 kN at
q=200 kPa, a value lower by a factor of approximately four when compared with
corresponding values for concrete pipe.
Measurement of the jacking forces using concrete pipes in River sand produced
results as shown in Figure 6.9 . At R=O the maximum force was 41 kN for
q=200 kPa, while for R=O.030 the corresponding maximum force was only 29 kN
and this decreased to 10 kN for R=0.064 . The gradients of the lines progressively
reduce with an increase in overcut ratio, as with Leighton Buzzard sand. Figure
6.10 shows similar graphs and similar trends of behaviour for steel pipes in River
sand, with the exception that for R = 0.084 and q=lO kPa, the curve rose
unexpectedly steeply. This is thought to be because with large overcut, arching
mechanisms cannot be sustained over the pipe and collapse occurs . This creates
154
to
resistance values that are similar'(or worse than) R~O case. The jacking forces
ranged from 7 to 21kN for the 200 to 10kPa overburden pressure, with the two
intermediate overcut ratios producing the lowest maximum jacking forces.
Although the results discussed above present a clear indication of the similarity in
behaviour and magnitude of the jacking forces for all the tests, it is important to
examine the influence of the overcut ratio on the jacking forces in isolation from any
other factors that may contribute to changes in behaviour. In practice, it is important
to know the amount of overcut that should be adopted in order to maintain the least
possible resistance during jacking operations . (The parallel considerations of
surface settlement and subsurface ground movement should also be judged in any
decision, but this subject falls without this thesis.)
It is necessary, therefore, to establish an appropriate relationship between the
overcut ratio and the jacking forces. From the relationships of jacking load against
displacement, the gradient for each overburden pressure was calculated to give the
jacking resistance as a force per metre jacking (kN/m), as shown in Table 6.3 .
These values were then plotted against the overcut ratio for each type of soil and pipe
surface, as presented in Figure 6.11 . It can be seen that a minimum jacking force is
achieved for anovercut ratio' of approximately 0.040. It should be noted that the
trends for the lowest overburden pressure of lOkPa were upwards with increasing
overcut ratio and did not, thus, indicate minima . Such an overburden pressure
would be remarkably low in practice and would in any case result in low jacking
forces. By referring to Figures 6.11b and 6.11c, the minimum jacking resistance
experienced for both types of sands using concrete pipes is approximately the same.
This gives an indication that, at the optimum overcut ratio, the jacking resistance is
155
----------------------------------------------------------------------- -
only dependent on the pipe surface, and will be similar for any particular type of
granular soil when the pipeline is jacked at any depth below ground level. The
results for the steel pipes, shown in Figures 6.12b and 6.12d indicate a difference in
the minimum jacking resistances, although in both cases the resistance was _low
with values of approximately 4kN/m and IkN/m respectively. The results do appear
to be independent of overburden pressure.
Table 6.3 Influence of the overcut ratio on the jacking resistance
(kN/m per m run )

JaCkin~resistance
Type of Soil Pipe Surface Overcut Ratio (kN Im per m run
(RI
q=100 kPa q=200 kPa
Lelghton Buzzard concrete 0.0 36 65
0.030 17 20
0.064 18 22
0.140 13 20
Lelghton Buzzard steel 0.016 9 12
0.048 7 8
0.840 11 12
River Sand concrete 0.0 30 35
0.030 19 22
0.064 20 25
River Sand steel 0.0 7 13
0.016 4 10
0.048 1 3
0.084 6 20
It should be noted in any discussion of overcut ratio that the scaling effect of pipes at
typically one fifth to one tenth scale means that the effective particle diameters are
five or ten times greater than those used. It might be concluded, therefore, that the
results of this work are applicable to coarse sands and gravels. Alternatively the
absolute magnitude of the optimum overcut, 10mm on diameter, is the equivalent of
one half of that typically used in practice (10mm on radius) .
156
An estimation of the rate of increase in the jacking resistance for any overburden
pressure can be made from the relationships established in Figure 6.12 . The
relationships are approximately linear and tend to be minimal for an overcut ratio in
the region of 0.040, as estimated from Table 6.3. By multiplying the amount of the
overburden pressure above the pipeline by the factors shown in Table 6.4, the
jacking resistance may be calculated for any particular overcut ratio. It is apparent in
the case of the river sand, that the rate of increase seems to be reversed at the two
maximum overcut ratios of 0.064 and 0.084 . This indicates the possibility of
arching mechanisms occurring due to the annular gap at lower overcut ratios and that
these cease to be effective as the overcut ratios increase due to collapse in the soil
structure, and thus a breakdown in the arching mechanism .
Table 6.4 Factors ofIncrease in the Jacking Resistance at Various Overcut Ratios
Rate of increase in
SoU Type Pipe Surface the jacking resistance Overcut Ratio
for any overburden
pressure IkN/m2)
Surcharge Iq) Multiply by
Lelghton Concrete 0.396 0
Buzzard 0.019 0.030
0.063 0.064
0.039 0.140
Leighton Steel 0.027 0.016
Buzzard 0.014 0.048
0.009 0.840
River sand Concrete 0.197 0
0.037 0.030
0.043 0.064
River sand Steel 0.055 0
0.020 0.016
0.006 0.048
0.084 0.084
157
6.4.3 The Type of Soil
The type of the soil through which the pipeline is jacked is one of the main factors
that dictate the magnitude of the jacking forces, both as a result of stand up times in
cohesive soils and frictional resistances and arching effects in cohesionless soils. In
sands only the latter case is relevant. The skin friction generated from the movement
of the pipeline in the surrounding material must be countered by the force from the
jacks pushing the pipeline forwards. Such relationships are shown in Figures 6.13
and 6.14 .
The results shown in Figure 6.13 explain the effect of the surrounding soil on the
magnitude of the jacking forces in terms of stresses on the pipe wall for tests of
Type I under an overburden pressure of 200kPa. The stresses indicate higher
resistance from the Leighton Buzzard sand/concrete interface than the River
sand/concrete interface, the same relationship also occurring for the steel pipes. For
pipe displacement not exceeding 20mm, the maximum jacking force produced was
to overcome the interface resistance between the pipeline and the surrounding soil in
all cases. The forces generated from the Leighton Buzzard sand on the concrete
pipes reached a maximum of 99kN while for River sand the corresponding value
was 58kN . When surrounding steel pipes, the Leighton Buzzard sand provided a
maximum resistance of 45kN and River sand 30kN . These graphs illustrate some
similarity with the shear-stress/shear-strain relationships for these soils shown in
Figures 4.15 and 4.16. After the pipeline had been jacked forward by 15mm, or
5mm in the case of Leighton Buzzard sand and steel pipes, the resistance reduced
until it reached a steady ultimate value . Graphs of force against overburden
pressure, as shown in Figure 6.6, were replotted for comparison purposes for both
158
Chapter 6 Results oJExperimental Work
Leighton Buzzard and River sand, for each type of pipe surface, and these are
shown in Figure 6.14 . The results in general conform well to linear relationships.
The gradients of these lines will give the skin friction resistance per unit surface area
between the external pipe surface and the surrounding soil, as presented in Table
6.5. The curves shown in Figure 6.14 can be compared with those in Figures 4.15
and 4.16 for the direct shear tests on the two sands.
Table 6.5 Skin Friction Measured in Tests of Type I

,
Type of Soil Pipe Surface Skin Friction $Int
Leighton Buzzard Concrete 0.44 38

Leighton Buzzard Steel 0.24 37
River Sand Concrete 0.15 28
River Sand Steel 0.10 27
The jacking forces required to push the pipeline forwards as excavation was
conducted at the face in the tests of Type IT are presented in Figure 6.15 against pipe
displacement. No overcut was used in these tests, which showed that higher forces
were needed to overcome the resistance between the pipeline and Leighton Buzzard
than the River sand. The results are tabulated in Table 6.6 . Full interpretation of
these results is· given in Chapter 7 .
* <1>' int = interface friction angles.
159
Table 6.6 Influence of the Pipe/Soil Interface on the Jacking Resistance

Jacking Force/m length
Type of Soil Pipe Surface (kN/m)
q= 10kPa q= 200kPa
Lelghton Buzzard Concrete 6.0 76.0
Lelghton Buzzard Steel 2.8 4.0
RlverSand Concrete 1.0 20.0
RlverSand Steel 1.0 3.0
6.4.4 Pipe Surface
The influence of pipe surface on jacking forces has been referred to in previous
sections, but will be repeated here for completeness . In pipe jacking, sliding
resistance is normally generated from the friction between the pipeline surface and
the surrounding material . This resistance is caused by the relative movement
between the pipeline surface and the soil particles, and it will be affected by the
magnitude of the vertical pressure (overburden), at the pipe levelJand hence the mean
effective stress acting normally to the pipe wall, and the total surface area of the
pipeline.
The results show higher sliding resistance for the concrete surface than the steel for
both types of sands, as shown in Figure 6.16 which is a plot of force per distance
jacked (taken as a ratio of jacking force tonB) against the proportion of distance
a
jacked over box length. For'surcharge of q=200kPajacking forces per metre length
of 75kN/m were recorded for the concrete surface and the Leighton Buzzard sand,
while for the steel surface the value was only 4kN/m . For the River sand, the
situation is similar for q=200kPa, where the forces required per metre length for the
concrete surface is 35kN/m and for the steel surface is 7.5kN/m .
160
Chapter 6 Resu[ts of Experimenta[ Work
6.4.5 Jacking Distance
The jacking distance is one of the main factors for detennining the ultimate capacity
required of the main jacks to push the pipeline forwards. In practice, long distance
jacking is usually subdivided into a number of shoner jacking distances, using
interjacking stations, depending on the type of the soil, and size and depth of the
pipeline. Longer jacking distances generate higher jacking forces, because they
create a larger surface area in contact with the ground.
To establish the relationship between jacking distance and the magnitude of the
jacking forces, the jacking force against distance relationship was divided by the
total length of the pipeline as it was pushed forwards in the model tank in tests of
Type H, as shown in Figures 6.16 and 6.17. The force per metre length in kN/m is
plotted against the dimensionless distance of XIL, where X is the distance measured
from the face of the tunnel to the front face of the tank and L is the total length of the
model tank.
It is apparent that for all tests, regardless of the type of soil, pipe surface,
overburden pressure and the amount of overcut ratio, the forces behave similarly in
that they rise according to approximately linear relationships. The gradient of each
line will illustrate the resistance that is required to be overcome per metre jacked.
6.4.6 Pipe Joints
The type of pipe joints merely contributesto the magnitude of the resistance generated
as the pipeline is pushed forwards. Various types of joints can be used for pipe
161
jacking pipes, but for simplicity in this research the types of joints were divided into
smooth (closed) and rough (open) joints only. Tests using steel pipes were not
conducted because they have only smooth, perfectly fitting joints, and therefore, all
pipes joint testing was carried out with concrete pipes.
The effect of the joints on the jacking forces is best represented in tests with no
overcut, when the pipeline is in full contact with the surrounding material .
TheoreticaJly if the joints are rough, the resistance to forward movement caused by
the gap in the joints increases as the surrounding soil particles trap in the gaps during
the movement. This resistance can be considered as a partial bearing resistance. If
the joints are smooth the resistance will be less,as observed from the test results.
The results in Figure 6.18 represent the behaviour of the jacking force with distance
as the pipeline is jacked forward. The rough joints produced higher forces in
Leighton Buzzard sand than the River sand under the same overburden pressure.
The soil particles of the Leighton Buzzard sand are more uniform and larger than the
River sand and, when trapped in the joints, were expected to cause higher resistance
against the forward movement of the pipeline. It also can be seen from the results
that when the joints are smooth, the jacking forces are slightly higher than those for
steel pipes for the River sand but for Leighton Buzzard are much greater due to
higher skin friction.
Jacking forces against overburden pressure are illustrated for both types of joints in
Figure 6.19 . The jacking forces increase linearly with overburden pressure in aJl
cases, the rate of the increase being clearly higher for the rough joints in both types
of soil . The jacking forces required for an overburden pressure of 200kPa were
162
45% higher in Leighton Buzzard sand for rough rather than smooth joints. For the
River Sand, the rough joints caused an increase in force of 60% for the 200kPa
overburden pressure.
The other relationship drawn from the results is the force per metre length against the
dimensionless jacking length as shown in Figure 6.20 . The magnitude of the
force/metre length is higher for rough joints than those for smooth joints and steel
pipes in both types of soil .
6.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS
It has been shown that a complete set of relationships can be drawn from the graphs
and that, due to the interrelationship of the results, the same data have to be
presented (and hence some repetition is inevitable) . It can be seen, however, that the
relationships are considerably better defined in Leighton Buzzard sand than in River
sand, where much scatter of the results is prevalent.
The results have been shown to be consistent, especially when it is considered that
the sands are potentially variable in spite of the careful preparations. It should also
be remembered that much effort was expended to obtain each point on the graphs
and that one graph typically contains the results of several different tests and/or
averaged data from replicate tests. The results are considered in more detail: in the
following chapter.
163
120
100
§
80 Jh~B
~
III
~ 13
il
~
60 ~C
'ol) D~
3!=
Cl
40 [!]I;l ~
01
")
13 El'tJ
~l!H'l
~
20 [!]
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Overburden Pressure (kPa)
Figure 6.1 Preliminary Test Results
100 ~ ________________________________________- ,
80
Leighlon Buzzard Sand

Concrete Pipes
q= 150 kPa
40 60 80 100 120
Displacement (mm)
Figure 6.2 Typical Force-Displacement Relationship for a

Preliminary Test Repeated 4 Times
30
Unlfonn sand t:l D-O.lm
Concrete Pipes
X/L= I • D-0.2m
"
...,. . ,f'"
." ., ..u.
""T
-'-
X
<>
D-0.3m
D-0.4m
L J. .L
•+
20
'-
"~
--- ~
::....: ~
D-O.Sm
D-0.6m
V"
.. .- ,v~
. '" .:.LY
-X
,/..
-n
10 ~
..... ..... """- .... ~
r ~ ~ .~
"" ...
t)<1
o I I I I I
o 20 40 60 80 lOO 120
Pipe Displacement (mm)
2.0p;::::======~-------~====i1
Unlfonn sand t:l D-O.lm
Steel Pipes
X/L= I
D-0.2m
X D-0.3m
•
1.5 <> D-O.4m
D-0.5m •
o 20 40 60 80 lOO 120
Figure 6.3 Graphs Illustrating the Relationship Between Jacking Forces

and Pipe Displacement for the First Series of Tests .
10
Well graded sand
Concrete Pipes
X/L= 1
8
~ 6
..~8 0
X
D-O.OSm
D-0.20m
~
.8
".
4
•
0
D-0.3Sm
D-O.SOm
~"
2
o 20 40 60 80 100 120
20
Well·Graded sand 0 D-0.I0m

Steel pipes
X/L= 1
•
X
D-0.2Sm
D-O.SSm
IS
0 D-0.70m
~0
".. 10
~
:se
".
"
~
'")
S
o
o 20 40 60 80 100 120
Figure 6.3 (Continued), Graphs Illustrating the Relationship Between Jacking

Forces and Pipe Displacement for the First Series of Tests.
30
Unlfonn Sand
X/L= 1
25 Concrete pipes
20
~
!!
~
.
.s
15
"".,".. 10
OL---'----1-..1.,--L-J'--..l----l.--..JL--'---L_.L---L.---l.---I
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Depth (m)
15
Well-Graded Sand
X/L= 1
Concrete pipes
0
10
~..
~ El
~
~
;J;I
5
~
o ~~~--~~--~_L_ _L_-L~__~~__~-L~
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Depth (m)
Figure 6.4 The Relationship Between Jacking Force and Soli Cover
Above the Pipeline .
so
Unlfonn Sand
Steel Pipes
X/L= 1
20
~
"~
~
.Er
.>= 10
~
o
0.0 0.1 0.2 O.S 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Depth (m)
15 G
Well-Graded Sand
Steel Pipes
X/L= 1
G
10
~ B
"~
~
E I:;]
....
.>=
~
5
o ~~ __L-~__L-~__L-~~~~~~~__L-~~
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Depth (m)
Figure 6.4 (Continued). The Relationship Between Jacking Force and

Soli Cover above the Pipeline
120
100 f- 200 kPa
---
'Q
~
80 f-
'r - l~kPa
-'L._
"".. 60 t- ~
~
0
r.. ~ 100 kPa
~
.~
~ 40 ,.r.1. . .. .... ... .

~ .-"'. "' . Oo .... .. . -=-1..8
W- 50 kP.a
20
Uniform sand
Concrete Pipes
D/B = 3.75
oI I I I I
o 20 40 60 80 100 120
80
Well-Graded Sand
Concrete Pipes
D/B = 3.75
60 - ...... v .~~ 200 kPa

~ vv
V- - -
~~,
-
.125 kPa
~ J5kPa
",X;
20 lOkPa
1-'
- ."" ...".
o , I I , I I I
o 20 40 60 80 100 120
Figure 6.5 Jacking Forces with Distance Under Different

Levels of Overburden Pressure
120
Unifonn sand -0- Q-10kPa
100
Steel Pipes
D/B = 3.75 * 'i-50kPa
... Q-100kPa
80 -<>- q -150kPa
-+- 'i -200kPa
~
e" 60
~
'ff
;;;l
40
~"
20
100 120
80
Well-Graded sand 0 'i -10kPa
.. Steel Pipes
D/B=3.75 X Q-75kPa
60
l- • 'i -125kPa
Q 'i-200kPa
~
.
"e 40
~ l-
'ff ....... .....
;;;l t-
"
~
f" ~ ~
~
~ ~
20
I-
• ..r~ - •
--- ---- •
..
~
Ib.
,......t:I '! ~ ~
o I . I I I --'- I
o 20 40 60 80 100 120
Figure 6.5 (Continued), Jacking Forces with Distance Under Different

Levels of Overburden Pressure.
120
100
80
~ G
"!:l 60
~ t;J
J
u 40
~
20 Uniform sand
D/B = 3.75
X/L= 1
Concrete pipes
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
q (kPal
60
50
40
30
20
10 Well-Graded Sand
D/B =3.75
X/L= 1
Concrete pipes
o
o 50 100 150 200 250
q (kPa)
Figure 6.6 Jacking Forces against Overburden Pressure (q).

120
Uniform sand
D/B = 3.75
100 X/L= 1
Steel Pipes
80
60
40
20
200 250
q (kPa)
60
Well-Graded Sand
50 D/B = 3.75
XIL = 1
0 Steel Pipes
Z 40
-...
.x
I!
~ 30
Cl
r::
:;;:
..."'" 20
10 .
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
q (kPa)
Figure 6.6 (Continued), Jacking Forces Against Overburden Pressure.

lOO
Unifonn sand
Concrete pipes
R=O.O
80 DIB = 3.75
~ 60
e0"
~
.s"OIl 40
~
..
'?
20 lOkPa
o L-__ ~ __ ~ ____L -_ _ ~_ _~_ _ _ _ L-__~__-J

o 500 1000 1500 2000
Jacking Distance (mm)
(a)
50 ~ ______________________________________,
200 kPa
la
Unlfonn sand
Concrete pipes
R = 0.030
D/B=3.75
o
o 500 1000 1500 2000

(b)
Figure 6.7 The Relationship Between Jacking Force and Distance

for Lelghton Buzzard Sand and Concrete Pipes Using
Vmous Overcut Ratios
120
100
80
60
40
q-lOkPa Uniform sand

20 Concrete Pipes
"*- q-IOOkPa R = 0.064
..... q-200kPa D/B = 3.75
0L-~~~L-~==~==~__~==~~~
o 500 1000 1500 2000
(c)
160
140
120
~
100
.&."" 80
'all
.S 60
.....
~ El q-l0kPa
40 X q-50kPa
20
Uniform sand
Concrete Pipes
•<> q-l00kPa
q-150kPa
R = 0.140
DIB = 3.75 q-200kPa
0 *
0 500 1000 1500 2000

(d)
Figure 6.7 (Continued). The Relationship Between Jacking Force and Distance
for Lelghton Buzzard,and Concrete Pipes Using Various Overcut Ratios.
'sand'
o
o 500 1000 1500 2000
(a)
20
15
~.. 10kPa
e
0 10
~
~
.~
.>4
~"
5
Uniform sand
Steel pipes
R = 0.048
DIB = 3.75
o
o 500 1000 1500 2000

(b)
Figure 6.8 The Relationship Between Jacking Forces and Distance

for Le!ghton Buzzard Sand and Steel Pipes USing Various
Overcut Ratios
40 r----------------------------------------,
30
~G
~ 20
rl!
.S:
,l(
~
10
-0- q-l0kPa
Uniform sand
"* q-l00kPa
R= 0.084
Steel Pipes
D/B = 3.75
-11- q-200kPa
OL-~~~ __ ~~~===c~~==~~
o 500 1000 1500 2000
(c)
Figure 6.8 (Continued). The Relationship Between Jacking Forces and

Distance for Leighton Buzzard Sand and Steel Pipes Using
Various Overcut Ratios
50 r.=======~~,----------------------,
Well-Graded Sand
Concrete Pipes
R=O.O
40 D/B=3.75 200 kPa
30
20
10
lOkPa
o 500 1000 1500 2000
4°rr===========~------------------____1
Well-Graded Sand
Concrete Pipes
R = 0.03 100 kPa
D/B =3.75
30
200 kPa
20
10
O~~~ __ ~ ____ ~ __- L____ ~ __ ~ __

~ __ ~
o 500 1000 1500 2000
Figure 6.9 The Relationship Between Jacking Forces and Distance for
River Sand and Concrete Pipes Using VaIious Overcut Ratios.
40 rr=============;--------------------------,
Well-Graded Sand
Concrete Pipes
R= 0.064
D/B=3.75
30
10
o
X q-100kPa
o ~~__~__~L-__~____~L_~q-~2~0~OkP~a~_L__~_____l
o 500 1000 1500 2000
Jacking Distance (mml
Figure 6.9 (continued). The Relationship Between Jacking Forces

and Distance for River Sand and Concrete Pipes USing
Various Overcut Ratios
15
Well-Graded Sand
Steel Pipes
R=O.O 200 kPa
D/B=3.75
10
10kPa
o
o 500 1000 1500 2000
8
Well-Graded Sand
Steel Pipes
R = 0.016
D/B=3.75
200 kPa
6
~
"e
& 4
"01)
.S
".
u
~
2
o ~ __ ~ ____ ~ __ ~ ____ ~ __ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ __ ~
o 500 1000 1500 2000
Figure 6.10 The Relationship Between Jacking Forces and Distance

for River Sand and Steel Pipes Using Various Overcut Ratios
----- ---
8
Well-Graded Sand [J q-IOkPa
Steel Pipes
R= 0.048 X
D/B=3.75
6
~
~
..8
0
4
:s~
.,~ 2
o
o 500 1000 1500 2000
30
Well-Graded Sand El q-IOkPa
Steel Pipes
R = 0.084 X q-IOOkPa
DIB =3.75
• q-200kPa
20
~
..
~
~
u
...
.S
.>i
u 10
.!J
2000
Figure 6.10 (Continued), The Relationship Between Jacking Forces and

