##127100ศึกษาท่อลอด

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PIPE JACKING TECHNIQUES OF
THE PROVINCIAL WATERWORKS AUTHORITY
2554

2554

.
.
2554

1
2 3
1
2 3

3
2
3

Thesis Title
Name - Surname
Program
Thesis Advisor
Thesis Co - advisor
Academic Year
A Comparative Study of Pipe Jacking Techniques of

The Provincial Water Works Authority
Mr. Sarawut Kongjai
Civil Engineering
Assistant Professor Dr.Thaworn Thirawetchayan
Dr.Kongkoon Tochaiwat
2011
ABSTRACT
Due to the traffic problem in highly populated downtown area of the cities, pipe jacking
methods in waterwork construction projects were employed and adapted by the Provincial
Waterworks Authority (PWA) in order to reduce the traffic congestion caused by the piping work
projects.
There are three types of pipe jacking techniques known as Type 1 Steel Pipe with
Concrete Sleeve, Type 2 Steel Concentric Double Cylinder Pipe (SCP) and Type 3 Reinforced
Concrete Pressure Pipe. Type 1 was the old technique commonly used while this research focused
on comparing the later two techniques. Details from two pipe jacking projects on construction
methods, major equipments, resource lists, assigned crew, and the production rate in the jacking
activities were summarized.
The results of the research showed that Type 3 technique consumed less connection
welding time as the result of time efficiency. The construction cost of Type 2 technique was
minimal due to fewer steps of working process. However, type 3 techniques was more flexible,
easier to adjust to the target path, therefore suitable for curve path. Finally, this research will be
useful for PWA and piping work contractors in selecting the right jacking technique for a workshop.
Keywords: pipe jacking, reinforced concrete pressure pipe, steel concentric double cylinder pipe

.
.
. .
.

..
.
..
...
..
....
1 ...
1.1 ..
1.2
1.3 ..
1.4 ..
1.5 .
2 ..
2.1
2.2 ...
2.3 .
2.4
2.5 ..
3 ...
3.1 .
3.2 ..
3.3 ..
3.4
..
1
1
2
3
3
4
5
5
19
20
36
37
42
42
43
44
45
( )
4 ...... 47
4.1 1
( 2)... 47
4.2 2 2
( 1).... 58
4.3 3
( 2)... 69
4.4
... 79
4.5
(Pipe Jacking) 81
5 .. 83
5.1 83
5.2 84
5.3 . 84
5.4 85
5.5 .. 86
5.6 .. 87
. 88
89
90
( 2)... 107
2 ( 1)... 126
( 2).. 144
.... 155
..
2.1 Sheet Pile. 11

2.2 13
2.3 . 17
2.4 18
2.5 .. 19
2.6 . 20
2.7 (Production Rate) .. 37
2.8
39
3.1 45
3.2 46
4.1 2.. 49
4.2 1 (Cycle) 2 55
4.3
(BOQ) 2. 56
4.4 1... 60
4.5 1 (Cycle) 1 . 66
4.6
(BOQ) 1.. 67
4.7 2... 71
4.8 1 (Cycle) 2 76
4.9
(BOQ) 2.. 77
4.10 80
4.11 (Pipe Jacking) 81
2.1 (Pipe Jacking) ... 5

2.2 (Blind Shield) 6
2.3 Closed Face Shield Earth Pressure Balance (EPB) . 7
2.4 Slurry Shield.. 7
2.5 Remote Control 8
2.6 Skip Car Blind Shield 8
2.7
Closed Face Shield.. 9
2.8 . 9
2.9 Sheet Pile. 10
2.10 . 12
2.11 ( 1) 14
2.12 ( 2) .. 15
2.13 2 ( 1) ... 16
2.14 ( 2) . 16
2.15 . 22
2.16 (Line & Grade) . 23
2.17 (Anode) Zinc Ribbon 24
2.18 . . . 27
2.19 (Line & Grade) . 28
2.20 28
2.21 ... 29
2.22 29
( )
2.23 (Back Thrust Wall) .

2.24 (Guide Rail) Entrance Ring ..
2.25 (Laser) .
2.26 Radiographic Test Liquid Penetrant Test
2.27 (Steel Plate) (Concrete Deck).
2.28 8 ksc. 2 . ..
2.29 .
2.30 ...
2.31 150 . PVC Production Rate
Nishida, et al. .
2.32 (Pipe Jacking) Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD).
3.1 .
4.1 ...
4.2 2...
4.3 ...
4.4 1...
4.5 ...
4.6 2...
30
30
31
31
32
33
35
35
38
40
43
47
54
59
65
69
75

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
2
1
2
.
BOQ
CP
CPM
EPB
HDD
HDPE
SCP

Bill of Quantities
Cathodic Protection
Critical Path Method
Earth Pressure Balance
Horizontal Directional Drill
High Density Polyethylene
Steel Concentric Double Cylinder Pipe
1.1
(.)
1
(2550-2554) [1]

(Pipe Jacking)

1 2545
1 [1]

22.00 . 05.00 .
[2]

(Trenchless Technology)
(Pipe Jacking)

2
(Pipe Jacking)
3 ( 2)
( 1)
( 2) 3

1.2
1.2.1 3
( 2) ( 1)
( 2)
1.2.2 3
1.2.3 3
1.2.4
3
1.2.5

3
1.3

1,000 - 1,500 . 3 2
1 2
1,000 .
1
1.3.1
1.3.2
1.4
1.4.1
1.
2.

