Iseley, D T (1991) Trenchless excavation construction methods: Classification and evaluation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 117(3), pp. 521-536. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Traditionally, trenchless excavation construction (TEC) methods have been considered only in congested and critical conditions as an alternative to open cutting. As more utilities are placed underground, the demand for these methods has increased. It is common practice in Japan and in European countries to specify the installation of the complete system by TEC methods. This is a growing trend in the United States. For the project to be designed and constructed with minimal delays and disputes, it is important that the major project decision makers (i.e., owner, regulatory-agency representative, architect/engineer, and contractor) be familiar with the available TEC methods and the basic principles of operation. The purpose of this paper is to present a classification system and a comparative analysis on the specific methods.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | engineer, owner, dispute, major project, utilities, architect, United States, construction method, comparative analysis, Japan, excavation, agency |
| Subjects: | dispute resolution, profession, construction type, strategic project management, data analysis and analytics, construction operations, Geography, building construction, sociology |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Construction Technology, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Site Management, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here