Distance for River Sand and Steel Pipes Using Various Overcut
Ratios
60r------------------r========~r=======~
Uniform sand t::J q·!OkPa
Concrete Pipes X q·!OOkPa
50 D/B = 3.75
• q-200kPa
40
30
20
10
o ~~ __- L__ ~ __~__~__L-~__~__~__~~
-0.02 0.02 0.06 0.10 0.14 0.18
R Overcut Ratio
(a)
10
Uniform sand t::J q-l0kPa
to Steel Pipes
D/B= 3.75 X q-l00kPa
8
t-
• q-200kPa
....e
~.,
~
6
t-
.".
~
: ~
•iIl
~ 4
t-
i [3-
~ 2 f-
o ...L I I I I
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
R Overcut Ratio
(b)
Figure 6.11 The Effect of Overcut Ratio on the Jacking Forces

30
WeJl-Graded sand D q-IOkPa
Concrete Pipes
DIB = 3.75 X q-IOOkPa
• q-200kPa
20
10
o L-__~~__~__-L__~__~__~__~__~~
-0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
R Overcut Ratio
(c)
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
R Overcut Ratio
(d)
Figure 6.11 (Continued), The Effect of Overcut Ratio on The Jacking Forces
12 r-------------------------------------------,
10
~:::;.--X
2 [J R = 0.016
Unlfonn sand
Steel Pipes X R= 0.048
0
0 50 100
D/B=3.75
150
•
200
R= 0.084
250
b q (kPal
Figure 6.12 The Relationship Between The Rate of Increase in The

Jacking Resistance and Overburden Pressure for Various
Overcut Ratios
50
[;] R=O.O Well-Graded sand
Concrete Pipes
X R= 0.03 D/B = 3.75
~
40
• R= 0.064
~i
30
"u
;
....~
~ 20
III
~
.~
".
u
~ 10
q (kPa)
c
20 ~~______~====~======~========,-
o Well-Graded sand r::J R=O.O
__~
Steel Pipes
D/B =3.75 X R = 0.016
15 •
0
R= 0.048
R= 0.084
10
50 100 150 200 250
cl q (kPa)
Figure 6.12 (Continued), The Relationship Between The Rate of Increase in

The Jacking Resistance and Overburden Pressure for Various
Overcut Ratios
120
-Cl- Uniform-Graded
100 r- _. -+- Well-Graded
. ""
P' ~
" .,.
6 t:l
-
U
80 f-
z
.,
~
"
!:!
60
~ f- £ ~
Cl
c:
~
'" ....
~£
....
:;;:
..,.," 40 f-
20 Concrete Pipes
q = 200 kPa
o
r; I I ,
D/B =3.75
. I
o 20 40 60 80 100
60
Steel Pipes
q = 200 kPa
50 D/B = 3.75
40
30
20
10 iT Uniform-Graded
Well-Graded
o 20 40 60 80 100 120
Figure 6.13 The effect of Surroundinl! Soil on The Jacking Force/Displacement

Relationship for Tests of Type I
120
Concrete Pipes
D/B =3.75
100
I:::J Uniform-Graded
Z 80
• Well-Graded
""
~
Cl)
l!
~ 60
Cl)
c:
32
..,"" 40
20
150 200 250
q (kPa)
60
Steel Pipes
D/B = 3.75
50
I:::J Uniform-Graded
40
• Well-Graded
~
"e I:::J
30
r2
'cl
:a
"
~
20
10
o L -__~__~__- L__~__~__~__~~__~__~__~
o 50 100 150 200 250
q (kPa)
Figure 6.14 The Effect of The Surrounding SoU and Overburden Pressure
on Pipe Jacking Force for Tests of Type I
120
-G- = 10kPa
q
100
...
"'*"
q = 200kPa
q = 10kPa
-<>- q = 200kPa
Uniform-Graded
80
~ Concrete Pipes
R= 0.0
~ 60 D/B = 3.75
~
'OD
.s". Well-Graded
Q 40
~
20 Uniform-Graded
Well-Graded
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
20
-G- = 10kPa
q
15 ...
"'*" q = 200kPa
q = 10kpa
-<>- q =200kPa
Uniform-Graded
~ Steel Pipes
D/B=3.75
~ 10 R = 0.0038
~
:s
".
Q
~ Uniform-Graded
5
Well-Graded
o
o 500 1000 1500 2000
Figure 6.15 Jacking Forces Under Various Conditions for Tests of Type II
200
El q,IOkPa
• q-200kPa
• q- 10 kPa Unlfonn-Graded
150
o q- 200 kPa ••••
:[ Concrete Pipes •••••
~
R=O.O
D/8 = 3.75'
• •
..=
~
.!l
lOO
• •
• • Wen-Graded
~ 000 00
50
• 000
• • 0 0 0 Unlfonn-Graded
• 00 0-1'l 0 [;]
.OEl08()l!b6l~E10El 0-[;]0
o ~~~~~~~~.u~La~~~.~~.~~~~~~
0_0 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.2
X/L
30
El q ~ !UlU'a
Unlfonn-Graded
X q=200kPa X X
25
• q= 10kPa
X
o q = 200kPa o
20 X o
Steel PIpes Well-Graded
R=O.O X X 0
X
15 D/8=3.75 El
X X o
X X X o 0 0
X o 0
10 .... X XX a [J) 0 El Unlfonn-Graded
'XX o [;] "".... 0 o
o 0 El 0 0
5 .... E1 [;][;] 00 0
, 0 0 Well-Graded
o 0 •••
o _'Li ~ ••• ••,. • .... • •• ~ • I
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 O.B 1.0 1.2
X/L
Figure 6.16 The Effect of Pipe Surface on The Jacking Forces

For Tests of Type I
200
Unifonn sand c q-l0kPa
Concrete Pipes X q-50kPa
150
R=O.O
D/B=3.75
•
~
q-l00kPa
q-200kPa
L=2
i......
~
100
i
..!!
E!
r;
50
X
[J
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
X/L
80
[!] q-l0kPa
X q-l00kPa
• q-200kPa
60
•
i......
~
40
i
-r;
u
E!
Unifonn sand
20
Concrete Pipes
R = 0.030
D/B = 3.75
L=2
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
X/L
Figure 6.17 The Effect of Jacking Distance on The Magnitude of

The Jacking Forces For Tests of Type II
200 n---------~----------------------------__,
Unlfonn sand
Concrete Pipes
-
R=O.064
150
I-
D/B = 3.75
L=2 • •
• !..-:~~~~~~.~~~--~-
[1--';;""';;;---'
•• •• •
_ _- - .. . .
XX XX
~
I - ~
100 bt~~::~~~~~~X~X~~V~X~~~~'V~~~~~~
~ ~ 'll
c• •• '"
~ ElJ;]8[!l[;]
50 [!l r.1 r.1 '" El r.1
r- ..:..
'" I:J
'"'" I:J
1"-''''-----------..,\
[;] q-10kPa
[!l
)( q-100kPa
• q-200kPa
OL-~_~I~_~I~ __~I__~~__________~
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
160
-
140
120
r-
-
--..-... •• - ••
--- .- •
• J. •
••
r • y x.
I
XXXyXX ' X ~XX )<;
100 .... ~ ~
....
.=
~
-"
80 .
r I'l [!l [!l r.1 Ell'l [!lEl [!l G
El 60 I:J .~
r-
......
~
"~
40
- ~
[!l
[!l ..:. '"
Unlfonn sand
r- [!l q-l0kPa Concrete Pipes
X q-IOOkPa D/B = 3.75
20
r-
o I I
• q-200kPa R=O.140
L-2
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
X/L
Figure 6.17 (continued), The Effect of Jacking Distance on The Magnitude

of The Jacking Forces for Tests of Type II
30
Uniform sand
Steel Pipes
R = 0.016 ••
D/B=3.75
L=2
20
i.....
~
.=
iu
-El
..... 10
'" q-l0kPa
t:l
X q-l00kPa
0 • q-200kPa
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
X/L
40
Uniform sand t:l q-IOkPa
Steel Pipes
R= 0.048
X q-IOOkPa
•
30
D/B = 3.75
L=2
• q-200kPa
••
i.....
~ 20 ••
Yr
~
~ 10
X/L
Figure 6.17 (Continued). The Effect of Jacking Distance on The Magnitude

of The Jacking Forces For Tests of Type II
60
50
:§:
40
•• X
X
~
;9
~
30 • X
-"
El
;;; 20
X
[;)
[!J
r:J
[3
El
[!J
El Unlfonn sand
q-l0kPa Steel Pipes
[!J
10 R= 0.084
q-IQOkPa
X D/B = 3.75
0 • q-200kPa L=2
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
X/L
Figure 6.17 (Continued), The Effect of Jacking Distance on The

Magnitude of The Jacking Forces For Tests Type II
80
Well-Graded sand
Concrete Pipes
R=O.O
60 D/B = 3.75
L=2
:g:
q-lO a
~ I!l
q-l00kPa
40
i" X
X
-
.....a
• q-200kPa
'" 20
60
Well-Graded sand X
Concrete Pipes
50 R=0.030
D/B = 3.75
40 L=2
8' q-l0kPa
~
El
q-lOOkPa
30 X
-=
i
.!l • q-200kPa
~
20
10 X
X
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
X/L
Figure 6.17 (Continued). The Effect or Jacking Distance on The

Magnitude of The Jacking Forces for Tests Type II
60
Well-Graded sand
Concrete Pipes
50
R=O.064 X
D/B=3.75
El
40 L.-;L=-=..::2_ _ _ _-'O
:[
;g
30
~
.!l
e
..... 20
•
....
10 • El
X
q-10kPa
q-lOOkPa
0
• q-200kPa
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 O.S 1.0 1.2
Flgure 6.17 (Continued), The Effect of Jacking Distance on The

Magnitude of The Jacking Forces For Tests of Type I!
30
Well-Graded sand
Steel Pipes
R=O.O
20
D/B=3.75
L=2
•
i.....
~ El q- lOkPa
.c X q- 100kPa
i
.!!
.....El 10
• q- 200kPa
r..
o
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
X/L
12
Well-Graded sand
10
Steel Pipes
R= 0.016 •
D/B = 3.75
X/L=2
8
i..... q-IOkPa
~
0
6 X q-IOOkPa
j X
-~
u
• q-200kPa
4
r..
XX
2
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
X/L

Magnitude of The Jacking Forces For Tests of Type II
12
Well-Graded sand
10
Steel Pipes
• •
R= 0.048
D/B = 3.75 • •
i.....
8 X/L=2 • •• •
~
.= 6 X
•
iu
- X xX X
X
~ 4 X X
X
X XX t:l t:l ~El
2 .X
• [;J q-IOkPa
El q-IOOkPa
t:l X
t:l
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
• q-200kPa
1.0 1.2
X/L

Magnitude of The Jacking Forces for Tests Type II
50
Well-Graded sand
q = 200kPa
40 R=O.O
D/B =3.75
-£J- Rough Joints

~0
30
*- Smooth Joints
e Steel Pipes
~
.r 20
---
,!oI
.,=
u
10
o
o 500 1000 1500 2000
100
Unlfonn sand
R=O.O
80
q = 200kPa
-0- Rough Joints
D/B = 3.75 -*- Smooth Joints
~u 60
..... Steel Pipes
e
~
'OD
40
~u
.,=
20
o
~.-IIH.". __·--1.IH•.-a·H."""'.HI.I--I.t--I-------
L-__~____L -__~__~~__~__~____~__- J
..
o 500 1000 1500 2000
Figure 6.18 The Effect of Pipe Joints on The Force/Distance Relationship

120
r::;] Rough Joints
100
• Smooth Joints
80
~
"e 60
~
....s
~
40
Uniform sand
20 Concrete Pipes
D/B= 3.75
X/L= 1
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
q (kPa)
80
Well-Graded san
Concrete Pipes
60 D/B =3.75
X/L= 1
~
"e 40
~
...
~
"
cd
~
20
• •
El Rough Jotnts
0
• Smooth Joints
0 50 100 150 200 250
q (kPa)
Figure 6.19 The Effect of Pipe Joints on The Force/Overburden

Pressure Relationship
60
I!I Rough Joints
X Smooth Joints
50 • Steel PI es
[J
Unifonn sand El
q = 200kpa G
40
:[ R=O.O G
~ D/B = 3.75 G
X
oS 30 X/L=2 D
-I;;-!a
u
20
10
O~~::::::J
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
30
Well-Graded sand
25 R=O.O
q = 200kPa
D/B = 3.75
20
e
......
X/L=2
~ 15
D Rough Joints
.=
~
X SmoothJolnts
!u
-I;;-a 10
• Steel Pipes
0
•
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
X/L
Figure 6.20 The Effect of Pipe Joints on Force/Distance Relationship

Chapter 7 Interpretation of the Results
CHAPTER SEVEN
7 INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
7.2 JACKING FORCES

7.2.1 PENETRATION RESISTANCE
7.2.2 FRICTIONAL RESISTANCE
7.2.2.1 EFFECT OF OVERBURDEN PRESSURE
7.2.2.2 EFFECT OF JACKING DISTANCE
7.3 THE REDUCTION OF FRICTIONAL RESISTANCE

7.3.1 OVERCUTRATIO
7.3.2 PIPE JOINTS
7.3.3 SOIL/pIPE SURFACE INTERFACE
7.4 COMPARISON BETWEEN LABORATORY AND MODEL TESTING

7.4.1 SHEAR FORCE
7.4.2 <l>m VALUE

7 .4.3 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
7.5 CASE STUDIES

7.5.1 TYNESIDE SEWERAGE SCHEME
7.5.1.1 GEOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS
7.5.1.2 DRIVE (Ew-E1)
7.5.1.3 DRIVE (E2-E1)
7.5.1.4 DRIVE (E3-E21
164
7.5.2 MI-Al SCHEME

7.5.2.1 GEOLOGY AND GROUND CONDmONS
7.5.2.2 PIPEJACK DETAILS
7.5.2.3 JACKING FORCES
7.5.2.4 CONCLUSIONS
7.5.3 PREVIOUS STUDIES
7.5.3.1 CIRIA TECHNICAL NOTE 112
7.5.3.2 HERZOG INVESTIGATION
7.5.3.3 METHODS REPORTED BY STEIN, MOLLERS
and BIELECKI. .
7.5.3.4 WORK BY AULD
7.5.4 CONCLUDING DISCUSSION
165
7 INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The results of the experimental work were tabulated and presented in a graphical
form in Chapter Six in order to provide a clear statement of the data. It is always
important to achieve a comparison between the experimental results obtained during
research and other published data so that a better explanation and confIrmation of the
validity of the test results can be achieved. The review of previous work revealed
that very little experimental laboratory work had been carried out on pipe jacking
forces, and it is therefore essential that the results obtained from this work should be
treated as an overall guide to the pattern of jacking forces behaviour with regard to
the changes in influencing parameters .
In this chapter the results will be presented in different ways to provide a more
practical meaning, by relating the jacking forces to individual parameters and ratios
such that they can be used in design. In addition, the results will be compared with
previous theoretical and practical findings.
166
7.2 JACKING FORCES
The forces referred to herein are those needed to overcome the resistance which
opposes the forward movement of the pipeline during the jacking operation. These
jacking forces are the resultant of frictional resistance of the pipe in the gtound and
the penetration resistance of the shield as it is forced forwards. The assessment of
both frictional and penetration resistance is important for choosing the jacking
capacity, designing and/or selecting the jacking pipes, determining the safe jacking
distance and designing the methods of construction.
It is the primary aim of this work that the results from the model tests are interpreted
in such a manner that they provide the basis for the prediction of the magnitude of
the forces that are required to be overcome by pipe jacks in gtanular materials. An
initial attempt to do this is described in Rogers and Yonan (1992) .
7.2.1 Penetration Resistance
The penetration resistance is defined as the resistance to forward movement of the
cutting shield at the face of the tunnel and strictly it should consist of a combination
of face resistance and frictional resistance on the shield sides . It provides a

and
significant contribution to the total jacking forces that are required, AVaries depending
on the size, shape, and cutting angle of the shield, and the excavation technique.
There are several methods for estimating the penetration resistance based on
experimental and field data and theoretical modelS, and these are summarised by
167
Chapter 7 Interpretation 01 the Results
Stein et al (1990) . As the shield moves fOIWard shear failure is generated in the area
ahead of the cutting shield, and this causes the soil to flow. According to Stein et al
(1990), Herzog (1985) determines the penetration resistance by using an equation
devised for installation of cast iron piles, applying vertical loading instead of
horizontal loading, as indicated in the equation below:
Ps=B:ttp (7.1)
where Ps = penetration resistance (kN),
B = external diameter of the shield (m),
t = thickness of the cutting edge (m), and

p = tip resistance (kN/m2)
Stein et al (1990) also report the practical approach advocated by Scherle (l977), in
which he stated that cutting resistance ranges from 300 to 600 kN/m2 at the face.
a
These values were agreed by Salomo (1979), using"lnathematical model to establish
of
values based on the type of the soil, height"cover, and cutting shield design.
Weber (1981) used two equations for detennining the penetration resistance, the fITst
being used to calculate the face (in front) resistance which corresponds to the boring
head well in advance of the cutting edge while the other considers the effect of the
depth of the pipeline on the face resistance when the boring head is behind the
cutting shield. His experiments showed that the boring head's position in the cutting
head is an important influencing factor for determining the penetration resistance .
. These equations are reproduced below:
168
PS"'('Y.D+C)A..It.B.t In front (7.2)
Ps'" ('Y. D . tan<l> + C) A.. It. B. t --------- effect of depth (7.3)
where Ps = penetration resistance (kN),

'Y = soil density (kN/m3),
C = soil cohesion (kN/m2),
A. = coefficient ofload bearing capacity,
t = thickness of the cutting edge (m),
B = external diameter of the pipeline (m),
D = height of soil cover (m), and
 = angle of internal friction (degree).
During this experimental work, the penetration resistance was kept to a minimum by
using a specially designed cutting shield, described in Section 5.2.6, in which the
angle of 300 was chosen as an appropriate match to the internal angle of friction of a
sand. By using relative dimensions for each particular test, the resistance to
penetration was determined from the above equations, these values being presented
in Table 7.1.
169
Table 7.1 Penetration Resistance for the Model Tests

Penetration Resistance (kN)
Investigation
Lelghton Buzzard Sand River Sand
Herzog 2.50 1.90
Weber In front 0.80 0.75
Inside (1 Om cover) 6.60 5.30
Scherle (300) 0.19 0.19
(600) 0.38 0.38
Loughborough Test 6.00 3.00 Concrete
5.00 1.00 Steel
5.50 2.00 Average
The penetration resistance obtained from Type II experiments at zero overcut ratio,
as indicated by Loughborough Test in Table 7.1, agree well with Weber's equation
for the boring head behind the cutting edge (under lOm cover) for Leighton Buzzard
sand and with Herzog's equation in the case of River sand.
The comparison of the River sand results with the Herzog calculation is mainly
based on the passive soil pressure in front of the cutting shield while the Leighton
Buzzard sand provided higher pressure probably due to arching, and thus effectively
a plug forming, in front of the shield and possibly due to material instability. It is
suggested that the Weber inside value should normally be adopted to calculate the
penetration resistance since it has a better theoretical basis, particularly when the soil
in front of the shield is of a highly dilatent or an unstable (Le unlikely to be subject
to negative pore water pressures, or suctions) nature, as demonstrated by the
Leighton Buzzard sand.
170
7.2.2 Frictional Resistance
Frictional resistance is the force between the surface of the pipeline and the
surrounding soil and is influenced by many factors, of which the most critical are the
applied overburden pressure, the bearing resistance at the joints and the skin friction .
. Basically, the principle of frictional resistance for pipe jacking is the same as that
propounded by Coulomb, in which the frictional resistance for a cohesionless soil is
the product of the coefficient of friction between two surfaces and the normal
effective force applied to the interface:
Fr=JlN' (7.4)
where Fr = frictional resistance (kN)
Jl = coefficient of friction, and
N' =normal effective force (kN)
Applying this principle to pipe jacking the frictional equation can be written as
follows:
(7.5)
where Fr = the frictional resistance (kN),
K1 = coefficient of overburden pressure,
D = the soil cover above the pipeline (m),
171
y = the soil density (kN/m3),
B =the diameter of the pipeline (m), and

L = the jacking distance (m) .
By considering the applied overburden pressure on the crown of the pipeline as a

strictly simplified worst case, ignoring arching and considering the problem in one
dimension only, K j can be taken as unity. To allow for the practical effects of
arching and variation of stress around the pipe circumference, and thus to extend the
experimental data to practice, the K j value can be determined by plotting the jacking
forces obtained from the results of the model tests against the overburden pressure
applied to the top of the pipeline, as shown in Figure 7.1 . By relating K J and yD
(the overburden pressure to soil cover, or equivalent soil cover) values, K j can be
obtained for changes in the depth of the pipeline and hence the jacking forces can be
estimated from equation 7.5 for both types of soil (Leighton Buzzard and River
sand) against steel and concrete pipes. The K j value is obtained from tan ~m' where
~m is represented by ~ in Figure 7.1 . All of the K j values obtained from both the
confined and unconfined states are shown in Table 7.2 . It is apparent from Figures
7.1 a and b that the starting forces for the confined state at zero surcharge are
approximately the same as those for the maximum soil cover in Figures 7.lc and d in
the unconfined case for both types of soil and jacking pipe. It was also noticed that
the rate of increase in the jacking forces in the case of the unconfined state is higher
by approximately 3-5 times greater for Leighton Buzzard sand and by 4-9 times
172
greater for the River sand than that of the confined case below the 125 kPa surcharge
pressure, depending on the pipeline surface. However, the rate of increase in the
jacking forces in the confined state decreases by approximately 45% and 20% on
average beyond the 125 kPa surcharge for Leighton Buzzard and River sands
respectively. This behaviour in the jacking forces may be related to the effect of the
soil cover (overburden and/or surcharge pressure) on the amount of the applied
pressure on the jacking pipes at various depths, which would be expected to be
dominated by the arching mechanism in the soil above the pipeline in the confined
cases. Further explanation will be given in Section 7.4 .
It is apparent that the Kt values for the confined state are higher when the
overburden pressure is less than 125 kPa . This indicates that the arching mechanism
is more influential when the pipeline is subjected to higher overburden stresses.
However, the higher values of Kt that were recorded for the unconfined state
indicate the occurrence of total instability of the surrounding material, and hence
dilation of the granular material on shearing, caused by collapse settlement onto the
pipe, which causes the frictional resistance to increase.
173
Table 7.2 The KI values