3.
1.4.2
1.
2.
2 4
3.
4.

4
1.5
1.5.1 3

1.5.2
1.5.3
1.5.4

2

2.1 (Pipe Jacking)
(Driving Pit)
(Receiving Pit)
(Shield)

(Laser)
Microtunneling [3]
2.1 (Pipe Jacking)
6
2.1.1 ( Shield )

3
1.
2. (Blind Shield) (Closed Face Shield)
Earth Pressure Balance (EPB)
3. Slurry Shield
Slurry Shield
EPB Skip Car
Cable Winch
2.2 (Blind Shield)
2.3 Closed Face Shield Earth Pressure Balance (EPB)
2.4 Slurry Shield

EPB Slurry Shield

2-3 ./ 15 ./
EPB
2 . 50-60
.

(Remote Control)

8
(Cable Winch) (Skip Car)

(Gravity Flow)
2.5 Remote Control
2.6 Skip Car Blind Shield
2.7 Closed Face Shield

2.1.2 (Hydraulic Jack)

(Intermediate Jack) Ring
Spacer
[3]
2.8
10
2.1.3
Sheet Pile
2 (Sunken
Shaft) Caisson Diaphragm Wall
(Sunken Shaft)
Sunken Shaft
(Precast Segment)

[2]
(Sunken Shaft)
(Precast Segment)

Sheet Pile Sheet Pile

2.9 Sheet Pile
11
2.1 Sheet Pile [2]
(.)
A1
B1
A1
B1
900
8.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
4.0-6.0
8-12
1,000
8.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
4.0-6.0
8-12
1,200
8.00
3.50
4.00
3.20
4.0-5.5
10-12
1,300
8.00
3.50
4.00
3.30
4.0-5.5
10-12
1,500
8.00
3.50
4.00
3.50
4.0-5.0
10-12
1,800
8.00
3.50
4.00
3.50
4.0-5.0
10-12
Sheet Pile
L
.. 2546
.. 2547

Sheet Pile

Sheet Pile (Stiffness)

Sheet Pile

[2]

200
12
300 Intermediate Jack

Bentonite Slurry Polymer

1 .
50
2.10
2.2 [2]
13
()
(.) A1 B1
T1
D1
T3
900 8.00 2.50 0.5-0.8 8.00 0.4-0.6
()

A2 B2
4.00 2.50
T2
0.3-0.4
D2
4.00
T4
0.3-0.4
L
D () ()
4.0-6.0 8-12
1000 8.00 2.50 0.5-0.8 8.00
0.4-0.6
4.00 2.50
0.3-0.4
4.00
0.3-0.4
4.0-6.0
8-12
1200 8.00 3.00 0.6-0.8 8.00
0.5-0.6
4.00 3.00
0.3-0.4
4.00
0.3-0.4
4.0-5.5
10-12
1300 8.00 3.00 0.6-0.8 8.00
0.5-0.6
4.00 3.00
0.3-0.4
4.00
0.3-0.4
4.0-5.5
10-12
1500 8.00 3.00 0.6-0.8 8.00
0.5-0.6
4.00 3.00
0.3-0.4
4.00
0.3-0.4
4.0-5.0
10-12
1800 8.00 3.00 0.6-0.8 8.00
0.5-0.6
4.00 3.00
0.3-0.4
4.00
0.3-0.4
4.0-5.0
10-12
- 6
2.1.4
4
1. ( 1)

(Spacer)

Cathodic Protection (CP) CP

14

[4]
2.11 ( 1)
2.

(CP)
(Spacer) 3 /.

1,000 1,200
(High Density Polyethylene ; HDPE)

15
2.12 ( 2)
2.1.5 2

1. 2 (Steel Concentric Double Cylinder Pipe ; SCP)
( 1,000 . 1,200
. )
Coating CP

( 3 .)
X - Ray

16
2.13 2 ( 1)
2.

