Marti, P; Trümpi, S and Heinzmann, D (2009) Hydraulic joint for pipe jacking. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(6), pp. 439-447. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
A newly developed hydraulic joint for pipe jacking is described and compared with conventional compression rings. It is shown that with the hydraulic joint, thrust eccentricities are largely reduced, resulting in a much more uniform stress profile at the pipe ends and hence a considerably reduced pipe damage potential. Higher jacking forces can be applied (fewer or no intermediate jacking stations are necessary), longer pipes can be used (fewer joints are necessary), smaller radii of curvature are feasible (fewer or no intermediate jacking pits are necessary) and frictional forces are reduced. The measurement of joint displacements and joint liquid pressures permits an effective real-time monitoring of the jacking process. 30 of the 40 pipelines with a total length of 8.2 km completed so far had curved alignments. The smallest radius of curvature was 86 m using 3 m long pipes with an internal diameter of 1.2 m. Practical experiences gained with the hydraulic joint are summarized.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | jacking; joints; microtunneling; monitoring; pipelines; reinforced concrete; trenchless technology |
| Index terms: | compression, hydraulic, reinforced concrete, monitoring, pipeline, microtunneling |
| Subjects: | material properties and characteristics, infrastructure and transport systems, control systems, building materials, fluid mechanics, geotechnical engineering |
| Topics: | Site Management, Engineering Principles, Construction Materials |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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