KI Value
Sand Type Pipe Surface State
<125 kPa > 125kPa Average
Lelghton Buzzard Concrete Confined 0.38 0.21 0.30

Steel 0.15 0.08 0.12
River Sand Concrete Confined 0.19 0.15 0.17
Steel 0.07 0.09 0.08
-- -
Lelghton Buzzard Concrete Unconflned 1.60
Steel 1.00 -
River Sand Concrete Unconflned 0.87 - -
Steel 0.67 - -
The results for the unconfined state provide a clear comparison with the lateral earth
pressure factor of K=I, whilst in the confined state with the effect of arching in the
soil, the lateral pressure developed by the jacked pipeline is much lower . This
phenomenon is believed to have also contributed to the reduction in the KI values
beyond the overburden pressure of 125 kPa on the pipeline . Hence the confined
state would prove more realistic than the unconfined values.
In addition to the above data, which are for tests of Type I, the frictional resistance
generated from the surface contact between the pipeline and the surrounding soil can
be determined from the data from tests of Type II for different overburden stresses,
and this is shown in Figure 7.2 . The rate of increase in the jacking forces per unit
surface area is denoted as H and obtained from the gradient of the straight line
relationships in Figure 7.2 . Then the jacking forces can be related to the soil stresses
above the pipeline by the following equation
174
F=HB1tL (7.6)
where F = jacking force (kN),
H = rate of frictional increase (kN/m2),
B = external diameter of the pipeline (m), and
L =jacking distance (m) .
The H values, obtained from model testing for all of the overcut ratios and for both
concrete and steel pipes in both types of sands, are plotted as shown in Figure 7.3 .
These graphs can be used to calculate the jacking forces, using equation 7.6, for
intermediate levels of surface surcharge . The determination of H for practical
calculation is dependent on the surrounding material type and the amount of overcut .
For the single-sized material (Leighton Buzzard sand), the upper bound is obtained
when the pipeline is in full contact with the surrounding material and the influence of
dilation in the material adjacent to the pipe (caused by the overcut) is minimal. The
lower bound of H is determined by maximum arching effects in the soil, and hence
minimum surface contact stresses with the surrounding material . The arching
mechanism, especially at higher surcharges, is thus the dominating factor in
controlling the surface stresses on the pipeline. However, as the annular gap.
between the pipe and the excavation increases (i.e overcut ratio increases), the
combination of both dilation and instability of the soil contribute to an increase in the
surface contact stresses, and hence the jacking forces, as demonstrated in Figure
7.3a with R=O.064 and 0.140 .
175
The well-graded sand (River sand) in a more compacted form, has similar behaviour
but the arching mechanism plays a greater role in reducing the surface contact
stresses, hence jacking forces, as shown in Figure 7.3b with R=0.030 and 0.064 .
Below approximately 80 kPa, the material tends to loosen and produces an increase
in the skin friction as the pipeline is jacked forwards. At R=0.084 in Figure 7.3d,
the material is in a collapsable state up to approximately 100kPa especially when it is
subjected to low surface stresses.
It is important to emphasize that the state of the material at the face of the excavation
has a role in determining the amount of face resistance and surface contact with the
pipeline. If the material is unstable at the face, it tends to collapse as the pipeline is
pushed forwards and hence both the surface stresses and the interface resistance
increase as shown in Figure 7.3a, R=O.O . However, if the face is stable, the jacking
resistance experienced by the pipes is purely related to the arching mechanism of the
soil and the surface contact with the pipeline. Therefore, equation 7.6 representsthe
more practical approach for calculating the jacking forces as it is derived from the
Type IT tests, while equation 7.5 provide a total surface friction which can be used in
situation where the full collapse of the material occurs or where no overcut is used
with closed face excavating machines.
Interpolation for different types of sand should be carried out according to grading
and relative angles of internal friction (the latter accounting for variations in
density) . The particle size scaling effect should be taken into account when
considering the overcut ratio in equation 7.6 . In view of the fact that arching is an
important component in the calculation, judgements based on the relative angles of
176
dilation would also be appropriate.
7.2.2.1 The Effect of Overburden Pressure
In Chapter 6, the relationship between the jacking forces and overburden pressure
was presented for both types of test. The overburden pressure above the pipeline
was studied by conducting two series of tests, the ftrst (Type I) concerning the
height of the soil cover (D) and the second (Type IT) by a surcharge applied at the
surface of 0.65 m of soil cover . These cases refer to the unconftned and conftned
states presented in Figure 7.1 c and d, and 7.1 a and b respectively.
The rate of increase in the jacking forces can be expressed by the following equation:
F/1tBL = c. q (7.7)
where F = jacking force (kN),

B = diameter of pipe (m),
L = length of the pipeline (m),
q = vertical stress at the level of the pipe crown (kPa), and
c = rate of increase in frictional resistance with normal stress.

Equation 7.7 is identical to equation 7.5, with q representing the "(D value and any
applied surcharge. The c values should thus be similar to Kt .
It appears that a straight line relationship generally exists between the jacking forces
and overburden pressure, and thus c will be constant, at least for distinct stress
177
ranges, for specific combinations of pipe and soil type. It is apparent that the rate of
increase in the jacking stress is greater up to 125kPa surcharge than beyond this
point, as indicated in Figure 7.1 a and b . The differences tend to be more noticeable
for the higher jacking stresses, especially in the case of the concrete pipe in Leighton
Buzzard Sand. The values shown against the type of pipes at the top of each graph
indicate the values determined as an average, that is from a line drawn as a
continuous straight line through both zones. The values in Table 7.3 give the rate of
increase in the frictional resistance (c) from the changes in the overburden pressure
of the soil cover and the applied surcharge for tests of Type I . It can be established
from the results that the rate of increase is considerably greater in the case where the
overburden was unconfined than where it was confined.
Table 7.3 Rate of Frictional Resistance Increase from Changes in

Overburden Pressure in Tests of Type I
Rate of Increase In
Sand Type Pipe Surface Frictional ReSistance (c)
Soil Cover Surface Stresses
Lelghton Buzzard Concrete 0.38 <125 kPa

(urilform-graded) 0.21 >125 kPa
1.68 0.30 Average
Steel 0.15 <125 kPa
0.08 >125 kPa
1.00 0.12 Average
River Sand Concrete 0.19 <125 kPa
(well-graded) 0.15 >125 kPa
0.88 0.17 Average
Steel 0.07 <125 kPa
0.09 >125 kPa
0.68 0.08 Average
178
It would appear, therefore, that the influence of surface confinement, which would
often be the case in practice where paved surfaces or vegetation exists, is to induce
arching within sandy soils. This observation is thus important when attempting to
apply laboratory model test data in practice.
The difference between the frictional resistance for steel and concrete pipes was less
pronounced in the unconfined than in the confined case. There was more difference
between the frictional resistance in the Leighton Buzzard sand than in the River sand
for the unconfined case, although it is the differences in the behaviour in the
confined case that are lik1ey to be most important in practice.
It can be noted in general the jacking forces tend to increase at a slower rate as the
surcharge (and by implication soil cover) reaches higher values.
In order to investigate the effect of the ratio of soil cover to pipe diameter (DIB) on
the relative skin friction between the pipeline and the soil particles, the jacking force
is divided by B2yn:L and plotted against DIB . This relationship has been investigated
by Scherle, Weber and Salomo based on their investigations of pipe jacking
operations. For comparison, the results obtained from the model testing, for both
confined and unconfined states, were plotted in Figure 7.4 together with the
predictions of Scherle, Weber and Salomo .
It is apparent from Figure 7.4 that the coefficients of the relative skin friction
obtained from the model testing are higher than those predicted theoretically. The
results of the confined state are approximately 22% and 42% less than the
179
unconfined state for concrete and steel pipes respectively in the Leighton Buzzard
sand and 13% and 60% less for the River sand. It seems that a minimum of 27%
and 56% reduction in the relative skin friction can be achieved when using smooth
steel pipes in Leighton Buzzard and River sand respectively, as shown in Table 7.4 .
As practically most, if not all, D/B ratios are above 3.0, the results for the confined
state will therefore provide a more rel~StiC estimate than the unconfmed state.
~~--------------
Table 7.4 The Results of the Relative Skin Friction from D/B Ratio
Model Coefficient of
Relative Skin Friction Soil Type Pipe Surface
Confined D/B Unconflned D/B
O.SO 3-S 1.02 0-3 Leighton Buzzard Concrete
0.5S 3-S 1.00 0-3 Leighton Buzzard Steel
0.69 3-S 0.79 0-3 River Sand Concrete
0.30 3-S 0.75 0-3 River Sand Steel
During the experimental work, it was noticed that in River sand for q= 200 kPa, the
initial 400mm of the drive produced a smaller resistance before increasing to the
expected gradient and this was attributed to inconsistencies in experimental
procedure. Relating the forces under the maximum and minimum surface stresses,
the influence of overburden stress can once more be examined and this has been
done in the last colunm in Table 7.5 . The results are evidently consistent for the
concrete pipes, the value of c in River sand being slightly lower than expected
because of the initial 400mm of the drive.
180
Table 7.5 Rate of Frictional Increase for different surface stresses in tests of
Type IT
Sand Type Pipe Surface Rate of Friction increase (c)
SoU Cover Smface Stress
Lelghton Buzzard Concrete 0.35 0.37
Unlfonn Sand Steel 0.13 0.04
River Sand Concrete 0.21 0.17

Well-graded Steel 0.10 0.02
7.2.2.2 The Effect of Jacking Distance
In practice, long jacking drives usually require higher jacking forces. During this
study, the relationship between jacking force and distance was examined in tests of
Type 11 (see Section 5.5) . Figure 6.17 shows graphs relating the magnitude of the
jacking forces to the distance over which the pipeline was driven through the test
box. For each test, the surcharge on top of the soil (q) was increased from 10 kPa to
100 kPa and then to 200 kPa . The results indicate an approximately linear increase
in jacking force with distance, with all of the data showing a similar trend while the
absolute values vary depending on the pipe surface, overburden, soil type and the
differences in the amount of overcut ratio.
The concrete pipeline followed a shield of four different diameters of up to 50mm
larger than the pipe diameter. The results of these tests show a similarity in their
pattern, with a starting, or initial, resistance resulting from a combination of face
resistance, other bearing surface resistance and frictional resistance on the shield.
The starting force is noticeably greater in Leighton Buzzard Sand (8 kN) than in
181
River sand (2 kN) . After the starting resistance, an approximately linear increase in
resistance followed thereafter, the frictional resistance along the surface of the
pipeline being strongly dependent upon the applied surface stress (q) .
The use of steel pipes created a minimum overcut ratio of 0.016 due to the
difficulties in obtaining steel pipe of exactly 200mm diameter. Figure 7.5 shows the
reduction in the jacking forces achieved from an overcut around the pipeline, and
thus lower gradients of the lines, than would have been achieved without any
overcut . Nevertheless the patterns of frictional increase with distance and surface
stress area are evidently consistent. The initial resistance in the Leighton Buzzard
sand is once again significantly greater than in the River sand, and in both cases is
somewhat lower for steel pipes than for the concrete pipes.
In order to examine the effect of the jacking distance on the driving resistance, the
gradients of the lines have been divided by the surface area of the pipes to establish
the frictional resistance per metre length of drive shown in Table 7.6 . The trend of
the results for different pipes, materials and surface stresses is clear .
Table 7.6 The Frictional Resistance in (kN/m2)
Sand Type Pipe Surface Surface Stress (kPal

200 100 10
Leighton Buzzard Concrete 28.5 16.0 3.0
Steel 3.5 2.5 1.5
Steel 1.5 1.0 0.5
182
7.3 THE REDUCTION OF THE FRICTIONAL RESISTANCE
A reduction in the frictional resistance of the pipeline will consequently reduce the
magnitude of the jacking forces required for a particular jacking distance. There are
various methods by which this reduction can be achieved, from both the design and
the construction techniques of the jacking operation . During construction
lubrication, maintaining a straight alignment and overcut ratio are the main factors
that can be used to reduce the frictional resistance around the pipeline. For design
purposes, the selection of suitable pipes is the main factor in achieving lesser
friction. The pipe characteristics that should be considered include the type of
surface, type' of joints, diameter in relation to the shield and, to a lesser degree, its
self weight.
7.3.1 Overeut Ratio
Overcutting the face of the tunnel is typically carried out in order to reduce the
frictional resistance on the following pipes. The magnitude of the overcut in soil is
controlled by the size of the shield, which is usually 20mm larger than the pipe
diameter in practice. The magnitude of the overcut is chosen to minimise the surface
settlement above the pipeline, in addition to reducing the forces. A study of this kind
has not been undertaken previously and consequently the tests were planned to
examine different overcut ratios. The results of these tests were presented in
Chapter 6.
183
Overcut can be maintained throughout the jacking distance in stable self-supporting
ground conditions, such as strong cohesive soil, sandstone and cemented soil, with
the result that frictional forces only occur on the bottom of the pipeline. Overcut in
unstable ground will not serve the same purpose, but will instead allow the soil
above the pipeline to loosen such that it achieves an active Rankine state. This
process will induce arching in most granular materials, and will additionally reduce
the shear force required to form the shear plane in looser material. However this
process of creating active failure zones could also result in significant soil
displacements, and hence surface settlements. If the overcut is too great, this will in
turn result in collapse of the arching mechanisms and higher forces . Thus the
magnitude of overcut in cohesionless soil is critical and a proper value should be
used to minimise the effect of ground settlement and soil collapse around the
pipeline. Thus limiting values of overcut, both high and low, should be determined
for different soil types.
The results for both concrete and steel pipes are presented in Figure 6.11 in terrnsof
force divided by length of pipeline against overcut ratio. The results show that the
forces reduce to a minimum at an overcut ratio of approximately 0.04 in both types
of sand and that the forces remain low as the overcut is increased. While care would
need to be taken in translating the results to practice, since the scale effects of particle
size to tunnel diameter require some consideration, the indications of other scale
model studies are that the influence of particle size is small. The results of this work
would thus indicate the jacking forces could be considerably reduced by increasing
the overcut ratio in cases where the level of surface settlement is not critical .
184
7.3.2 Pipe Joints
Joints between jacking pipes generate additional resistance as the pipeline is moved
forward. The roughness of the joints and the width of the gaps trap the soil particles
and hence increase the frictional resistance along the pipeline surface. This increase
could be considered to be as a result of numerous small bearing surfaces along the
pipe length, a situation that is exacerbated if lateral displacement, or steps, at the joint
occur. These bearing areas force the shear plane into the soil mass. Reduction of
the frictional resistance can be achieved by the use of smooth clean joints between
the pipes. To investigate the influence two types of joints were used during this
study for the concrete pipe only, smooth and rough joints, while the steel pipe·
joints were smooth as they were manufactured with carefully machined joints, as
explairied in Section 6.4.6 .
Figure 6.20 shows the difference between the jacking forces of the rough and
smooth joints as the pipeline is jacked forwards. The reduction in the jacking forces
was most noticeable for the case of no overcut (i.e R=O), because of the existence of
full surface contact stress between the soil and the pipeline, which produced higher
joint resistance. Table 7.7 presents the magnitude of the jacking forces that are
needed to overcome the resistance per metre run for both rough and smooth joints in
a jacked pipeline. It can be seen that the required forces for the rough jointed
pipeline are greater by a factor of 2.6 than the smooth pipeline for the Leighton
Buzzard sand and by a factor of 3.2 for the River sand. In addition, it should be
noted the the effect of the soil type on the magnitude of the jacking forces for smooth
steel pipes is relatively very small, in contrast to the findings for the concrete pipes,
185
emphasizing the effect that the joints apparently have. Therefore, it can be concluded
that the type and degree of opening of the joints of a pipeline contribute greatly to the
amount of the resistance along the surface contact of the pipeline with the
surrounding soil .
Table 7.7 Jacking Force per metre run for Rough and Smooth Joints
Jacking Force
Type of Soil Joint (kN/m)
Lelghton Buzzard Rough 52.0

Lelghton Buzzard Smooth 20.0
River Sand Rough 27.5
River Sand Smooth 8.5
Lelghton Buzzard Smooth (Steel) 7.1,
River Sand Smooth (Steel) 6.2
7.3.3 Soil/Pipe Surface Interface
is .
It"apparent from the test results, presented in Chapter 6, that the type of the pipe
surface influences the frictional resistance. Higher jacking forces were recorded in
the uniform, coarse, angular (Leighton Buzzard) sand than the well-graded
(Concrete) River sand. The interlocking of the sand particles contribute a large
proportion to the strength of the soil, the sliding resistance being a combination of
the frictional resistance and resistance to soil dilation. For this reason, creation of
the shear plane against a smooth pipe surface will result in reduced resistance to
sliding when compared with a shear plane formed within the soil mass. This
influence of dilation is greatest when the normal stress is large, since dilation
consists of doing work against the normal forces.
186
The area of the contact surface between the sand and the pipeline will obviously
influence the forces that are needed to overcome the frictional resistance, although it
is assumed in this work that the contact area will be the full surface area of the pipe,
certainly in the Leighton Buzzard sand and probably also in the River sand. The
only reason that full contact might not be achieved in River sand is the possibility of
pore suctions allowing the material to be temporally self-supporting, but this is
considered to be unlikely. Close contact will necessarily occur with an overcut ratio
of zero and will probably occur, although with reduced normal stresses, as the
overcut increases.
The steel pipe required considerably smaller jacking forces, the forces representing
an average of 40% in Leighton Buzzard Sand, and 47% in River sand, of the jacking
forces required to advance the concrete pipe as presented in Figure 7.1 and Table
7.3 . Thus a smooth external surface on a jacking pipe equipped with close fitting
joints is likely to result in a considerable reduction in forces of typically more than
50% .
The jacking forces in the angular, single sized Leighton Buzzard sand were 43%
(concrete pipe) and 33% (steel pipe) greater than in the rounded, well-graded River
sand.
187
7.4 COMPARISON BETWEEN LABORATORY AND MODEL

TESTING
It is important to establish a relationship between the results of pipe jacking model
testing and laboratory tests on the sands. Based on this relationship a prediction of
the engineering behaviour of the soils in pipe jacking can be made from standard
laboratory test data. It is apparent that both shear test and particle size distribution
data are necessary for prediction in sands.
7.4.1 Shear Force
The shear forces of the model testing can be represented as jacking forces per unit
surface area of the pipeline. Figure 7.6 shows a graph relating the forces obtained
from both laboratory and model tests, using rough jointed pipes, to the horizontal
shear displacement (refer to Chapter 4 for more details) .
In principle, the process of jacking pipes may be compared with the shear box test.
When a pipeline is jacked forwards, the surface shear between the pipes and the
surrounding soil can be represented by the surface shear between soil/concrete or
soil/steel in interface shear tests. The only considerations that should be taken into
account are the circular surface in the case of the pipe compared with a flat surface in
the shear test, the local loosening of soil caused by the overcut, the variation in
normal effective stresses around the pipe circumference and the effect of
discontinuities at joints. The results of the work reported herein can provide an
appropriate comparison, and thus establish the relationship between laboratory shear
188
testing with pipe jacking surface resistance, by considering the model tests of Type I
in which the effects of loosening by overcut are removed and thus the results at
comparable densities can be considered. Thereafter the effects of overcut can be
considered by comparison.
The normal total stresses acting in the model tests are basically a combination of both
the soil cover above the pipeline and the vertical surcharge applied to the surface of
the soil, multiplied by an appropriate factor to account for the orientation of the
surface (unity for a horizontal surface and the coefficient of lateral earth pressure, in
this case at rest, for the vertical surface with no overcut, and intermediate values in
between) . The normal total stresses adopted for the laboratory shear testing ranged
from 10 kPa to a maximum of 50 kPa, while for the model testing the normal
stresses increased from the dead weight of the soil with no surcharge applied to the
soil surface to a maximum surface surcharge of 200 kPa .
The laboratory and model test results are presented in Table 7.8, which shows the
peak and ultimate shear stresses. The relationships between shear force and distance
for the various laboratory and model tests are shown in Figures 7.7 to 7.14.
189
Table 7.8 Peak and Ultimate Shear Stresses for Laboratory and Model Tests.
surcharge Peak Shear Stress(kPa) Ultimate Shear Stress(kPa)
Shear Interface (kPa)
lab. Model lab. Model
Lelghto~nBuzzard
~an
Soli/Concrete 10 12.2 22.5 9.6 20.8

Soil/Steel 10 12.6 12.3 10.6 11.6
Soil/Concrete 50 45.0 34.8 36.4 30.4
Soil/Steel 50 43.9 17.8 31.7 14.7
SoU/Concrete 100 .- 54.0 -- 48.4
Soil/Steel 100 -- 22.9 -- 21.2
Soll/ Concrete 200 -- 92.5 -- 83.7
Soil/Steel 200 -- 39.8 -- 32.6
RlverSand
Soli/Concrete 10 11.7 14.4 7.9 13.9

Soli/Steel 10 8.9 8.0 7.9 8.0
Soli/Concrete 75 33.3 20.8 32.6 20.4
Soli/Steel 75 28.9 12.4 27.6 12.4
SoIl/ Concrete 125 -- 35.2 -- 33.2
Soli/Steel 125 -- 14.5 -- 13.7
Soli/Concrete 200 -- 51.6 -- 47.1
SoU/Steel 200 -- . 27.6 -- 26.7
The results of the laboratory shear tests show typical behaviour for a dense material
under normal shear, with both peak and ultimate values clearly obtained . In
contrast, the model testing produced results similar to those expected for a loose
material, with the maximum shear stress occurring at the ultimate shear value. It is
also apparent that the maximum shear stress is only mobilised after a significant
distance, typically 10 to 15mm, in the model tests and that in some cases careful
study of the curves shows a slight reduction in stress post peak. It is considered that
this behaviour results from progressive rearrangement of particles both along the
190
length of the pipe, and possibly also circumferentially to a small degree, to create a
shear plane, a phenomenon known more usually as progressive failure . This,·
combined with the arching mechanism above the pipe, results in little observed
dilation for the whole system. For this latter (arching) reason also, the normal
stresses acting in the model tests will be artificially low in comparison with those in
the shear box tests . Clearly no overcut is present in the Type I tests, the small
particle rearrangements being responsible for the generation of arching, and if .
overcuts were used the normal stresses would be lower still. Thus the comparison
between surface surcharges (which are in addition to the self-dead weight of soil)
and the directly applied normal stresses in the shear box is somewhat arbitrary, but
appears from the data to be approximately equivalent. The full normal stress (ie.
increased by approximately 12 kPa due to the weight of soil) should be considered in
definitive site-laboratory test comparisons.
Higher shear forces were recorded for conventional shear box tests on the sand (ie
soil/soil) than for the soil/concrete or soil/steel interface tests, as the shear plane
within a dense soil medium generates greater forces than those between two surfaces
of different materials. The interlocking mechanism which usually occurs with a soil
medium, and certainly with a dense granular soil, does not exist in the case of
soil/concrete or soil/steel interfaces . This is further demonstrated by the higher

forces obtained from the soil/concrete interface, where a degree of interlocking may
occur between the soil and the rough surface of the concrete, than from the smooth
soil/steel interface (Figures 7.7 to 7.14).
191
Figure 7.7 compares the results for concrete pipes in Leighton Buzzard sand under a
surface surcharge of 10 kPa with soil/concrete interface tests at normal stresses of 10

kPa. The ultimate shear stresses of the model testing are twice as high as the peak
of the soil/concrete laboratory shear for the concrete pipes with rough joints, while
the stresses for the pipes with smooth joints are greater by approximately 1.5 times.
Greater shear forces of approximately 15% were recorded for the soil/soil than the
soil/concrete interfaces. The River sand shows similar behaviour to the Leighton
Buzzard sand, but with less well defined peak shear stresses in the shear box (ie less
post-peak reduction) and approximate parity between the laboratory and model shear
stresses, the ultimate model testing result being approximately 20% greater than that
of the soil/concrete shear interface (Figure 7.8) . The effect of the joint roughness is
less noticeable in this case, the shear stresses being only 4% higher for the rough
joints. The difference between laboratory soil/soil and soillinterface shear stresses is
more significant than in Leighton Buzzard sand, the soil/soil shear stresses being
greater by 45% .
Figures 7.9 and 7.10 represent the results for the concrete pipes in both Leighton
Buzzard and River sands at the 50 kPa surcharge. The ultimate shear forces
obtained from the model testing are significantly lower than those from the shear
box, indicating a greater degree of arching. The shear stresses for the rough jointed
concrete pipeline are approximately 26% less than the Laboratory results of
soil/concrete interface, whereas the smooth jointed concrete pipeline showed a
reduction of approximately 43% . The soil/soil interface produced 20% greater shear
stresses than the soil/concrete interface.
192
The same approach can be adopted to compare the results of the steel pipeline, as
shown in Figures 7.11 to 7.14 . At 10 kPa surcharge in Leighton Buzzard sand

the
(Figure 7.11), the model results for"smooth steel pipeline produced shear stresses
that were approximately the same as those for the soiVsteel interface laboratory tests.
The soil/soil interface results are about 14% greater than the soiVsteel in terms of
peak shear stress, but match closely at the ultimate stresses. In the case of the River
sand ( Figure 7.12 ), the model results are also approximately the same as the
soil/steel interface results. However, the soil/soil interface laboratory results are
approximately 40% greater than those of the soil/steel interface.
The results of the 50 kPa surcharge are shown in Figures 7.13 and 7.14 for
Leighton Buzzard and River sand respectively. Once again the model test results are
markedly lower than the shear box results, again attributed to the greater effects of
arching. The model results in Figure 7.13 are approximately 60% less than the
soil/steel interface results, while the peak shear stresses obtained from the soil/soil
interface are approximately 20% greater than the soil/steel interface results . The
same behaviour in the shear stresses for the River sand was experienced as for the
Leighton Buzzard sand, but with a greater difference of 35% between the shear
stresses between the soiVsoil and soiVsteel interfaces (Figure 7.14).
Referring to Figures 7.7 to 7.14, it is apparent that the shear stresses recorded in the
shear box are normally greater than those of the model testing, the exception being
those obtained for the concrete pipes at lower overburden stresses where any effects
of arching are probably masked by the effects described below and the increase due
to soil dead weight of 12 kPa is relevant. The concrete pipes provide a somewhat
193
undulating shear plane due to their surface roughness and joint gaps, thereby
probably causing the shear plane to be forced away from the pipe waJl, at least at
some points along the pipeline, and certainly resulting in the need for greater soil
dilation. However, as the nonnal stresses increase, the shear stresses generated
from the model testing tend to be less than those measured in the shear box . This is
almost certainly attributable to the effect of soil arching above the pipeline, as clearly
demonstrated between Figure 7.7 and 7.9, 7.8 and 7.10,7.11 and 7.13, and 7.12
and 7.14.
As the steel pipes provided smoother surfaces with no significant discontinuities at

the joints, the shear stresses were considerably lower than the concrete pipes with
both rough and smooth joints. A set of graphs has been drawn to demonstrate the
effect of the joints and surface roughness on the shear stresses of a jacked pipeline
(Figures 7.15 to 7.22) . In addition Table 7.9 presents the magnitude of the shear
stresses obtained from the model testing for steel pipes and concrete pipes with both
rough and smooth joints.
In Figures7.15 and 7.16, which represent the results for Leighton Buzzard and River
sands respectively at 10 kPa surcharge, the rough joints for the concrete pipes
produced the highest peak shear stresses, as expected. The reduction in peak shear
stress for the smooth jointed concrete pipes and the smooth steel pipes was
approximately 25% and 44% respectively in Leighton Buzzard sand. In the case of
the River sand the rough jointed concrete pipeline has approximately the same shear
stresses as the smooth jointed pipeline. The steel pipe shear stresses are 45% less
than those of the concrete pipes with rough joints.
194
Table 7.9 Peak and Ultimate Shear Stresses with Different Pipe Joints, Surface
Roughness, and Surface Surcharge for Model Tests for Tests of Type 1.
Peak Stress (kPa) Ultimate Stress (kPa)
PIpe Surface Joint Surcharge
(kPa) Lelghton Buzzard River Sand LeIghton Buzzard River Sand
Concrete Rough 10 22.50 14.60 20.17 13.71

Concrete Smooth 10 17.69 13.36 15.13 13.30
Steel Smooth 10 12.75 8.02 11.80 8.01
Concrete Rough 50 34.57 20.80 30.31 18.14
Concrete Smooth 50 26.81 17.53 23.98 15.92
Steel Smooth 50 17.57 12.43 14.77 11.26
Concrete Rough 100 54.07 35.22 48.41 33.27

Concrete Smooth lOO 33.71 23.65 30.35 20.17
Steel Smooth lOO 22.97 14.86 21.17 13.78
Concrete Rough 200 92.48 51.68 83.73 47.16
Concrete Smooth 200 58.94 30.00 53.98 27.43
Steel Smooth 200 39.82 27.66 33.51 26.75
The behaviour of the shear stresses obtained from the model testing at 50, 100, and
200 kPa show a similar pattern to that at 10 kPa for both types of sands (Figures
7.17 to 7.22) . However, as the surcharge increases, the shear stresses of the
smooth jointed concrete pipeline in the River sand tend to decrease to the same value
as for the smooth steel pipeline, while in the Leighton Buzzard sand the pattern
continues to be approximately the same although the difference between the shear
stresses for the rough jointed concrete pipeline and the two smooth jointed pipelines
appears to increase at higher nonnal effective stresses. As expected the shear
stresses increase proportionately to the surcharge in both sands. The magnitude of
increase in the shear stresses with increase in surcharge is demonstrated in Figure
7.23 for the Leighton Buzzard sand and in Figure 7.24 for the River sand. The
intercept on the shear stress axis in these two figures relates to the shear resistance
due to the soil . cover and any boundary resistances, the most important being the
195
resistance of the rubber seal as the pipe enters and leaves the test tank .
It is apparent that rough joints, or steps, in a jacked pipeline produce significantly
higher shear resistance as it penetrates through a soil medium. This is acknowledged
in practice, but the extent of its effect has not been fully. appreciated. It is generally
accepted that the jacking resistance is mainly related to the skin (shear) resistance of
the pipeline, in addition to a combination of other factors, but the joints effect has
always been disregarded during design calculation. It is perhaps for this reason that
both overcut and lubrication have been used in practice to reduce jacking forces, and
indeed that attempts to reduce misalignment have been made to reduce skin friction,
whereas little attention to the joint detail has been paid except in terms of structural
integrity. If the open face of a joint, or the protruding step at a joint, is considered as
a small bearing area within a confined soil mass then the increase in force can be
practically appreciated. Bearing in mind that joints will tend to open, and steps
protrude further, when pipes become misaligned, this effect will become more
prominent in poorly aligned drives. Thus reduction in misalignment will have a
significant effect, although not as a result primarily of reduced friction.
196
7.4.2 m Value
The <1>
m
value is the internal angle of friction between the pipeline and the
surrounding soil as determined from pipeline model tests . The <1>m value was
obtained from tests of Type I for both sands when the overburden pressure was
plotted against the required jacking forces per unit area of the pipeline inside the
model tank.
For comparison, the results of model tests of Type I are plotted with results obtained
from laboratory shear tests on both types of sands as shown in Figure 7.25 . The
values of <l>m • <l>L ,(the internal angle of friction between the concrete/steel and
soil from the shear box test)and <1>. (the internal angle of friction of the soil from the
shear box test)were obtained from the relationships shown in Figure 7.25 and are
tabulated in Table 7.10 . It should be noted that the intercept on the shear stress axes
for the shear box tests is a function of the slight curvature of the Mohr coulomb
failure envelope at Iow normal stresses, a best fit regression line having been fitted to
the data.
197
Table 7.10 Friction Angles (in degrees) for Various Tests

Soil type $m <Pr. $s
Concrete Steel Concrete Steel (Peak)
Lelghton Buzzard 19 7.5 39 38 49

River sand 11 5 28 27 42
It can be seen that <l>m for the concrete pipe-Leighton Buzzard sand intetface is about
39% of the value for the sand alone (s) and 49% of the laboratory value for the
concrete/soil intetface (L) • The River sand produced <l>m for concrete that was 26%
of <1>8 and 38% of <l>L • The steel pipeline showed more consistent results with the
<l>m value being approximately 15% and 20% of <Ps and <l>L respectively in both
sands.
The relationship between <l>m and both <1>8 and <ilL for the concrete pipeline exhibits
significantly lower proportions in the case of River sand than for the Leighton
Buzzard sand. This difference is attributed to differential resistance generated from
the rough joints of the concrete pipeline, with the angular, uniform Leighton Buzzard
sand registering higher resistance than the rounded, well graded River Sand. This
confmns the earlier observation that rough joints generate more resistance when in
contact with Leighton Buzzard than the River sand.
198
It can be concluded that the <1>m value of a concrete pipeline in sand is likely to be
approximately one third to one half of the <1>. value, depending on joint 'roughness' .
Where smooth steel pipes with close fitting joints are used, the values are likely to
reduce to 20% or less. However, Auld (1981) gave an estimated <1>m value of two
thirds to three quarters of <1>. when calculating the frictional resistance, and this
would appear to be conservative for design. It is recommended that a value of 50%
should be used in practice, unless a lower value can bejustifled by the use of pipes
with smooth external walls or, more importantly, a close fitting joint detail. If the
specification for the pipe permits a significant joint step, or lateral displacement at the
joint, to occur then a higher value of75% might be appropriate.
7.4.3 Particle Size Distribution
It has been shown from the model testing results that the nature of the sand particles
and their size distribution contribute to the magnitude of the jacking forces. It was
also noted that the unifonnity coefficient of the sand material will probably have a
greater effect than the size of the material itself when considering the influence of
different types of material during the design and construction of a pipe jacking
operation.
In order to relate the particle size of the material to the magnitude of the required
forces during the jacking operation, the uniformity coefficient (D60IDI0) from the
PSD curve can be used to estimate the H value when calculating the jacking forces
199
using equation 7.6 . Figure 7.26 shows a tentative relationship between the
uniformity coefficient and the H value based on the observations of two sands only
and preconceptions of the fonn of the relationship. It should be noted that angularity
of the sands is likely to influence these data also, and yet no account can be taken of
this in this plot. This H value can be derived from both Figure 7.3 and 7.26 by
referring to the magnitude of the overburden pressure on the pipeline and unifonnity
coefficient (UC) of the excavated material respectively. It could be tentatively
concluded, from the strictly limited data, that the H value is related to the UC, the
lower UC the higher the H value.
It is practically impossible to study the effects of all the factors that may contribute to
the jacking forces in tenns of particle shape, size and size distribution. This research
has shown that all three factors are likely to influence the forces, with coarse,
angular unifonn particles providing greater resistance to shear than rounded, well
graded materials. It is apparent that <l>L (from laboratory interface tests in the shear
box) alone is insufficient to distinguish between materials that will provide small or
large resistance, and that the above factors should be considered.
200
Chapter 7 InterpretatiDn of The Results
7.5 CASE STUDIES
This section aims to compare predictionsbased on the research results, t=ed herein
the Loughborough Method, with both practical data from jacking sites and theoretical
prediction methods from the literature.
The first case will compare the relationships established from jacking operations for
a sewage scheme with the estimated values of the jacking forces based on this work,
while the second case wiII study the practical data from a jacking operation for the
installation of a culvert in a similar manner. The third case will relate the theoretical
and practical values obtained by other researchers to the results of this research
(Loughborough Method) . Each case is described separately in the following
sections.
7.5.1 TYNESIDE SEWERAGE SCHEME
7.5.1.1 Geology and Construction Operations
The scheme was designed for the removal of sewage from a large catchment area in
the area around Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Tyneside . This analysis is based on
information contained in a Loughborough University undergraduate project report
based on work supervised by Dr. C.D.F. Rogers .
The geology of the area concerned consists mainly of soft, silty alluvium overlying a
thick layer of loose river sands and gravels. The ground conditions of the site can be
summarised in terms of five major strata:
201
Chapter 7 Interpretatlon oJThe Results
(i) Made ground

(ii) Alluvial Clay
(iii) Sand
(iv) Gravel
(v) Glacial Clay
The choice of pipe jacking for the scheme was based on previous experience of the
technique and on the ground conditions which the tunnel was expected to encounter .
In addition, it was anticipated that problems encountered from water bearing strata
may affect face stability, and therefore it was decided that traditional tunnelling
operations using precast concrete segments would be difficult. Reinforced spun
concrete pipes with steel joint collers were adopted . The details of the pipe jacking
operation are as follows:-
external diameter of the pipeline: 1.78 m

internal diameter of the pipeline: 1.48 m
jacking shafts to accommodate the jacking operation of 3.6 m in diameter.
cmnching mole of external diameter: 1.80 m
During this operation, a lubrication system was used to reduce the jacking forces. It
was incorporated in the overcut gap around the pipeline and entered the void through
injection points spaced every 2.5m length along the length of the pipeline . The
lubricant was a mixture of bentonite and petroleum-based materials.
The overcut of 10mm was created from the difference between the 1.80m diameter
crunching mole excavator at the face of the tunnel and l.78m external diameter
202
Chapter 7 Interpretattnn of The Results
pipeline. Based on the research reported herein, the overcut ratio, calculated to be
0.011, and its effect on the magnitude of the jacking forces during this operation can
be established according to Figure 6.11, which indicates a reduction of
approximately 30·40% in the frictional force.
In order to produce a theoretical prediction for the jacking forces based on the
findings of this work, assumptions concerning some of the soil parameters have to
be made to obtain the jacking factor (H) referred to in equation 7.6 . These
assumptions were based on re-analysis of the site jacking forces data in terms of H
and q (surcharge), as shown in Figure 7.27 .
The surrounding soils that are most relevant to this study are of material types iii and
iv, due to their similarity to the materials used in the model testing. Therefore the
Loughborough results can be best applied to these types of materials. The geological
information and parameters are as follows
Material (iii) - Sandy Alluvium; Loose to medium dense sand with some pockets of
clay. The parameters that are required to calculate the jacking factors are assumed to
be:
<1>= 300
'Y = 19 kN/m3
KUI = tan (30/3) ------- refer to sections 7.2.2 & 7.4.2, Kiii decreases
by 20% if the surcharge> 125kPa
H;ii ------ refer to Figure 7.3
203
Chapter 7 Interpretation of'The Results
Material (iv) - Sand and Gravel; Silty fine to coarse sand and gravel. The assumed
parameters are:
Y= 19 kN/m3
Kjv = tan (35/3) ------- refer to sections 7.2.2 & 7.4.2, K iv decreases
by 20% if the surcharge> 125kPa
H.IV = ---------- refer to Figure 7.3
Correlations will only be attempted for the jacking forces data for the three drives in
areas of sand and gravel .
7.5.1.2 Drive (Ew - El)
In this drive, the first 32m of the pipeline was jacked through a mixed face of soil
type (iii) and (iv), and the rest of the drive is in the type (iv) soil. Using equation
7.6, theoretical predictions of the jacking forces can be calculated from H values
related to the line of R= 0.03 in Figure 7.3, as shown in Table 7.11 . The last
column in the table gives the jacking forces using equation 7.5 for comparison only.
204
Chapter 7 Interpretation ofThe Results
Table 7 .11 Jacking Forces for Drive Ew-El

Jacking Jacking Force (kN)
SoU Type Depth Distance
(m) H (m) Enu.7.6 Equ. 7.5.
Part Cum
lli&iv 12 20 32 3578 3578 6247

Iv 12 20 40 4473 8051 8424
Iv 16 22 63 7750 15801 17691
Iv 13 21 23 2700 18501 5241
Note: Cum. stands for Cumulative Force.
The jacking forces resulting from this drive are presented in Figure 7.28 in relation
to the jacking distance. The Loughborough Method values from Table 7.11 are also
plotted in Figure 7.28 in order to compare the theoretical and actual values. It
appears that the theoretical values are higher than the practical data by approximately
52% at a distance of 150m . This difference in forces, and more generally the fact
that the practical values are consistently lower, is attributed to the effect of the
bentonite lubrication. The effect ofthe pockets of clay might also contribute to the
lower practical values since if the granular materials had some cohesive element, then
the soil might exhibit some self-supporting behaviour, at least temporarily, due to
stress relief and pore suction.
7.5.1.3 Drive (E2 • El)
This drive was divided into two parts: PI and P2 . PI is predominantly through
material (iii) while P2 was jacked from a second thrust pit through varied strata of
type (iv) and some glacial clay. Based on these surrounding materials, the jacking
forces were similarly calculated from equation 7.6 and are presented in Table 7.12 .
205
Chapter 7 Interpretation oJThe Results
Table 7.12 Jacking Forces for Drive E2-E j

SoU Type Depth H Distance
(m) (m) Eau. 7.6 Equ.7.5
. Part l.'um
PI
Iv 13.75 20 79 8835 8835 19043
III 14.5 22 21 2583 11418 4561
P2
Iv 14 21 114 13387 13387 27979
III & Iv 6.5 17 46 4373 17760 4765
III & Iv 11 20 18 2013 19773 3155
The practical and theoretical jacking forces are plotted against the distance driven in
Figure 7.29 . The results show the theoretical forces to be greater than the practical
values by approximately 10% for PI and 67% for P2, the difference similarly being
attributed to the use of bentonite lubrication. A further factor that is likely to account
for the (considerable) difference between the results for P2 is the presence of the
glacial clay, which will tend to cause the material to stand up when excavated and
greatly reduce the forces on the pipes. Indeed the practical curve for P2 is typical of
a cohesive soil in which progressive collapse occurs and the forces increase
disproportionately at the end of the drive.
This drive is mainly in material (iv), although as the pipeline reaches jacking pit E3
the material changes to type (Hi) . The jacking forces obtained from the
Loughborough Method are presented in Table 7.13 and both the practical and
206
Chapter 7 Interpretation of The Results
theoretical data are presented in Figure 7.30 . The results shows that the theoretical
forces are approximately 46% of the practical values. The reduction in the jacking
forces in this case is attributed to lubrication.
Table 7.13 Jacking Forces for Drive E3-E2

Soil Type Depth H Distance
(m) (m) Tqu.1.O
Part Equ.7.5
Cum
Iv 14 22 75 9226 9226 18407

Iv 12 20 158 17670 26896 33238
ill 13 21 75 8807 35703 14606
7.5.1.5 Concluding Discussion
The re-analysis of the practical data, as presented in Figure 7.27, shows that all the
H values obtained from equation 7.6 lie in the lower bound region below the line of
R=0.03 in the case of both Leighton Buzzard and River sand with only one
exception. Although the use of bentonite contributed significantly to the scattering of

the results, it is, however, apparent that for design calculation the lower bound
should be adopted taking into consideration the amount of the overcut and the
particle size distribution of the surrounding material. The calculated jacking forces
presented in Tables 7.11, 7.12 and 7.13 are based on the assumption of H lying on
the line R=0.03 . This will provide a conservative estimate for jacking forces.
It can be concluded from the above comparison of results that the jacking forces can
be considerably reduced by the use of force reduction techniques such as bentonite
207
lubrication and overcut . Despite the somewhat variable differences in the jacking
forces at certain points, the graphs showed a similarity in the trends between the
practical and theoretical results in tenus of rate of increase in the jacking forces. It is
also apparent from this study that the Loughborough Method can provide relevant
data from which to calculate upperbound predictions of the jacking forces, and that
the values thus calculated could be reduced to allow for other force reducing
Applying an
measures, such as lubrication .. 1',.) approximately 50% reduction in the calculated
produces values that equate to ;
theoretical forces "'. -~ the average reduction that can be achieved when
using bentonite.
It is worth mentioning that the theoretical values obtained by using equation 7.5
produced greater forces than equation 7.6. This is because equation 7.5 takes into
account the continuous peak interface resistance along the surface area of the pipeline,
whereas this normally reduces to lower values depending on the normal stresses and soil
arching around the pipeline. However, this equation may be valid for short drives
with no overcut ratio and in. unstable surrounding material, such as loose sand.
208
7.5.2 M1·A1 SCHEME
A 2.4m diameter culvert was constructed approximately l.Om below ground level by
pipe jacking to serve as a passage for a stream underneath a 7.Sm high embankment,
which allows widening of the existing embankment to accommodate a new dual
carriageway as part of the Ml-Al scheme.
7.5.2.1 Geology and Ground Conditions
The geological records of the area, based on boreho1es, indicate the site to be
underlain by Oxford Clay to a depth of approximately 10m below the existing
ground level. The geological succession of strata in the vicinity of the pipejack area
is shown in Figure 7.31 and can be summarised as follows:-
i- MADEGROUND (7m height of embankment above G.L, extending to O.SOm

belowG.L)
Firm dark brown silty CLAY with occasional rounded gravel.
ii- GLACIAL TILL (O.SOm to l.S0m below G.L)
Firm dark brown, becoming brown, sandy CLAY with some gravel.
iii- FLUVIOGLACIAL DEPOSITS (1.S0m to 3.0m below G.L)
Brown angular to rounded clayey silly sandy to very sandy GRAVEL, lo<;ally very
clayey.
iv- OXFORD CLAY (3.0Om to end of Borehole)
209
Firm light green grey, extremely closely fissured CLAY, locally very silty with
occasional shells.
No groundwater was encountered in the boreholes or during the jacking operation.
7.5.2.2 Pipejack Details
The jacking pipes were manufactured in accordance with B.S 5911, part 120 (BSI,
1984) and had the following characteristics:
External diameter: 2865mm
Internal diameter: 2375mm
Each pipe is 2.5m in length and can withstand 1200 T uniformly
distributed and 1000 T deflected loading.
The pipe jacking operation was carried out by means of manual face excavation. The
size of the jacking pit was designed to be large enough to accommodate six 300 T
jacks which were powered by a diesel power pack. A concrete base was constructed
in the shaft to locate two guide rails, parallel to line and on pipe gradient, to ensure
correct entry of the shield. The thrust wall was cast in concrete at the back of the pit
to distribute the jacking forces. A steel plate was placed against the thrust wall to
distribute point loading from the main jacks, which were positioned in the pit parallel
to line and on gradient below the axis level of the pipe . An air winch was fixed
between the jacks for operation of the muck skip. A steel thrust ring was fixed at the
end of the jacks to protect the concrete pipes and distribute the pushing forces from
the main jacks via spacer blocks onto the jacking pipes. Excavation was carried out
from within the shield and the pipes were jacked behind the excavated area. No
210
bentonite lubrication was used.
7.5.2.3 Jacking Forces
The jacking forces encountered during the operation were recorded at the end of each
pipe driven into the tunnel. These forces were then plotted against the jacking
distance as shown in Figure 7.32 .
The theoretical jacking forces, based on the Loughborough Method, were calculated
using equation 7.6 , with jacking parameters obtained from Figure 7.3. The jacking
parameters were based on the soil and geotechnical information from the bore holes
and site investigation . The results used for the Loughborough Method for
calculating the jacking forces are summarised in Table 7.14 .
Table 7.14 Jacking Forces Calculated According to the Loughborough Method

Soil Type Depth H Distance Eau. 7.6
(m) Equ.7.5
(m) Part Cum
ll. ill 1 12 17 1836 1836 600
H. ill 4 15 14.5 1834 3670 2048
H. ill 7.5 16 18 2429 6099 3889
II 4 15 17.5 2363 8462 2048
The theoretical forces show little sensitivity to the depth of the tunnel
211
Chapter 7 Int€1pretatton of11te Results
7.5.2.4 . Conclusions
It can be seen from Figure 7.32 that the measured jacking forces are approximately
44% lower than those obtained from the Loughborough Method. The practical curve
shows that relatively large forces were required over the early part of the drive,
where the cover depth was relatively small. This can be explained by the large
tunnel diameter (2Am) which would cause a high face resistance to be generated.
Early misalignment could also account for higher early force requirements. It should
be noted that the values used to calculate H were obtained from Figure 7.3 and
related to the height of cover, which in this case are approximately 5 kPa, 10 kPa
and 12 kPa . The value of H is only an estimated value, depending on the unifonnity
coefficient of the material .
The major factor that is likely to contribute to the difference between the results,
however, is the fundamental difference between the ground conditions on this site
and the sands used in the laboratory modelling work. In addition to this the ground
conditions varied over the length of the drive. As shown in Figure 7.31 the top half
of the pipeline is in the cohesive Glacial Till, which will allow the material to stand
up during excavation and hence reduce the forces on the pipeline. This is clearly
reflected in the forces shown in Figure 7.32 . Thus the results for sand can only
provide an upperbound prediction in the case of competent clay. A very soft, weak
alluvium might be better modelled by sand data, and indeed might produce higher
results due to no facility for arching.
212
Chapter 7 InterpretatiDn of The Results
7.5.3 PREVIOUS STUDIES
This section examines the previously published practical and theoretical work in
relation to the results of this research project, referred to herein as the
Loughborough Method.
7.5.3.1 CIRIA Technical Note 112
The CIRIA Technical Note (Craig,1983) provides a method of empirical prediction
of pipe jacking forces based on the direct experience of contractors (see Section
2.4.2.1) .
Table 7.15 gives the empirical values for the V.K. , expressed as drag per unit area,
with the corresponding values obtained from the Loughborough Method for similar
soils.
For the wet sand, the Loughborough values seem to be reasonably close to the limits
of the empirical values. The minimum value of 8.5kN/m2, which was obtained from
an overburden pressure (q) of lOOkPa, falls below the lower limit, while the higher
value falls within the empirical range. However bearing in mind the approximate
nature of the empirical data, the correlation can be considered good. It could also be
concluded that the empirical values overestimate the drag forces by ignoring the
effect of the overburden pressure, and thus drag forces significantly lower than the
empirical values may be obtained for low overburden pressures. It should be noted,
however, that the description of wet sand is very broad, and therefore covers a
variety of sands and water saturation conditions from merely damp to sands below
213
Chapter 7 Interpretation oJ1he Results
the water table. A further point of conjecture is that the values quoted appear to
account also for face resistance, being global factors, For the dry loose sand the
situation is similar to the wet sand, the empirical values overestimating the jacking
forces . It can be concluded, therefore that the empirical values may be used as a
guide, and allowance should be made for the depth of the pipeline or the overburden
pressure applied to it when estimating the jacking forces.
Table 7.15 Comparison between the UK Empirical Skin Friction Values and
those Calculated using the Loughborough Method

SKIN FRICTION (kN/m2 )
SOIL TYPE
EMPIRICAL VALUES LOUGHBOROUGH VALUES
R=Q q =100 q = 200
Rock 2 to 3
Boulder Clay 5 to 18
Firm Clay 5 to 20
Wet Sand 10 to 15 Well-graded 8.5 13.5
(Wet Sand)
Silt 5 to 20
Dry Loose Sand 25 to 45 Uniform 16.0 28.5
(Dry Sand)
Fill uptp 45
Table 7.16 compares the frictional values of various countries with those from the
Loughborough Method for similar soil conditions. Once again the Loughborough
results are shown to be of the correct order of magnitude and similar explanationsto
those applied to the U.K. values may be used for this case. It should be reiterated
that the overburden pressure, or the depth of the pipeline, should be considered
when calculating to the frictional resistance in practice.
214
Chapter 7 Interpretatcon of The Results
Table 7.16 Comparison of Frictional Resistance from Various Countries with

those Calculated using the Loughborough Method
FRlCTIONAL VALUE (kN/m 2)
SOIL1YPE
Australia France Germany Loughborough
R=O. q=200
Shale 1
Clay 5 to 7.5 8 to 10 5
Silt 17
Sand 13 20 to 30 28.5 13.5
DIY Wet
Compacted Gravel 50 50
7.5.3.2 Herzog's Investigations
Herzog (1985) investigated the jacking forces in medium dense sand, see Section
2.4.2.5 . In order to compare the results of Herzog's analysis and the
Loughborough Method, the data for case study 2 (the 2.4m Culvert on the M1-Al
Link) will be used as an example due to similar pipe conditions. It should be noted,
however, that the results from the clay on this site will be very different to those
experienced by Herzog, and thus the comparison remains artificial and the lack of
correlation with the measured data should not be considered to be significant. The
calculation data are :
B=2865 mm
D= 7.Sm embankment with an average height on the slope of 4m .
L=67m
r= 19 kN/m3
215
Chapter 7 InterpretatiOn of1he Results
Based on Herzog's method, the values of the following equations are all summarised
in Table 7.17
Skin friction Pv---y(D+B/2)
Face resistance PsI = P 1t Dt
The calculationsfor the Loughborough Method are based on equation 7.6, as above,
and the forces are shown in Table 7.17 .
F=H ltBL (7.6)
Table 7.17 Summary of the Jacking Force Results

Herzog Method Loughborough Method
Depth Jacking Actual
(m) Distance Pm Ps Jacking Force
(m) (kN) (kN) H Force (m)
(kN)
1 17 4516 301 12 1836 1463

4 14.5 8756 669 15 1834 366
7.5 18 17872 1098 16 2429 1390
4 17.5 10567 669 15 2363 1902
216
The statistical analysis by Herzog is mainly based on observations of large jacking

pipes, since all of the examples given in his paper refer to large diameter sewer
pipes well in excess of 2.5m . The study of these examples, with heavy self-weight
of the pipes and abnormal face resistance, appears to cause excessive forces when
calculating the jacking forces using his formulae. Herzog's method should thus be
used only with extreme care.
7.5.3.3 Methods reported by Stein, Mollers and Bielecki
The information used in this example is obtained from the reference book entitled
MicrotunneIling (Stein et al,1989), which describes several force prediction
methods.
The jacking forces calculated using the Japanese analysis are assumed to be a linear
function of the jacking distance (p. 51) . The given example, which is reproduced in
Figure 2.17, shows a linear relationship between the jacking forces and the driven
distance for various pipeline depths of 3, 5, 7 and 9 m . The surrounding material
for this case is cohesionless with the following soil and jacking parameters:
Soil type: Sand
 =35 0
Coefficient of friction = 0.32
External pipe diameter = 0.7 52 m
Using the above parameters, the values of the jacking forces can be calculated by the
Loughborough Method as shown below:
217
Soil type: Sand
Y= 20 kN/m 3
K = tan (35/3)= 0.2
H = 12, 16, 17 and 18 (forD = 3, 5, 7 and 9m respectively)
F = H 1t B L ----------- 7.6
The jacking force' results are summarised in Table 7.18 and presented in Figure
7.33.
Table 7.18 Summary of the Jacking Forces

Jacking
Depth H Distance Jacking Force
(m) (m) (kNI
3 12 200 5669
5 16 200 7560
7 17 200 8032
9 18 200 8505
The comparison shows that the Loughborough Method gives slightly higher values
than the Japanese method, although the rate of increase in the jacking forces is
necessarily similar for each depth. Hard conclusions are difficult to draw since no
information on the consideration given to the effect of the overcut ratio on the jacking
forces when using the Japanese method is available. The consistency of the two
methods is encouraging, however.
218
Chapter 7 InterpretatiOn of The Results
Weber (1981), in his investigation into pipe jacking of 'non-man-entry' pipes

established the linear increase of the jacking forces required with an increase of the
skin area, or jacking distance. The results of his investigations are presented in
Figure 7.34, with skin friction of each line related to the height of the soil cover
above the pipeline.
Figure 7.34 shows the comparison between Weber's relationship and the values
obtained from the Loughborough Method. The soil material used by Weber has
similar parameters to the river sand. It seems that Weber's explanation of different
skin friction is not very clear, and only provides a guideline based on previous
practical experience. The results of the Loughborough Method, as shown in Figure
7.34, give the skin friction of a particular soil at different overburden pressures of
10,100 and 200 kN/m2 (equating to LM=3.7, 43.1 and 67.0 kN/m2 respectively on
the graph) . It is apparent that the higher the overburden pressure is, the larger the
skin friction that is generated during the jacking operation, a fact recognised by
Weber's prediction although his values are consistently lower than those of the
Loughborough Method. This presumably means that Weber's method reflects a
much greater influence of arching, or other force reduction effects.
7.5.3.4 Work by Auld
Auld in 1982 put forward a frictional resistance equation to calculate the frictional
forces needed for a pipeline during a jacking operation. His analysis and the
derivation of the equation are fully explained in Section 2.4.2.2 .
219
Chapter 7 Interpretation oJT11e Results
.An example taken from his paper (Auld, 1982) is used to compare his analysis with
the Loughborough Method. This example involves a circular pipe jacked through a
sandy GRAVEL material . Figure 7.35 shows a cross-section and the ground
conditions for the jacking operation. The comparison between the two methods is
summarised in Table 7.19.
For the Loughborough Method, the following data were used:
F = H 1t B L --------- 7.6
Compacted sandy Gravel with,
r=18 kN/m3 and <jl =40 0
K=tan (40/3) =0.237

H=34 for pipeline depth of (D)=7.6m from Figure 7.3 at R=O
H=19 for pipeline depth of (D)=5.1m from Figure 7.3 at R=O
B=2Am
For section 2,
F = 34"2.4"26" 1t = 6665 kN
For sections I and 3
F = 19"2.4"17" 1t = 2435 kN
Total jacking force = 2435 + 6665 + 2435 = II535 kN
220
Chapter 7 Interpretatton of The Results
Table 7.19 Comparison between the Auld and Loughborough Jacking Forces
Jacking Force (kN) Auld Calculation ~oughborough Method
Section 1 1597 2435

Section 2 4504 6665
Section 3 2610 2435
Face Resistance 3920
Total Jacking Force 12631 11535
Actual Jacking Force 11760 11760
It appears that the actual measured jacking force, according to Auld, is greater by
2% than that predicted by the Loughborough Method, while the Auld method gives a
value that is lower by 7% . Auld's assumption for the face resistance considerably
affected the overall value of the jacking force calculated by his method, whereas no
allowance has been made in the Loughborough Method . It is apparent that the
Loughborough Method is comparatively close to the practical value, although the
value was calculated using the line of R=O for the River sand in Figure 7.3, which
was considered to provide a suitable H value for the type of material used in equation
7.6 taking into account the higher value of than the River Sand. This was thus a
subjective judgement.
7.5.4 CONCLUDING DISCUSSION
In order to establish the importance of the Loughborough Method, the H values
obtained from practical data in the case studies are plotted on Figure 7.3 for concrete
pipes for both types of sands in Figures 7.36 and 7.37, which show the re-analysed
values of the case studies in a linear fashion. It appears that all the values lie at the
221
Chapter 7 Interpretation ofTh.e Results
lower limit of Loughborough Method, with the exception of Herzog's method. The
rate of increase in the H value for R=O.030 compares well with the MI-Al and the
Japanese results, but the values lie below the R=O.030 line and thus it can be
assumed that the Loughborough Method provides conservative results. However, it
is apparent that the rate of increase of Herzog's line is approximately the same as for
the upperbound of Loughborough Method in Leighton Buzzard sand, although the
line is significantly above the Loughborough upperbound values . Herzog's
approach may prove to be correct for angular single size, perhaps large particles
where no force reduction techniques are used. It is also important to bear in mind
the effect of overcut ratio when using the Loughborough Method, as there is no
indication of whether greater or lesser overcut ratios than R=O.030 would produce
minimum H values. Obviously, further research into this area is needed to clarify
this uncertainty.
In conclusion, the Loughborough Method has been shown to produce generally

good results due to the rational consideration of the influence of various jacking
parameters in the model study. The development of the Loughborough equation,
using the scale model testing results, accounted for a combination of the depth
(overburden pressure), jacking distance, external diameter of the pipeline and the
overcut ratio and it is apparent from the above analyses that these factors should all
be taken into account if an accurate prediction is to result .
222
100 r-------------------------------__________,
l:l Concrete Pipes
80 • Steel Pipes
'"
"'" 60
~'iU
~~
:g~
40
"
~
l:l
• •
20 • ~=4.6
<1>=8.5
0
0 50 100 150 200
Surcharge (kPa)
a- confined state for Leighton

Buzzard Sand
50
l:l Concrete Pipes <1>=9.6

40 • Steel Pipes $=3.8
e''""
...(/)'iU 30
"OIl"-
=.>1
:g~
20 •
~"
•• $=3.6
10
~=4.0
0
0 50 100 150 200
Surcharge (kPa)
b- confined state,Jor River Sand
Note: All values of <p quoted In the graphs are In degrees
Figure 7.1 Jacking Stress Against Overburden Pressure: Confined State

50 r-----------------------------~--------_,
!:l Concrete Pipes ~=59
$=45
40 • Steel Pipes
.,
<Il 30
"
./:l
CIl(i
'O.O~
~~ 20
~"
10
o 2 4 6 8 10 12
Soil Cover (kPa)
c- unconfined state for Lelghton Buzzard Sand
20
[:J Concrete Pipes $=41
15 • Steel Pipes $=34
.,
In
O.l
./:l
CIl(i 10
~~
ll~
~"
5
•
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
SoU Cover (kPa)
d- unconfined state for River Sand

Note: All values of <jl quoted In the graphs are In degrees
Figure 7.1 Jacklni( Stress Against Overburden Pressure: Unconflned

State (Soil Cover)
o
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Surface Area (Square metre)
a· concrete pipes
30
J::] q·lCkPa IR=O I

X q·lCOkPa
20
• q·200kPa
~ H=11.4
-.
~
u
~
'011
I':
:illu 10
~
OL-__ ~~ __ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

b· steel pipes
Figure 7.2 Jacking Forces Against Surface Area· Lelghton Buzzard Sand
50
8 q-lOkPa IR=O I
X q-lOOkPa
40
• q-200kPa
~ 30
"~
~
...
.s 20
X
~
.!J
10
H=2.3
0 '8
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
c- concrete pipes
20
~ q- 10kPa I R=O I
• q- 100kPa
• q- 200kPa
11
~
"".. 10
~
~
liI
.,
~
H=1.44
o
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
d- steel pipes
Figure 7.2 Jacking Forces Against Surface Area - River Sand

100
[;] R=O.OOO Lelghton Buzzard Sand
Concrete Pipes
80 • R=0.030
•<> R=0.064
R=O.140
60
D
40
OL-____ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~
o 100 200 300
a Surcharge (kPa)
100
D R=O.OO River Sand

Concrete Pipes
80 • R=O.030
• R=O.064
60
J:
40
O~ ____ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ __ ~
o 100 200 300
Surcharge (kPa)
Figure 7.3 H values against Surcharge for Concrete Pipes

20
J:I R=0.016 Leighton Buzzard Sand
Steel Pipes
• R=0.048
15 • R=O.084
10
o L-____ ~ ____L __ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _L __ _ _ _ ~ __ ~
o lOO 200 300
Surcharge (kPa)
25r-------------~======~~~===n
River Sand I;] R=O.oo
Steel Pipes 0 R=0.016
• R=0.048
20 <> o R=0.084
15
10
o
o 100 200 300
Surcharge (kPa)
Figure 7.3(contlnued) H Values against Surcharge for Steel Pipes

14
Unconfined Confined
12
10 G Salomo
• Scherle
~~
8 () We'rer
LBS/Con.
•*
~" 6
~ii: LBS/Steel
&I
4 0 RS/Con.
.4 RS/Steel
2
0
0 2 4 6 8
D/B
Figure 7.4 Relative Skin Friction against D IB Ratio for Results

of Model Testing and Theoretical Predictions
100
Concrete Pipes
0/8=3.75
R=O
80
-0- q = 10 kPa
.....
~
"~
60 ... q=100kPa
q = 200 kPa
~
~ 40
:g
u
;g
20
o
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
X/L
20
Steel Pipes
0/8=3.75
R=0.016
15 -0- q = 10 kPa
..... q = 100 kPa
~ q =200 kPa
"..u ---
.
0
r..
.5
~
10
.,=
u
o L-__ ~ __L-__~__L-__~__~__~__~__~~
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
X/L
Figure 7.5 The difference In the rate of frictional Increase between

R=O and R=O.016
50
40
~~ [;] [;] [;] [;] [;] [;] [;] [;] [;] 13 13
O~El
(;]
.. 0"...... ~ Leighton Buzzard sand

~
1'00 30 O. I Surcharge=50 kPa

El ModeVConcrete
""'"
~
• [;]
•
,•
~ ModeVSteel
l:: 0
"'.
.... 0 Lab./Concrete
.. 20 • ~
.c • • • •• Lab./Steel
'" 0
• • • •••• • • • •
10
l!J
~
0
0 10 20 30 40
Displacement (mm)
20 ~---------- __________________________--,
15 _
~
""ill.
~
-'"......... 10 f-
•
.c
'" ~~ •
River sand
Surcharge=lO kPa
•
5 -.~ El ModeVConcrete
• ModeVSteel
~<> • Q LabJConcrete
o !... I I
Lab./Steel
o 10 20 30 40
Displacement (mm)
Figure 7.6 The Shear Stress-Displacement Relationship

between Laboratory and Model Testing
30
-0- Lab. Soil/Soil
...
.....
-0-
Lab. Soil/1nl
Model/Rough
Model/Smooth
20
~
~
.e
la
rtl
!il
"
.c:
rtl
10
q=lO kPa
Concrete Pipes
Le hton Buzzard Sand
0
0 5 10 15 20
Displacement (mm)
Figure 7.7 Graph of Shear Stress against DISplacement for Soil/ Concrete
Interface Tests and Concrete Pipes tn Lelghton Buzzard Sand
at a Surface Surcharge of 10 kPa .
20
q=lO kPa
Concrete Pipes
River Sand
15
~.
....e
rtl
10
"=
"
.c:
rtl
5
Lab. Soil/Soil
Lab. SoU/1nl
Model/Rough
Model/Smooth
o~ __ ~ __ ~ ____ ~ __ ~ __ ~ ____ ~ __ ~ __ ~
o 5 10 15 20
Displacement (mm)
Figure 7.8 Graph of Shear Stress against Displacement for Soil/Concrete

Interface Tests and Concrete Pipes In Concrete River Sand
6°rl~------------~========~1
q=50 kPa
Concrete pipes
50 Leighton Buzzard Sand
40
30
20
-a- Lab. Soil/Soil

10 .... Lab. Soil/1nl.
... Model/Con.Rough
-0- Model/Con.Smooth
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacement (mm)
Interface Tests and Concrete Pipes in Leighton Buzzard Sand
50 r---------------------------------------,
q=50 kPa
Concrete Pipes
40 River Sand
30
20
-- Lab. Soil/Soil
10 .... Lab. Soil/1nl.
-- Model/Rough
..... Model/Smooth
o~~~----~--~----~--~
o 5
____ __ ~ ~~~
10 15 20
Displacement (mm)

Interface Tests and Concrete Pipes in Concrete River Sand
2°r-~==========~------------1
q= 10 kPa
Steel Pipes
Lelghton Buzzard Sand
15
10
5
~ Lab.Soil/Soil
.... Lab. Soil/lnt.
.. Model/Steel
o 5 10 15 20
Displacement (mm)
Figure 7.11 Graph of Shear Stress against Displacement for Soil/Steel

Interface Tests and Steel Pipes in Leighton Buzzard Sand
20
q= 10 kPa
Steel Pipes
River Sand
15
'2
p.,
t!
III
III
10
...t::
(/J
"...
.=
(/J
5
~ Lab.Soll/Soll
... Lab. Soll/Int.
.... Model/Steel
o 5 10 15 20
Displacement (mm)

Interface Tests and Steel Pipes in Concrete River Sand
60
q=50 kPa
Steel Pipes
50 Leighton Buzzard Sand
Lab. SoU/SoU
'2 40 Lab. Soil/lnt.
Model/Steel
-:l
~
I /l
30
~
.
<IS
~ 20
<IJ
10
0
0 5 10 15 20
Displacement (mm)

Interface Tests and Steel Pipes In Leighton Buzzard Sand
50r---------------------~~~~
q=50 kPa
Steel Pipes
River Sand
40
-c- Lab. Soil/Soil
.... Lab. Soil/lnt.
30 ..... Model/Steel
20
10
O~~~----~--~--~----~--~----~
o 5 10 15
__ ~
20
Displacement (mm)

Interface Tests and Steel Pipes In Concrete River Sand
30
q=lO kPa
-=..r:t ....."
20 I-
I" .
... '",
A
..:. ..:.
~
""U>
~
U>
r ... ~
A
2! ~
1ii
~
IV
~.
'- - --- - •
"
J:
(/)
10
~
-Q- Rough
~
o ~ I I I I
...
-+-
-,-
Smooth
Steel
I
o 20 40 60 80 100 120
Displacement (mm)
Figure 7.15 The Effect of Pipe Joints and Surface Roughness for Pipes
in Lelghton Buzzard Sand with a Suzface Surcharge of 10 kPa .
30
-0- Rough
q=lO kPa
River Sand -+- Smooth
...... Steel
20
"iO
a.
'"
~
U>
U>
2!
Iii
~
m
.<: 10
(/)
o 20 40 60 80 100 120
Displacement (mm)
in Concrete River Sand with a Suzface Surcharge of 10 kPa .
40
q=50 kPa
..,.
30 I-
( .:...
-.:r
..,.
'I~
""
~
&.
'"
~
., -y
.....
""i!! 20 1-..
1ii
~
~
ca
"
..c:
VI
10
.-
-0- Rough
o I I I I
...
...... Smooth
Steel
o 20 40 60 80 100 120
Displacement (mm)
In Lelghton Buzzard Sand with a Surface Surcharge of 50 kPa .
40
q=50 kPa -0- Rough

River Sand
30
...... Smooth
Steel
~
ca
a.
:.
---
""i!! 20
1ii
~
ca
"
..c:
VI
10
oa-~--~~--~~--~~ __ ~~ __ ~~ __ ~
o 20 40 60 80 100 120
Displacement (mm)
In Concrete River Sand with a Surface Surcharge of 50 kPa .
60
'" -n
If
~
50 f-
P "'" '"
-III
Il.
40 -
.....
"'...,"
.. - ---
~
1
-..
e
(jj
30 - ~
~
T
m
.J:
U)
20 - •
q=100 kPa -0- Rough

10
-+- Smooth
-It- Steel
o I , I , I -'- I
o 20 40 60 80 100 120
Displacement (mm)
In Lelghton Buzzard Sand with a Surface Surcharge of 100 kPa .
60
q=100 kPa -0- Rough

River Sand
50 - -+- Smooth
..... Steel
-"'.,"
III
Il.
40 r
. .. .. -=
"
~
., '"
e
(jj
30 r-?",
~
m
.J:
U)
20 r(
- - - - ----
10
0
o
ri, 20
I
40 60
I I
80
I
100 120
Displacement (mm)
100 ~------------------ ____________________--,
80
60
q=200 kPa -8- Rough

20 Lelghton Buzzard Sand
-+- Smooth
..... Steel
o 20 40 60 80 100 120
Displacement (mm)
In Leighton Buzzard Sand with a Surface Surcharge of 200 kPa .
100
q=200 kPa -Cl- Rough

River Sand
Smooth
80 r- -+-
Steel
-.
c-
---
-"'e''""" 60 _
r:1. -r.tr.l-
.
US
~ 40 _ f '"
~
'" r -
.
20
- 1;1.
n
"i.V
0 , I I I I l I
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Displacement (mm)
Figure 7.22 The Effect of Pipe Jotnts and Surface Roughness for Pipes
lOO
ILelghton Buzzard Sand I
80 Concrete Rough
•'" Concrete Smooth
• steel
~ 60
..
eft
VI
"
...
~
en 40
en"
.cl
20
•
o L-__~__~__~~__~__~__~____L-~
o 50 lOO ISO 200
Surcharge (kPal
Figure 7.23 Graph of Shear Stresses against Surcharge for Rough
and Smooth Jointed Pipes in Lelghton Buzzard Sand.
lOO
IRiver Sand
80 I!I Concrete Rough
• Concrete Smooth .
• Steel
~ 60
~
~
2
..~.
~
en
40
en
20L~~~
.-
o L-__~__- L__~____~__~__~____L-~
o 50 lOO 150 200
Surcharge (kPal
Figure 7.24 Graph of Shear Stresses against Surcharge for Rough

and Smooth Jointed Pipes in Concrete River Sand.
80r---------------------~----~TI
60
III
III
Lelghton Buzzard
"
.t:~
(/JetS 40 Sand
El Lab./Concrete
:a~
"
.=
(/J •
X
Lab./Steel
Lab,/Soi!
20
0 ModeVConcrete
• Model/Steel
o 20 40 60 80 100
Normal Stress
(kPa)
50r-------------------~----~~~
40
III
III
30
River sand
"
,,~
..... etS
(/Jp..
El Lab./Concrete
",!4
etS~
20
"
.=
(/J • Lab./steel
•
0
Lab./Soi!
ModeVConcrete
10
• ModeVSteel
O~~ __L-~__~~__~~__~~~
o 20 40 60 80 100
Normal Stress
(kPa)
Figure 7.25 The Shear Stress-nonnal Stress Relationship

for Laboratory and Model Testing
300
Lelghton Buzzard sand

200 f- --.-
,
\
\\
100 f- \
\ River sand
r:-"., .........................................., 200 kPa
!Actual ...- .........., ........................................ .
values
• Predicted values
"':.. 10 kPa
o . ······r·.~.' .......~ ....... .......1••••••••••••••1
o 2 4 6 8 10
Unifonnity Coefficient
Figure 7.26 The Relationship Between Unifonnity Coefficient

And H Value For Sandy Granular Materials
100
Leighton Buzzard Sand [!I R=O.OOO
Concrete Pipes
• R=0.030
80
•
Q
R=0.064
R=0.140
+ Ew-El
60
c E2-El
X E3-E2
:r
40
20 ~~~~~~:;~~.~::~c;=~X-~x~----------~
If: CC
oL-__~__-L__~____i -__~=C__~__~__~
o 100 200 300 400
Surcharge (kPa)
100
R=O.OO
River Sand
C Concrete Pipes
80 • R=0.030
•
+
R=0.064
Ew-El
C E2-El
60 X E3-E2
40
+
20
X
lI' 0
+.0
0 100 200 300 400
Surcharge (kPa)
b
Figure 7.27 Site Data Plotted on H against Surcharge Graphs

for Case Study 1
20000
om- Practical
15000
....... Theoretical
Z
:.
e"
of 10000
Cl
c
:;;:
..,"
III
5000
O~--~----~--~--~--------~--~--~
o 50 100 150 200
Jacking Distance (m)

Figure 7.28 Jacking forces against distance for Ew-El drive
20000 .-------------------=----,
-G- Practical/P1
-- Practical/P2
15000
-0- TheoreticaVP 1
-0- Theoretical/P2
10000
5000
50 100 150 200

Figure 7.29 Jacking forces against distance for E2-El drive
40000
-a- Practical
~ - - Theoretical
z 30000
:.
e"
of 20000
Cl
c
:;;:
..,"
III 10000
0
0 100 200 300 400
Figure 7.30 Jacking forces against distance for E3-E2 drive

CL.
Jacked
2m Pipeline
Direction
4m
6m
Bm
>> >
> >
>
Figure 7.31 The Geological Strata In the Vlclnlly of the Pipe Jack on Ml·Al Link
10000 . . . - - - - - -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--,
Actual D=4m
8000 Theoretical
eZ., 6000
~ Toe of Emb.
~
'"
c:
32
4000
~ D=lm
_ _ _ Top of Emb.
2000
Toe of Emb.
o~-~--~-~--~-~--~-~-~
o 20 40 60 80
Figure 7.32 Companson between the Theoretical and Actual Values

of Jacking Force for the MI-Al Link
O~~~~ __- L_ _- L__ ~ __~~__- L__~__~
o 50 100 150 200 250
Figure 7.33 The compaIison between the Japanese and Loughborough Method
12000
-0- Weber'1=3.0kN/m2
10000
...
~
~
Weber'2=8.3kN/m2
Weber'3=13.6kN/m2
L.Ml=3.7kN/m2
8000
I::'0" --- L.M2=43.lkN/m2

-0- L.M3=67.0kN/m2
~~ 6000
~~
~
'") 4000
o 50 100 150
External Surface of Pipes (square metre)
Figure 7.34 The CompaIison between Weber's Method

and the Loughborough Method
I l7m 26m l7m
t
lOm
~~~~~~~5m
1
f Jacking
pit
f
Ground Level
IC'C(cc',',(,d Om Top soil
Gravelly
Sand
Groul!c!. ~e::el !l~ j..a~~g pit
1O.Om
t
5.Om
y =18 kN/m 3
c=O
 =40
0
(compacted) Sandy
Gravel
1 0
Figure 7.35 Pipe Jacking Data for Case Study Reported In Section 7.5.3.4
100
/ Lelghton Buzzard Sand
Herzo g/
/ Concrete Pipes
t:J A=O.OOO
80 ~ • A=0.030
/
/ •<> A=0.064
R=0.140
j. X Ml-A1
60 / + Japanese
/ A Herzog
40 /
/
20
I ............-.................... , ..................1:.... I
.••.•••••••-1---.............."' •.••••••••.••••••• _.. •..-••••-••••-.. -....---•••-••••-...-•••
.__...._..0+-
- .
=~ ......X_...........
X
.••••••• 2S........ __ ..·.·,·····-··········-··
'",
MI·AI
Japanese
o
o 100 200 300 400
Surcharge (kPa)
Figure 7.36 The Relationship between the Loughborogh Method's H Value and Surcharge
for the Lelghton Buzzard Sand In Comparison with the Practical Data
100
I El R=O.OO River Sand

Concrete Pipes
I • R=0.030
80 ;i I R=O.064
/ X M1-A1
4- + Japanese
,
Herzog /
60
/ Herzog
x
/
I
/
40
/
f
20
-.- . _ _.L_~~:~:~:~"---'-J:--'-
o
o 100 200 300 400
Surcharge (kPa)
Figure 7.37 The Relationship between the Loughborough Method's H value and Surcharge
for River Sand In Comparison with the Practical Data
Chapter 8 Conclusions and Future Work
CHAPTER EIGHT
8 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
8.1 INTRODUCTION
8.2 JACKING FORCES
8.3 THE EFFECT OF OVERCUT RATIO
8.4 PIPE/SOIL INTERFACE AND JACKING FORCES
8.5 PIPE JOINTS
8.6 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK
223
ChapterS Conclusions and Future Work
8 CONCLUSIONS ANP FUTURE WORK
8.1 INTRODUCTION
A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted and the need for an
understanding of the behaviour of jacking forces under different influencing
parameters using scale model testing was established. A scale model test facility has
been developed, together with appropriate experimental procedures to test the scale
model steel and concrete jacking pipes manufactured to simulate those used in
practice.
8.2 JACKING FORCES
Based on the results of this research, it was found that the jacking forces are
influenced by a number of parameters. These include the overburden pressure,
overcut ratio, pipe diameter, jacking length and the influence of the surroundiIig
material. This was fully demonstrated by establishing an equation for calculating the
jacking forces. The equation is denoted the Loughborough Method and is given by
F=H1tBL
Factor H is obtained from the relationships between various parameters which were
established from the scale model testing during this research. It must be stressed that
this equation is most suitable for cohesionless, rather than the cohesive, soils as a
result·. of its genesis. Funher research is required in order to define H for different
224
Chapter 8 Conclusions and Futw"e Work
(in tenns of particle size, size distribution and particle shape and roughness) granular
soils and to detennine H for cohesive soils to enable the Loughborough Method to
predict the jacking forces for most practical cases.
By comparing the jacking forces reported herein with previous research and existing
theories, the following may be concluded:
1. The results have shown a linear relationship between the jacking forces and the
overburden pressure, and the rate at which the jacking forces increase is dependent
on the soil surrounding the pipeline and the type of pipe surface. It was found that
the jacking forces in the angular, single sized Leighton Buzzard sand are 1.5 to 2.0
and 1.3 to 2.0 times greater than the rounded, well-graded river sand for concrete
and steel pipes respectively. The difference in the results exhibits a similarity in
trend with the empirical values given in Craig (1983), and the jacking resistance
values reported by Herzog (1985) .
2. The empirical values of the jacking resistance given by Craig (1983) are
apparently conservative. Loughborough values have shown the frictional resistance
for wet sand to lie in a range of 8.5 to 13.5 kN/m2 for an overburden pressure of
100 and 200 kPa respectively, compared with empirical values of 10 to15 kN/m2 .
Thus good agreement exists here. The medium dense dry sand used during testing
produced frictional forces of 16.0 to 28.5 kN/m2 for 100 and 200 kPa overburden,
compared with empirical values of 15 to 45 kN/m2 for a loose dry sand. It is
appreciated, however, that loose dry sand would be subject to collapse settlement,
and thus a breakdown of any arching in the material would occur raising the forces
accordingly.
225
3. A linear relationship has been established between the jacking forces and the
jacking distance. This has provided the frictional resistance (kN/m) per metre length
as shown in Table 7.6 . The rate of increase of jacking forces with distance shows a
good agreement when compared with the Japanese method reported by Stein et al
(1990), as has been illustrated in Section 7.5.3.3 .
8.3 OVERCUT RATIO
Little investigation has been carried out on the effect of overcut ratio on jacking
forces until the commencement of this research work. Its influence on the magnitude
of the jacking forces is demonstrated by a series of test results ,shown in Figure
6.11 and described in Sections 6.4.2 and 7.3.1. The following conclusions can be
drawn from this investigation:
1. The results for both concrete and steel pipes showed that the forces reduce to a
minimum at an overcut ratio of approximately 0.04 in both types of sands at a
typical overburden pressure of 100 kPa, although at 200 kPa the values reduced still
further at an overcut ratio of approximately 0.05 . The scale effects of particle size
should be taken into consideration when translating the results to practice, although
the indications of other scale model studies are that the influence of particle size is
small. It should be noted that exaggerated overcut ratios were used in this research
project and that better definitions of the minima could be achieved by studying values
of overcut less than 0.030 .
226
2. The effect of the overcut ratio on the jacking forces may be applied to the
Loughborough Method as a percentage factor, determined from the results shown in
Figure 6.11 . Table 8.1 provides a guideline for the overcut ratio percentages that are
used in the Loughborough Method to predict jacking resistances where overcut is
applied during the jacking operation . It should be noted that these values are
necessarily approximate due to the imprecise definition of the curve, but nevertheless
they provide the first information of this kind in the public domain. The values for
an overburden pressure of 10 kPa have not been included since the sand surface was
unconfined and the results are thus likely to be misleading ~
3. The application of the overcut ratio percentage factors to the calculated jacking
forces values, using the Loughborough Method in conjunction with Figure 7.3,
showed good agreement with measured jacking forces in practice, as shown in
Section 7.5 . Therefore variation in overcut ratios in practice to considerably reduce
jacking resistance could thus be considered where surface settlement is not critical.
227
Table 8.1 Overcut Ratio percentage

Overcut Ratio Overburden Pressure
% q=100 kPa q=200 kPa
0.000 0 0
0.005 77 73
0.010 60 54
0.015 47 38
0.020 40 29
0.025 33 25
0.030 31 23
0.035 30 22
0.040 30 22
0.045 30 21
0.050 30 19
a- Lelghton Buzzard sand
Overcut Ratio Overburden Pressure

% q=100 kPa q=200 kPa
0.000 0 0
0.005 95 88
0.010 89 76
0.015 84 68
0.020 82 62
0.025 78 56
0.030 77 52
0.035 76 49
0.040 75 48
0.045 75 44
0.050 75 41
b- River sand
228
8.4 PIPE/SOIL INTERFACE AND JACKING FORCES
Laboratory tests were carried out to detennine the effect of the pipe/soil interface on
the jacking forces, using· shear box.· tests between the soil and pipeline surface.
Craig (1983) concluded that in granular soils the shear plane lies between the soil
particles and the pipeline surface, while in cohesive ground it may well be 5 to
10mm from the pipe/soil interface. The results of this work confmned the fonner
statement, the following conclusion being reached.
1. The worst possible values were obtained when the pipeline was in full contact
soil,
with the surrounding"and where no facility for dilation prior to shearing was present
(excepting that at the face during excavation) as in the case of zero overcut
ratio. The steel interface with both types of soil shows a decrease of 60% when
compared with the concrete interface.
2. The angle of frictional resistance between the pipeline and the surrounding soil is
approximately 0.3 to 0.5 times the internal angle of friction of the soil. This has
been accounted for by the Kt value from the relationship shown in Figure 7.1 .
3. The jacking force per unit surface area of pipe, denoted H, can be determined for
cohesionless soils from Figure 7.3 . The value of H may then be used to predict
jacking forces using the Loughborough Method. It appears that the H value can be
estimated from this relationship with reasonable accuracy if the U nifonnity

Coefficient of the cohesionless soil is known, although further research into this
relationship is necessary .
229
8.5 PIPE JOINTS
The type of joints between jacking pipes has a considemble influence on the jacking
forces for a jacked pipeline. This research has shown that the rough joints of the
concrete pipeline produced forces that were approximately 65% greater than the
smooth types, for both types of sand. This was well-demonstrated for an overcut
ratio of zero, where full surface contact exists between the pipeline and the
undisturbed surrounding soil. The resistance is generated from the disturbance of
the soil mass surrounding the pipeline as the joints move forwards, attributed to
small zones of bearing failure around each joint, which effectively force the shear
plane at these points into the soil body. Table 7.7 presents the magnitude of jacking
force that is needed to overcome the resistance per metre run for both smooth and
rough joints in both sands.
It can thus be concluded that the type of the joints in a pipeline contribute
significantly to the magnitude of the resistance between the pipeline and the
surrounding soil. Further research may be required to establish the extent of the
effect of the type of joints on the frictional resistance.
230
8.6 RECOMMENDATIONSFOR FUTURE WORK
The basic philosophy of the scale model testing was to identify the factors that
influence pipe jacking forces in sand and detennine their relative contributions. This
enabled a predictive equation to be developed. As with any project, the research
work acts as a feasibility study for any further model testing on pipe jacking, and the
equipment development and experimental procedures described herein should be
considered carefully.
The test results show an interesting relationship between the Loughborough

Method's constants, in particular the H value, with the overcut ratio and uniformity
coefficient of each type of sand. The re-analysis of the case studies compared well
with the theoretical work as presented in Figures 7.27,7.36 and 7.37 and show that
the H values lie in the lowerbound region without taking into account the actual
overcut ratio. Therefore, further investigation is required to predict the lowerbound
line of R in Figure 7.3 . As different granular materials have different uniformity
coefficients, it is therefore necessary to establish a precise relationship between the H
value and the uniformity coefficient. Such research will provide a more accurate
method of estimating the H values and hence the jacking forces. It will also be
useful to research into various types of gravels to establish their frictional resistance
and the behaviour of the Loughborough constants . Similar research can be
conducted using cohesive soils consolidated from a slurry as a jacking medium.
Different types of clays can be used to establish their constants and perhaps to
examine the validity of Loughborough Method for cohesive soils, where 'stand up'
effects will be important . In addition, study into correlating site data with
experimental work will be essential if the site material is well-characterised.
231
Further development of methods of establishing the granular friction characteristics
of soils in the laboratory is important for estimating the jacking forces, both as
soil/soil friction and more importantly, soil/pipeline interface friction. Such
development, perhaps, will concern a cylinderical concrete or steel section of pipe
pushed into a granular medium in a manner similar to the direct shear test. The
adoption of a method of pushing a small concrete pipe or cone horizontally into
cohesive material may be used to establish the laboratory frictional magnitude

soil
between cohesive"and the pipeline, although the interface resistance in practice will
depend on (negative) porewater pressures and hence the propensity for soil
collapse. Different types of pipe surfaces with various skin friction characteristics
can be used. Also field testing is important, and it is suggested that the development
of special cone testing for pipe jacking could be adopted, in which a cone with a (for
example) concrete coated sleeve would be driven into the ground, possibly after
driving the cone on its own. Concrete friction can then be establish as a skin friction
and used for calculating the jacking forces. It is important to take into account the
verticality effects on the results. Joints can be added to the concrete sleeve to
simulate the joint effects on the skin friction. A study of the differences of carrying
out such a test using horizontal driving rather than vertical driving could also be
conducted.
of
Research into reduction'the jacking forces should be conducted to study the effects
of lubrication on the soil/pipeline interface and the bouyancy of the pipeline. Type,
quantity and injected pressure of a lubricant slurry may be studied to establish the
most efficient and economic method. As another form of reducing the jacking
forces, the development of special pipe coatings that would lower the interface
232
friction as the pipeline is jacked forwards could be considered. Further study on the
use of plastic sheething as described by Tohyama and Koiwa (1987), can also be
carried out. Research on the joint details is needed to establish the most practical, yet.
least frictional resistant, type. Using of a plastic covering or special kind of sealant
rubber, or even possibly a hard lubricant material around pipe joints, could be
considered.
Although adventurous, the idea of using air as a lubricant should be considered.
Although it may be difficult to adopt in practice, it is worth persuing such research

by using a thin air bag covering the surface area of the pipeline and then inflating it
using compressed air as the pipeline is progressed forwards. The air bag must be
durable to withstand the frictional, or drag, forces. The air bag can be possibly fed
in front from the leading pipe and extended as corrugated plastic bag. The gap
generated by the air gap can then be backfilled with bentonite to reduce surface
settlement. This technique may be best suited to cohesive soils to maintain the void
created during excavation.
The rate of jacking can be investigated to establish its effect on the jacking forces,
especially in cohesive material as it has shown little importance on the granular

materials.
Finally, it can be concluded that this problem is suitable for further acadarnic study.
Direct practical application of the results achieved so far is feasible and further
research work is likely to contribute significantly to greater economic and
engineering benefits of pipe jacking operations, and consequently provide for better
engineering design for on site pipe jacking operations.
233
References
REFERENCES
AKESAKA T and ROOKE A, (1985), " Developement Of The Iseki Telemole And
Telemouse And Their Application To Trenchless Pipelying", Trenchless
Construction for Utilities, Proceeding of the First international Conference, IPHE,
London, No-Dig. 85, April, pp 182-191 .
ANON, (1981), "Long Distance Driving Method For Ductile Cast Iron Pipe", Water
Services, October, PP 516-522 .
AKROYD TNW, (1964), "Laboratory Testing in Soil Engineering", Soil Mechanics

Ltd., London .
ATKINSON JH, CAIRNCROSS AM and JAMES RG, (1974), "Model Tests On

Shallow Tunnels In Sand And Clay", Tunnels And Tunnelling, Vo1.6, July, PP
28-32.
ATKINSON JH and POTTS DM, (1977A), "Stability Of A Shallow Circular

Tunnel In Cohesionless Soil", Geotechnique 27, No.2, PP 203-215.
ATKINSON JH and POTTS DM, (1977B), "Subsidence Above Shallow Tunnels

In Soft Ground", Journal Of The Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,
VoU 03,April .
ATKINSON JH and BRANSBY PL, (1978), "The Mechanics of Soils: An

Introduction to Critical State Soil Mechanics", McGraw-Hill , UK .
ATTEWELL PB, YEATES J and SELBY AR, (1986), "Soil Movement Induced
By Tunnelling And Their Effects On Pipelines And Structures", BIackie and Son
Ltd. Glasgow.
AULD FA, (1982), "Determination Of Pipe Jacking Loads" Renewing Our Sewege
Infrastructure, Pipe Jacking Association Conference, London.
234
References
BASU NK, (1973), "Pipe Jacking: A Technique for Soft Ground Tunnelling",
Indian Concrete Journal, Vol.47, No.9, September, PP 328-334.
BEAVER P, (1972), "A History Of Tunnels", Peter Davies, London.
BELL FG, (1983), "Engineering Properties of Soils and Rocks", Butterworths,

London.
BEAUMONT TC, (1989), "UK Experience And Developments Of The Witte

Microtunnelling Machines", Proceedingsof the Fourth International Conference on
Trenchless Construction, No-Dig 89, London.
BISHOP AW and HENKEL DJ, (1962), "The Measurement of Soil Properties in

the Triaxial Test" Edward Arno1d, Second Edition, London.
BOARDMAN FW, (1960), "Tunnels", Henry Walck Inc. NewYork .
BOLTON M, (1979), "A Guide To Soil Mechanics", The MacMillan Press Ltd,
Bristol.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION, (1984), BS 5911, Part 3, "Guide To The

Planning, Design And Construction Of Sewers In Tunnel", Part 4, Concrete Jacking
Pipes.
*
BROMS Band BENNERMARK H, (1967), "Stability Of Clay At Vertical
Openings", Journal Of The Soil Mechanics And Foundation Division, Proceeding.;
Of The American Society Of Civil Engineers, Vol.93, January.
CAIRNCROSS AM, (1973), "Deformation around Model Tunnels in Stiff Clay",

PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge.
CHAPMAN D.and ROGERS CDF, (1991), "Ground Movement Associated with

Trenchless Pipelaying" Proceedings of the 4th International conference on Ground
Movements and Structures, Cardiff, July, PP 6.1-6.17.
* BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION, (1975), BS 1377, Part 4, "Methods of

Test for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes"
235
References
CLARKSON TE and ROPKINS JW, (1977), "Pipe Jacking Applied To Large

Structures", Proceedings Of Institution Of Civil Engineering, Part 1, Vo1.62,
November, PP 539-561 .
CLARKSON TE and THOMSON JC, (1983), "Pipe Jacking: State·Of-The Art In

The U.K And Europe", Journal Of Transportation Engineering, ASCE , Vol.109,
No.l, January, PP 57-72.
COLE ERL, (1967), "The behaviour of Soils in The Simple Shear Apparatus" PhD
Thesis, University of Cambridge.
CRAIG RN, (1983), "Pipe Jacking -A-State-Of-Art Review" CIRIA , Technical

Note 112.
DAVIS EH, GUNN MJ, MAIR RJ and SENEVIRATNE HN, (1980), "The
Stability Of Shallow Tunnels And Underground Opening In Cohesive Material",
Geotechnique 30, NoA, PP 397-416.
DOWNEY DB, (1984), "Pipe Jacking in Japan" International Conference on the

Planning, Construction, Maintance and Operation of Sewerage systems, BHRA,
Cranfield, 12-14 September, PP 305 - 316 .
DRENNON CB, (1979), "Pipe Jacking: State-Of-The-Art" Journal Of The

Construction Division, ASCE, VoI.10S, September, PP 217- 223 .
ELVIGE AF, (1987), "The Potential for Microtunnelling in the UK", No-Dig 87,
2nd International Conference and Exhibition on Trenchless Construction for
Utilities, April, London, pp 5.2.
ETHERTON PT, (1985), "Development of Impact Moling Techniques in the

UK:Design, Use and Cost Consideration", No-Dig 85, Trenchless Construction for
Utilities, Proceedingsof the First international Conference, IPHE, London, April,
pp99-108.
FLAXMAN EW, (1985), "Concluding Address; The Way Ahead", No-Dig 85,
Trenchless Construction for Utilities, Proceeding of the First international
236
References
Conference, IPHE, London, April, pp308-315 .
FLAXMAN EW, (1993), "Trenchless into the 21st Century", Proceedingsof the
Tenth International Conference on Trenchless Technology, No-Dig 93,
Birmingham, pp C1.l-C1.4 .
FRY PAC and TWAITS AR, (1985), "Tunnel Jacking-The New Alternative",
Municipal Engineering, 2 February, pp 23 - 35 .
GLENNIE EB and REED K, (1985), "Social Costs: Trenchless V Trenching",

No-Dig 85, Trenchless Construction for Utilities, Proceedings of the First
international Conference, IPHE, London, April, pp81-89.
GREEN C and WOOD J, (1987), "Current Research into the Social Cost of
Sewerage System", No-Dig 87, 2nd International Conference and Exhibition on
Trenchless Construction for Utilities, April, London, pp 5.3 .
HAIR ID and SHIERS GE, (1985). "Directionally-Controlled Drilling for

Pipelines", No-Dig 85, Trenchless Construction for Utilities, Proceedingsof the First
international Conference, IPHE, London, pp 160-166 .
HARDING PG, (1981), "Introducing the Teiemole, an Innovation from Japan"

Tunnels and Tunnelling, Vol.1March, Part 13, No.2, pp26-30 .
HASLEM RF, (1983), "Ground Resistance Forces During Tunnelling By Pipe

Jacking" Internal paper, Liverpool Polytechnic, Dept. Of Civil and Building
Engineering, PP 173 - 180 .
HASLEM R.F, (1986), "Pipe Jacking Forces: From Practice To Theory" The
CeItenary Conference, N.W Association of the LC.E, Manchester, April .
*
HERZOG M, (1985), "Die Pressenkraft! bei schild vortriebeund Rohrvorpressung
im Lokkergestein" BMT, Issue 6, PP 236-238.
HOUGH CM, (1978), "Pipe Jacking", Water Services, November, PP 741-745.
* Refer to Page 239 for Hayashi M and Miyata Y (1989) .

237
References
HOUGH CM, (1986), "Progress in Pipe Jacking Standards", Pipe jacking

conference, International press centre, 22 October, London.
HUGHES JMO, WROTH CP and WIND LE D, (1977), " Pressuremeter Tests in

Sands", Geotechnique 27, No. 4, PP 455-477 .
INGOLD TS and THOMSON JC, (1989), "Site Investigation Related to Trenchless

Techniques", proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Trenchless
Construction, No-Dig 89, London.
IRVINE DJ, (1985), "The Comparative Costs Of Some Methods Of Trenchless

Construction", No-Dig 85, Trenchless Construction for Utilities, Proceeding of the
First international Conference, IPHE, London, April, pp74-80 .
JONES MB, (1987), "Trenchless Systems Gain Wider Acceptance", Civil

Engineering, October.
KRAEMER-WASSERKA T, (1987), "Small Bore Pipe Jacking", No-Dig 87, 2nd

International Conference and Exhibition on Trenchless Construction for Utilities,
April, London, pp 3.1 .
KUHNHANN K, (1977), "Neue Ansatze Zur Ermittlung der pressenkraft fur

Schildevortriebe", Stuva-Tagung, Forschung + praxis H21, PP 55-61 .
KUNTZE E, (1985), "MicIPtunnelling in Germany", No-Dig 85, Trenchless

Construction for Utilities, Proceeding;of the First international Conference, IPHE,
London, April, pp 176-181 .
MAIR RI, (1979), "Centrifugal Modelling of Tunnel Construction in Soft Clay" ,
PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge.
MANLOW T, (1984), "Adoptable Shields For Integrated System", TunnelsAnd

Tunnelling, Small-Bore Tunnelling And Pipe Jacking Supplement, October.
238
References
HAYASm M and MIYATA Y, (1989), "Okumura-Markham Super Mini Shield

Tunnelling Method" Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on
Trenchless Construction, No-Dig 89, London.
MILLIGAN GWE, (1986), "Current Research in Pipe Jacking", Pipe Jacking

Conference, International Press Centre, London, 22 October.
MILLIGAN GWE and RIPLEY KJ, (1989), "Packing Material in Jacked Pipe
Joints", Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Trenchless
Construction, No-Dig 89, London.
MOSS AF, (1989), "Microtunnelling For Contractors", Proceedings of the Fourth

International Conference on Trenchless Construction, No-Dig 89, London.
MUIRWOOD AM, (1975), "The Circular Tunnel In Elastic Ground", Geotechnique

25, No.l, PP 115 - 127 .
MUNRO AG and McMURDIE WD, (1985), "Auger boring for Pipeline

Construction", No-Dig 85, Trenchless Construction for Utilities, Proceeding of the
First international Conference, IPHE, London, April, pp 109-117 .
NCE (1986), 20 November, Published by Thomas Telford, PP 12 .
NEWMAN A, (1986), "The Economics Of Non-Distruptive Construction", Pipe

Jacking Conference, International Press Centre, London, 22 October.
NOMURA Y et al, (1985), "Pipe Jacking Method For Long Curve Construction",
Journal Of Construction Engineering And Management, VoUll, No.2 , June, PP
138 - 148 .
NORRIS P , (1993), "The Behaviour of Jacked Concrete Pipes during Site

Installation" ,DPhUThesis, Oxford University, Oxford (Unpublished).
NORRIS P and MILLIGAN GWE, (1992A), "Frictional Resistance of Jacked

Concrete Pipes at FuU Scale", Proceeding>of International Conference on Trenchless
239
References
Construction, No-Dig 92, Paris, PP 121-128 .
NORRIS P and MILLIOAN OWE, (1992B), "Pipe End Load Transfer

Mechanisims During Pipe Jacking", Proceeding;of the 8th International Conference
on Trenchless Technology, No-Dig 92, Washington.
O'REILLY A, FROST PR and PLANT JW, (1986), "Lecture Given To Sensor

Engineers Of The Water Council At Derby", Thrustbore Construction Ltd.
O'REILLY MP and ROGERS CDF, (1987), "Pipe Jacking Forces", Foundations

and Tunnels, Goldsmiths College, London, March, PP 201 - 208 .
PARRY R, (1978), "Pipe Jacking As An Alternative To Shield Tunnelling", M&H

Tunnel And Civil Engineering Ltd .
PECK RB, (1969), "Deep Excavation and Tunnelling in Soft Ground", Proceeding
of the Seventh International Conference On Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Mexico City, Mexico, pp 225-290.
PHILLIPS SHE, (1985), "Tunnel And Bridge Construction With Minimum

Disturbance To Overhead Services", Infrastructure Rehabilitation, Construction with
Minimum Disturbance, pp 172-183.
PIPE JACKING ASSOCIATION, (1980), Jacking Concrete Pipes, Design And

Specification Bulletin, No. 1.
, POOLE AG, ROBROOK RB and REYNOLDS JH, (1985), "Replacement of

Small-Diameter Pipes by Pipe Bursting", No-Dig 85, Trenchless Construction for
Utilities, Proceedings of the First international Conference, IPHE, London, April,
ppI47-159.
RICHARDSON M and SCRUBY J, (1981), "Earthworm Systems will Threaten

Conventional Tunnel Jacking", Tunnels and Tunnelling, April, PP 29-32.
ROGERS CDF, O'REILLY MP and ATKIN R, (1989A); "Predition of Pipe

Jacking Forc~ Based On Site Observation", Foundations and Tunnels - 89,
240
References
September, London.
ROGERS CDF, O'REILLY MP and ATKIN R, (1989B), "Pipe Jacking Beneath

BurnhamOn-Sea: A Case History", Foundationsand Tunnels - 89, September,
London, PP 37-41 .
ROGERS CDF and YONAN SJ, (1992), "Experimental Study of a Jacked pipeline
in Sand" Tunnels and Tunnelling, June, PP 35-38 .
SANDSTROM GE, (1963), "The History Of Tunnelling", Barrie and Rocklift,

London.
SCHERLE M, (1977), "Rohrvortrieb Part i: Bauverlag, WiesbadenlBerlin .

STEIN D and BIELECKI R, (1984),"Service Tunnel Construction in West
Germany", Small-bore Tunnelling and Pipe Jacking: Supplement to Tunnels and
Tunnelling, October, PP 8 .
STEIN D, KIPP Band BIELECKI R, (1985/86), "Small Jacking Pipes For

Sewers", Microtunnelling, YoU, Winter, pp 17 -18.
STEIN D and KIPP B, (1985), "Pipe Jacking For Sewer Pipeline Of Less Than
800mm Diameter. Current State Of Development And Future Trend", Vo1.26,
Tiefean Ingernieubau Strassenbun, Part7, July.
MOLERSK
STEIN D, - A and BIELECKI R, (1990), "Microtunnelling: Installation and
Renewal of Nonman-Size Supply and Se~Cge Lines by Trenchless Construction
Method", Verlag furArchitektur, Und Technische Wissenschaften, Berlin.
SULINSKI SJ, (1972), "The Jacking Method In Tunnel Construction", Proceedings

Conference
Of The 1st North AmericJan Rapid Excavation And Tunnelhnt, American Inst. Of
~
Mining Metallurgical & Petrolum Engineering, Chicago, Vol.3, June.
SZCZUPAK JR, (1989), "Horizontal Directional Drilling applications" ,

Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Trenchless Construction ,
241
References
No-Dig 89, London.
SZECHY K, (1966), "The Art Of Tunnelling", Akademiai kiado , Budapest,

published by Tankonyvkiado, Budapest.
TAKADA T , (1987), "A Case Study Of Long Distance Jacking With Glass
Reinforced Concrete Pipes" No-Dig 87, 2nd International Conference and
Exhibition on Trenchless Construction for Utilities, April, London, pp 3.4 .
TERZAGffi K, (1943/59), "Theoretical Soil Mechanics", 9th Edition, John

WiIey&sons, NewYork.
THOMSON JC, (1967), "Horizontal Earth Boring", Proceedings Of Institution Of

Civil Engineers, PP 819 - 835 .
THOMSON JC,(1982), "What's Going On Around The World-A Look A Pipe

Jacking Activities Around The World", Renewing Our Sewerage Infrastructure,
Pipe Jacking Association, Conference.
THOMSON JC, (1985A), "Trenchless Developments Spark World Scrutiny",

World Construction, November, PP 59 - 64.
THOMSON JC, (1985B), "The Size of the Market" No-Dig 85, Trenchless
Construction for Utilities, Proceeding;of the First international Conference, IPHE,
London, April, pp9-18 .
THOMSON JC, (1987), "Trenchless Pipelaying Applications and Market" No-Dig

87, 2nd International Conference and Exhibition on Trenchless Construction for
Utilities, April, London, pp 1.1 .
TOHYAMA Sand KOIWAS, (1987)," Pipe Jacking With The Use Of Membrane
Wrapping", No-Dig 87, 2nd International Conference and Exhibition on Trenchless
Construction for Utilities, April, London, pp 3.2 .
242
References
TURNER, (1978), "Pipelines Installed without Trenching" World Construction,

Feburary, PP 46-48 .
WASHBOURNE J, (1982), "Sliding Resistance Of Jacked Tunnelling", Tunnels &

Tunnelling, vol. 14, part 10, November, PP 17 -18.
WASHBOURNE J, (1984A), "Mechanicsed Pipe Jacking As A Method Of Sewer

Construction", International Conf. On The Planning, ConstructiOIy\1aintenanceAnd
Operation Of Sewerage Systems, British Hydraulic Research Association, Reading,
September, PP 289 - 304 .
WASHBOURNE J, (1984B), "Slurry Lubrication For Jacked Tunnel Linings",

Civil Engineering Technology, February, PP 7 - 9.
WASHBOURNE J, (1985), "Development Of Mechanised Pipe Jacking In The

United Kingdom", ProceedingsOf The 4th .International Symposium)Tunnelling '85 ,
Inst. Of Mining And Metallurgy.- Edited By MJ Jones, March. '.:
WASHBOURNE J, (1986), "The Use of Thixotropic Slurries in the tunnelling

Industry", Ground Engineering, Vol.19, No. 2, March, pp 33-36 .
WEBER W, (1981), "Experimentelle Untersuchungen in rolligen Boden zur

Dimensionierung von Prebbohranlagen" Dissertation, Wissenschaftlicher Bericht
aus der Arbeit des Institutes fur Baumaschinen und Baubetrieb der
Rheinisch-Westfalisch Technischen Hochschule Aachen, RWTH Aachen .
243
Bibliography
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ATKINSON JH and MAIR RJ, (1981), "Soil Mechanics Aspects Of Soft Ground
Tunnelling", Ground Engineering, No. 5, July, pp 20-28 .
ATKINSON J.H and MAIR R.J, (1983),"Loads On Leaking And Watertight

Tunnel Linings, Sewers And Buried Pipes Due To Ground Water", Technical Note,
Geotechnique, No. 3, Sept. PP 341-344 .
CLARK JL, GARAS FK and ARMER GST, (1984), "Design Of Concrete

Structures. The Use Of Model Analysis", Based On Proccedings Of An International
Seminar Organised By The Institution Of Structural Engineers" November.
CLARK JI and MEYERHUF GC, (1972), "The Behaviour Of Piles Driven In
Clay", Part. 1 An Investigation Of Soil Stress And Pore Water Pressure As Related
To Soil Properties. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 9 .
COLE M, (1986), "2.1m Diameter pipe Jack At Greenwich", Pipe Jacking

Conference 1986, International Press Centre, London, 22 October.
COLE JM, REID R, HOUGH CM and THORNTON G, (1977), "Pipe Jacking

Case Histories", Tunnel and Tunnelling, Vo1.9, No.4, July.
CORDING EJ and HANSMIRE WH, (1975), "Displacement Around Soft Ground

Tunnels", General Report Session 5 Tunnels In Soil, 5th Pan.Amer.Conf.Soil
Mechanics, Buenos Aires.
244
Bibliography
CRAIG RF, (1974), "Soil Mechanics", Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Ltd.
DADSON J, (1984), "Mini Mechanised PipeJacking", New Civil Engineer, 12
April.
DAVID FW and NOLLE, H, (1982), "Experimental Modelling In Engineering", 1st
Edition, Butterworths , London.
FROST P, (1982), "What Will Tomorrow Bring ?", Renewing Our Sewerage
Infrastructure, Pipe Jacking Association, Conference.
FOLLET K, (1986), "Dartford Central Area Foul Water Drainage Scheme", Pipe
Jacking Conference, international Press Centre, London 22 October.
FULLALOVE S, (1983), "Hydraulics Boost Pipe Jacking", New Civil Engineer,
24 November.
GULLEN RM and DONALD IB, (1971), "Residual Strength Determination In
Direct Shear", Proceeding 1st Aust-NewZealand Conf. Of Geotechnics.
HARDING H, (1975), "Simplicity Pays off in Soft-Ground Tunnelling", New Civil
Engineer, Special Supplement, 12 June.
HOUGH CM, (1982), "Principles Of Pipe Tunnelling Design- The Six Basic
Questions To Ask When Considering Pipe Jack/Segmental Tunnel Design",
Renewing Our Infrastructure,Pipe Jacking Association Conference.
245
BtblfDgraphy
HUNT M, (1978), "Pipe Jacking The Habrurg Sewer", Tunnels And Tunnelling,
Vol. 10, Part 6, July/ August.
KIRKLAND C, (1982), "The Need For Strength", Renewing our Sewerage
Infrastructure Pipe Jacking Association Conference, Lecture 3.2.
LANZ B, (1973A), "Pipe Jacking" ,Tunnels And Tunnelling, Vol.5, March.
LANZ B, (1973B), "Disscusion", On Pipe Jacking, Tunnels And Tunnelling,

Vol.5, March.
LEENEY J, (1979), "The Case History For Tunnel Jacking", Tunnels And
Tunnelling, Vol. 11, No.!, Jan/Feb, PP 39 - 42 .
LEONARD CAPPER P and FISHER CASSIE W, (1976), "The Mechanics Of

Engineering Soil", Sixth Edition, E & F.N Spon Ltd. London.
MARKS P, (1975), "Pipe Jacking Presses On", New Civil Engineer, Special
Supplement, 12 June.
MEGA W TM and BARTLETT JV, (1981), "Tunnels, Planning Design,

Construction", VoU, Ellis Horwood Ltd. Chichester, G.B 1981 .
MUIRWOOD A, (1975), "U.K Must Act To Retain Its Lead", New Civil Engineer,
Special Supplement, 12 June.
246
Bibliography
MUSSO G, (1979), "Jacked Pipe Provides Roof For Underground Construction in
Busy Urban Area", Civil Engineering, ASCE, November, PP 79 - 82.
O'REILLY A, (1986), "Specification For Pipe Jacking", Pipe Jacking Conference,
International Press Centre, London, 22 October.
O'ROURKE ID (1985),"Ground Movements Caused By Trenchless Construction",

No-Dig 85, Trenchless Construction for Utilities, Proceeding of the First
international Conference, IPHE, London, April, pp 51-63 .
PALEMEIRA EM and MILLIGAN GWE, (1989), "Scale and Other Factors

Affecting the Results of Pull-out Tests of Grids Burried in Sand", Geotechnique,
Vo1.39, No.3, pp511-524.
PARRY R, (1982), "Mechanical Pipe Jacking And Other Developments", Renewing

Our Sewerage Infrastructure, Pipe Jacking Association, Conf.erence.
PIPE JACKING CASE HISTORIES, (1977), Tunnels and Tunnelling, August, PP

91-94 .
READ GF, (1982), "The State Of Britain's Sewer Network", Renewing Our
Sewerage Infrastructure, Pipe Jacking Association, Conference.
READ G, (1984), "Sewer Work Underway", Civil Engineering, June.
247
Bibliography
READ G, (1986), "New Construction Trechniques In Sewers", Civil Engineering

Journal, October.
REES DF, (1973), "Small Size Tunnels", Tunnels And Tunnelling, Vo1.5, March.
REYNOLDS J, (1989), "Pipeline Renovation", Municipal Engineering, Vo1. 6,

February, PP 41-52 .
SCHAFER A, (1987), "On Target Jacking Of Non-Man Entry Size Reinforced

Concrete Pipes ", Betronwerk und Fertigteil Technik, Vo1. 53, No. 4, PP 246-254 .
SCHOFIELD A and WROTH P, (1968), "Critical State Soil Mechanics"

McGraw-Hill, London.
SMALL-BORE AND PIPE JACKING, (1984), Tunnels And Tunnelling, Vo1.16,

August.
SMITH GN, (1982), "Element Of Soil Mechanics For Civil And Mining
Engineers", Granada.
TERZAGHI K and PECK R, (1967), "Soil Mechanics In Engineering Practice",

2nd Edition, John WiIey & sons Inc. Newyork.
TOHYAMA S , (1985), "MicrotunneIling in Japan" Discussion of Paper, No-Dig
85, Proceeding of 1st International Conference on Trenchless Technology, April,

London, pp 19-29 .
248
Btbllography
WALLIS S, (1982), "west Feltham Pipe lackers Push Into The Future", Tunnels
And Tunnelling, VoU4, Part 8, September.
W ALLIS S, (1985/86), "Stony Diet Suits Hamburg Development",
Microtunnelling, Vo1.1, No.2, Winter.
WALSH T, (1975), "Bentonite Bore In Hamburg", New Civil Engineer, Special
Supplement, 12 June .
WARD WH & PENDER, MJ, (1981), "Tunnelling In Soft Ground", Proceeding
10th International Conf. In Soil Mechanics, Stockholm, PP 261 - 275 .
WEBER W, (1985/86), "Microtunneller Cuts Variable Ground", Microtunnelling,
VoU, No.2, Winter, PP 23 - 27.
WILLIAM LAMBE T and WHITMAN RV, (1976), "Soil Mechanics", Wiley
Eastern ltd. , New Delhi.
YONG RN and WARKENTIN BP, (1966), "Introduction To Soil Behaviour ", The
MacMillan Company, NewYork.
ZOLLMAN PM, (1985), "Automated Guidance And Profiling Systems In Tunnel
And Shaft Construction", Proceeding Of The 4th International Symposium By

Inst. Of Mininig And Metallurgy. Edited by M.I Jones, Tunnelling'85, March.
249
APPENDIX (I)
GEOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

OF THE MATERIALS
250
".oo~
00000
ece.e
Garside Industrial Sands
GOOCG
• • • Of»
00000 Garside silica sand has been quarried in the Leighton Buzzard area
00000
o 0 0 0 0
9 ? 9 ? ?
for around 100 years. During this period high quality industrial sand
has been supplied throughout the·United Kingdom and to virtually
every corner of the world.
early years the sand was recovered from

pits by manual labour, then it was
I:essed and transported by horse and cart
canal to wherever it was needed.
a light railway was constructed
linking all the pits to a
central point for improved
efficiency and growing
demand. Following on came a
railway link and together with
motor vehicles the business
expanded rapidly.
The silica sand is of a special nature which is required in industry

for many diverse needs. This meanS that the sand has to be
dried and graded to various specifications. Particular attention
has to be paid to the silica content, grain shape, size distribution
and the chetnica1 analysis, in addition to certain specialised
essential characteristics for particular applications.
Nowadays the washed sand is

fed into computer controlled
process equipment, where it is
dried by a Fluidised Bed Dryer
and then separated by vibrating
screens into the required
grades;' The storage-capacity-at" .
the works enables large tonnages of any of our
specialised grades to be held in stock
to meet customer reqmrements.
~). Garside industrial siliCl sands PrOOu<2d by ECC Quan'.es fuJly meet rhe
@
saingenr r<quiremen~ ofBS5750: Part 2: 1987IISO !IXJ2-1987/EN
IV:
q~
2!IXl2-1987. The Company has been awarded a QualilV
. . i
I
!UIIUIl
ICOIII!U!I t
Assu<2li C:rtificare and is ~ under Standard .
Industrial iJassifiClcion: 2310: Extrxtion of
Stone, Oay, Sand and Gravd.
G:rtific:Ite }.i0. Q5924
ECC QUARRIES LIMITED
GEOLOGY AND SURVEY DEPARTMENT
PETROGRAPHIC EXAMINATION
PART 1 - DESCRIPTION
LOCATION:
GROVE BURY QUARRY
LEIGHTON BUZZARD DATE SAMPLE TAKEN SAMPLE REFERENCE
BEDFORDSHIRE
NATIONAL GRID REF: SP 920 230 MARCH 1989 GS 8/16-89
PETROLOGICAL NAME: QUARTZ SAND
SAMPLING DETAILS: 640g of 8/16 sand were received from George

Garside (Sand) Ltd. Details of sampling procedures were not
supplied.
METHODS OF EXAMINATION: The sample was reduced to a

representative portion with a riffle box. The test portion was
examined with the aid of a low powersteroscopic microscope and
individual grains counted to determine constituent proportions.
The test portion was then examined in thin section under higher
power petrological microscope.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
Yellow, clean sand. Particle size range 1.00-2.00mm
PARTICLE SHAPE: Irregular, rounded.
PARTICLE SURFACE TEXTURE: Smooth, occasionally rough or

honeycombed.
PETROGRAPHIC COMPOSITION: Number of % by vol.

Grains
Quartz 851 81 (+3 )
Quartzite 145 14 (+2)
Opaques (mainly iron-oxide) 40 4 (:El)
Iron-bound sandstone 7 1
Glauconite 5 <1
Chert 3 <1
Sandstone --- -- .---. -. ---- ---2-- --< 1-
Vesicular lava 1 <1
Total 1053
REMARKS: There are no constituents present in significant

proportions to class this sample as potentially susceptible to
alkali-silica reaction.
The results shown relate specifically to the sample provided and
therefore cannot take account of possible variations in the
deposit or during processing.
252
-.,-, "',.
ECC QUARRIES LIMITED
GEOLOGY AND SURVEY DEPARTMENT
PETROGRAPHIC EXAMINATION
PART'2 - DETAILS OF INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUENTS
LOCATION: GROVEBURY QUARRY SAMPLE REFERENCE

GS 8/16-89
PARTICLE SHAPE/
CONSTITUENT SURFACE TEXTURE DESCRIPTION
Quartz Irregular, Colourless, white, yellow, often
rounded/smooth with some iron-oxide coating.
Mainly fresh, single crystal
grains, some polycrystalline.
Moderate straining.
Quartzite Irregular, Yellow, brown, fine-medium
rounded/smooth grained, compact, fresh
metaquartzite. Some iron-oxide
coating. Moderate straining.
Opaque Irregular, Brown. black, greenish brown, fine
Minerals rounded/smooth, grained, iron oxide fragments.
rough. Fairly fresh, but weak.
Iron-bound Irregular/ Brown, weak, porous, quartz grains
Sandstone granular cemented by iron oxide.
Glauconite Rounded/rough. Green, fine grained, weak.
honeycombed.
Chert Irregular/smooth Brown, hard, compact,

cryptocrystalline silica.
Sandstone Rounded/rough Yellowish brown, fine-medium
grained, fresh sandstone.
Vesicular Angular/rough, Black, fine grained, glassy lava.
lava honeycombed.
.. REMARKS':- -
253
Technical
Data Sheet
TYPICAL PROPERTIES
Source: Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire
Geological
Classification: Lower Greensand
Composition: Quartz
Chemical
Properties: SiO, Approx. 97%
Loss on ignition at 1025 °C Not more than 1.0%
Weight loss in acid
(24 hours, 20% HCr, 20 0 q Less than 1.0%
Physical
Properties: Specific Gravity 2.65
Uncompacred Bulk Density I 560kg/m'
Sarurated Porosity 0.41
Particle Shape: Sphericity 0.85 (Sphere = I)
Rittenhouse Scale 0.83-0.87
Durability Loss of weight
(100 hours accelerated washing test) less than 0.1%

39,Hockliffe Street, Leighton Buzzard
Bedfordshire LU7 8HB
Telephone: Lefghton BuZzard (()S25) 372201
Telex: 825868
Fax: (0525) 851572
~
GdlSide industrial silica sands produced by ECC Quarries fully meet the
i'~ •~.
@
S1 stringent ttquiremenG ofBS5750:!':ut 2: 198711S0 'XXI2·19871EN
•
q -
• : 111mB i
Italll1lll.
IO'I'.!C1llhl
~IUL
=·1987. The Company has been awarded a Quaiity
Assured O:ttiJiclte and is registettd under St:llldarti
Industrial OassiflClcon: 231~ Exmction of
Stone, Oay, Sand and GtaveL
Certificate No. Q5924
Technical
Data Sheet
Mechanical Analysis: Grade 2.00-1.00mm (8-16)

PERCENTAGE BY lVElGHT RETAI~iED
APERTURE B.S.S.
mm MESH No. mICAL GRADING
FRACTIONAL CUMlilATIVE CUMULATIVE RANGE
2.36 7 TRACE TRACE NIL - 0.5
2.00. 8 1.5 1.5 NIL-S.O
1.70 10 18.0 19.5 5-35
1.40 12 35.5 55.0 25-80
1.18 14 29.5 84.5 70-95
1.00 16 13.5 98.0 95 - 100
-1.00 -16 2.0 100.0 99 -100
Nominal Effective Size Range 1.05 - 1.27 FIGURESINBOLDTIPERELATETOSPECIFICATIONLL\lITS.
Mean Uniformity Coefficient: Less than 1.4 THIS DATA SHEET SUPERSEDES ALL PREVIOUS ISSL'ES.

39,Hockliffe Street, Leighton Buzzard
Bedfordshire LU7 8HB
"Telephone: I..eightonBmzard (0525) 372201
Telex: 825868
Fax: (0525) 851572
~
G""id, indusaial siliCl sands productd by ECC Quarries fully meet the
S'I":
@
stringent requirements ofBS5750: Parr 2: 1987/1S0 9002-19871EN
q ~~~
I : 2!Xm-1987. The Company has been awded a Quality
• • : unuu Assured Cerrifi",re and is registered under SIJl!ldard
: ItallHI1I1
Indusaial OassifiClrion: 2310: E=crion oC
Stone, Clay, Sand and Gravd.
Certificate No. QS924
Registered Office Registered in Englond . Number 453225
C H QueensRoad Penkhull Sfoke-on-TrenfST47LQ England
Tel. 0782 45431 . Telex 36228 SCRAG . Fax 0782412331
TESTING SERVICES
Client's name and address All communications to be addressed to the Chief Executive
r
George Garside (Sand) Limited,
39 HockIiffe Street,
Leighton Buzzard,
Bedfordshire.
LU7 SHB
FAO : MR I LONGFORD
L
REPORT OF XRF ANALYSIS ON SAND
Yout' Mat'K •••••••• : 8/15

BCRL Lab Number.. T 9072/89
Da t e ...................... .. 13 JuI S9 Order Ne.: 7412

Date Received •••• 29 Jun 89 Contact : MR I LONGFORD
Sample dried at 110·e
Silica (Si02) . . . . . . II •••••••••••••••• /,fjs~~

Ti tania (Ti02) ••.•••••••.••.•••••.•• 0.03
Alumina (A1203> ........................................ .. 0.35
Ferric Oxide (Fe203) •••••••••••••••• if.t4E!!1
Lime (CaO) .................................................. .. 0.02
Magnesia (MgO) .••••••••••••••.•.•••• 0.04
Potash (K20) .............................................. .. 0.05
Soda (Na20) ............................................. .. (0.03
Phosphorus Pentoxide (P20S) •.•••••.• 0.04
Manganic Oxide (Mn304) •••••••••.•••. 0.01
Zinc Oxide (ZnO) •.••••••••••••••• ; •• 0.01
Barium Oxide (BaD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.01
Loss on Ignition at 1025°C •••••••••• 0.71
T Qt a 1 ............................................................ .. 99.91
REef
17 .fI" ,.•.,,,
GEOR( 't ., •.
,,>. .
......-.:..-.--__._i
.. 1.. .+.. Page 1 of 1
Technical Supervisor
•• '''w••,
, .. , OUItIll '011
UCHotQIQGOC::", "CH""'"'''' , . , _
The reported results relate only to the sample(s) tested.
No responsibility is taken for the accuracy of the sampling unless this is done under our own
supervision. This report must not be reproduced in whole or in part in any way as to lead to
misrepresentation of the results or their implications.
256
PORTAWAY MINERALS (ELTON) LTD.
PORTAWA'r<., ELTON
NR MATLOCK, DE4 1 LZ
Tel. Winster (062 988) 797 Telex 37380
National Grid Rcfer.~nce - SK.037413 .~~ Q~ , Sv~,
Oroup Class1ftcatlon ot' Hater1B.l - Quartzite

Petrological Nrune fer Oep081t - Bunter Pebble Beds
"
Ccier~e Aggr~g!!te Fine AJ;gregate
(Gravel! (Sand) -
Loss on ignit10n A trace to n11 1.0%
SiUca 96.1% 97.01-

Iron & Alumi:1a 1.0j(, 2.1%
Calcium 1.1% 0.7j(,
M~!; .. "" I .. ,~ A1I,,\11e :I~l t!l 1,$~ O.OI~
SUt, content (% by weight) NIL·

Organic Impurity NiL NIL
Bull< DensHy (Dry, r'()o:le) 1~21. 75kg/m I 1601.8l<g/m '
1'1Irtlclo ,,10,,1'.
Surface textllre
AUl!."ll'l· &
c:'},s tall ine
n",,,,.,rl,.,.-j -
Relative Density (O.Ol 2.59 2.60
Relative (S.S.D.l
O~r.sity 2.61 2.61
Relative Danslty (A.P.P.) 2.63 2.(,3
Water Abso('p~lcn (,; of r,I'Y Weight) 0.61\ 0.4~
Shrinkage velue A trlice to n11
Asgregate crushing value tA.C.V.) 13.0
---,4'.0- -- --_ ... - -'--------- - - .- - -_., -
.- ·llggl'cgate--Impae-t-lielue·
1',,11.:.1\~,:j ct~"o (Cl.S. u.) 'il.0
Crushing strength 21;8209.2 KN/m'
(36000.0 Ibs/1n'
10'.10 Fines Value 340 K.N. •
Aggregate Abraoion Value 1.2
Total SUlphur S.O. 0.02% 0.07%
Chloride (c.r.) Trace Trace
s"'\/'r.nRer (Managmg), J. G. R. Walker 257

Registered In England No. 1523248
-.
APPENDIX (11)
INSTRUMENTATION CALIBRATION AND TOLERANCES
258
INSTRUMENTATION CALIBRATION AND TOLERANCES
The following table gives some of the calibration and tolerances data for the
intruments used during the course of the research work.
Calibration
Instrument
Bridge Volt Calibration Factor Calibration Tolerance (%)
L.V.D.T 5.152 0.155 1mm=33mV o to)

5.150 0.155 1mm=33mV 0.00038(0.38)
5.148 0.155 1mm=33mV 0.00078(0.78)
Load Cell 6.54 0.00654 1V=lkN 0(0)

6.52 0.00654 1V=lkN 0.00306(0.3)
6.45 0.00654 1V=lkN 0.01376(1.37)
259
APPENDIX (III)
PHOTOGRAPHS
260
Plate (1) : Scale model testing rig In operation (sec tion 5 .3) .
Plate (2) : Sca le Illod cl in s lrLllll c nlalion pa n el (sec lion 5.3 .4) .
261
Plate (3) : Mode l concret e pipeline , (section 5.2.4) .
Plate (4) : M odel st ee l pipeline, (secti on 5 .2.4) .
262
Plate (5) : Special reinforcement of the co ncrete model pipes . (section 5 .2 .4 . 1) .
Plate (6) Gen era l veiw s how ing both conc ret e a nd steel pipes. (s ec tion 5 .2 .4 ) .
263
Plate (7) Different sizes for model culler shields. (section 5.4.4) .
Plate (8) Cultlng shield infronl of lh e lead pipe. (sec tion 5.4.4)
264
Plate (9) : Jacking and auger boring arrangem ent. (section 5 .2.6) .
Plate (l0) : Auge r boring in ope ra ti on with pace rs. (section 5. 2. 6) .
265
Plate (11) : Test preparatio n for conc rete p ipe in
Plate (12) : Test preparalio n for steel pipes in tesls,Type T, (sec tion 5.4.2 )
d
266
Plate (13) : Excavation technique for the Leighton Buzzard sane!
In tests,1)rpe I!. (section 5.2.6) .
of
Plate (14) : Excavation techniqu e for the River sand

In tests,fYpe 11, (sec tion 5 .2.6) .
of
267
Plate (15) : View showinl( th e arrangement of the con crete block in th e
bollom h alf of the specia l shear test box . (section 4 .4.3) .
268

Pipe Jacking Force PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Pipe Jacking Force PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Loughborough University

Pipe jacking forces in sand

• A Doctoral Thesis. Submitted in partial fullment of the requirements for

Metadata Record: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/15343

Publisher: c Shak Joseph Yonan

Please cite the published version.

For the full text of this licence, please go to:

________________yQr::'_~+-- ~,'!.~.:-- _________ _

VOL. NO. CLASS MARK

11111111111111111 1111111 111111 11111

Shafik Joseph Yonan

A Doctoral Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of The

Supervisor; Dr CDF Rogers

@ ShaflkJoseph Yonan, 1993

Dale \vi c;.r '1 v(

In this research work, a comprehensive review of investigations into pipe jacking

order to give a clear indication on the their magnitude and behaviour .

be made with the use of appropriate instrumentation techniques and computerised

A - Skempton's pore pressure parameter for undrained triaxial tests.

BI - Width of rectangular tunnel (m) .

Fr - Frictional Resistance (kN) .

Fs - Resistance force per unit length of tunnel (kN/m) .

Fu - Force per unit length of tunnel (kN/m) .

Fw - Coefficient of frictional resistance due to the weight of the pipe

KI - Loughborough Coefficient of overburden pressure.

LI - Distance of propulsion (m) .

P1 - Total force on the top half of the tunnel (kN) .

P2 - Total force on the bottom half of the tunnel (kN) .

PID - Skin friction of pipeline (kN/m2) .

p. - Strength of soil face (kN/m2) .

p.2 - Cutting resistance (kN) .

Pw - Water pressure (kN/m2) .

wg - Weight per unit length of pipe (kN/m2) .

Internal angle of friction between concrete /steel and soil from

<I>'c - Internal angle of friction at critical state (degree) .

Internal angle of friction between the pipline and the surrounding

<l>p Peak internal angle of friction (degree).

<1>', - Residual internal angle of friction (degree) ,

<l>u - Undrained internal angle of friction of soil (degree),

<l>s/c - Internal angle offriction of soiVconcrete interface (degree) .

<1>'/51 - Internal angle of friction of soiVsteel interface (degree) .

'l' - Dilation angle of soil (degree) .

er3 - Triaxial cell pressure, or minor principal stress (kN/m2) •

er. - Shear stress (kN/rn2) .

<>r - Tunnel support pressure (kN/m2) .

O"v - Vertical pressure on tunnel (kN/rn2) .

O"h - Horizontal pressure on tunnel (kN/m2) .

First of all I wish to thank the Department of Civil Engineering, Loughborough

to conduct this research work . My special gratitude goes to my supervisor

I am grateful to Brian Colquhoun and Partners for their permission to publish

Finally I have to acknowledge the very considerable contribution of my parents who

TABLE OF CONTENTS viii

1.1- Tunnels and pipelines 2

1.4.6- Comparisons between trenching and 24

trenchless pipe laying costs

1.5- Aims of the research 25

1.6- Guide to the thesis 27

2- REVIEW OF PIPE JACKING 31

2.1- Introduction and brief history of pipe jacking 31

2.2- Installation techniques 36

2.2.2.5- Large-Bore pipe jacking 43

2.3.2- The theory of ground pressure on tunnels 44

2.3.3- Tunnels through soft ground 47

• A Doctoral Thesis. Submitted in partial fullment of the requirements for

Publisher: c Shak Joseph Yonan