Lining

0.5
(X Ray)
2.14 ( 2)
17

2.14

2.1.6

2
2.3

1 6 ()
2
3 /
18
2.4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 (Air Compressor)
9
10 Sheet Pile
11
12

4

19

(Pipe Jacking)

4
2.2

2.5 [2]
(.)
300
400
800
1,000
1,200
1,500
1,800
(/)
/ Sheet Pile
/
290,100
134,200
300,000
136,700
501,200
238,800
1,539,800
499,300
527,800
246,500
1,663,200
545,200
559,000
264,700
1,804,200
597,200
617,700
287,600
2,013,100
674,900
710,800
312,600
2,227,200
754,800
20
2.6 [2]
(/)
A
B
C
( )
( )
( )
(.)

1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
300
7,800
400
9,400
800
24,100 18,700
30,000 26,700
1,000
30,100 21,500 22,600 18,500 38,400 31,700 35,200
1,200
37,600 27,200 27,900 20,200 48,000 38,900 43,800
1,500
53,500 36,200 39,800 28,400 70,700 51,900 64,900
1,800
75,700 54,700 54,600 39,300 99,000 70,500 95,300
(.)
1
2
1 2
2

2
26,600
30,400
39,600
54,700
2.3 (Pipe Jacking)

(Pipe Jacking)
400 .
1,500 .

2 1 2
4
(Pipe Jacking)
3

21
2.3.1
1.

22.00 . 05.00 . /
(Steel Deck)

(Steel Plate)
(Seal)

(Time) (Cost)
2. .
.
.

3.
(Information Sign) (Construction Sign)
(Traffic Sign)

15 50

.
22
2.15
4.

5. (Construction
Schedule) (Breakdown Construction Schedule)
Bar Chart

(Breakdown Construction Schedule)
15
Bar Chart Critical Path Method
(CPM)

Shop Drawing

23
6.

.

(.) .
.

7. (Line & Grade)

2.16 (Line & Grade)
24
8.
(Pipe Jacking)
/

9.

10. (Cathodic Protection System)

(ST)

. 2 (Anode)
Zinc Ribbon

2.17 (Anode) Zinc Ribbon
25
2.3.2

1.

2.

3.

2.3.3

(Pre-Construction
Conference) 2
1.
( ) (
)

26
2.

( )

[4]
2.3.4
.
. .

. . .

1.
(
) (
) ( )
15
(
)
2.
.

7
45
45

27

.
(
)
7
3.
( . )

4. (. . . . )

( . .
)

5.

2.18 . .
28
2.3.5 (Pipe Jacking)
1. (Line Grade)
2.19
2.19 (Line & Grade)

2.

2.20
3.

29
2.21
4.

2.22
5.
6. Jacking System
7. (Back Thrust Wall) (Jacking)

30
2.23 (Back Thrust Wall)

8. (Guide Rail) Entrance
Ring Soft Eye
2.24 (Guide Rail) Entrance Ring

9. (Jacking System)
(Laser)

Muck Tank
Skip Car
31
2.25 (Laser)
10.

2.26 Radiographic Test Liquid Penetrant Test

11.
(Concrete Deck) (Steel Plate)
05.00 . 22.00 .
32
2.27 (Steel Plate) (Concrete Deck)

2.3.6

(Hydrostatic Test)
8 ./..(ksc) 2 .
[4]
33
2.28 8 ksc. 2 .
2.3.7
/

1.

2.
(Field Density)
34
24 . 5 .
20 . 2
2 . 200 .
3.

Dowel Bar Tie Bar

Joint Sealer
4.

[4]
35
2.29
2.3.8
1.

2.30
2. (As-Built Drawing)
(As-Built Drawing)

36
3.

.
.
4.
(.
)
(
)

5.

[4]
2.4

2.8
37
2.7 (Production Rate)

()
/ /

Alignment
1.
2.
3. /
Spacer (2.6 .)
4. 2
5. /
Spacer
2
/
2.5
Nishida, et al. [5] 150 .
PVC Steel Plate Rubber Tube Production
Rate 2.31
Cost
Effectiveness
38
2.31 150 . PVC Production Rate Nishida, et al.

Phien-wej (2002) [6]
10
EPB

NATM

Phien-wej (2002) [6]
3.00 .

1-2 %

39
(2539) [7]

2.7
2.8

6 .

6 . 12

.

12 .

Chalermkiat (2002) [8] (Trenchless

Technology)

Pipe Jacking 3 Sheet Pile

Tennyson M.M. and Daniel J.D.(2004) [9] (Pipe Jacking)
Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD)

(Reamer)

(Reamer)
HDPE
40
2.32 (Pipe Jacking) Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD)

(2545) [10]

(Pipe Jacking System) (Finite Element Method) Empirical

41
Tennyson, et al. (2004) [9]
(224 ) Boston

(Pipe Jacking) (Tunneling)
Construction Engineering

(Pipe Jacking)

3.1
2
4
3.1.1
1. ( 1)

2. ( 2)
.
3.1.2
1. 2 ( 1)
1 2
2. ( 2)
. .
2 2
1 2 1,000 . 1

43
3.2

1,000 1,500
. 2

3.1
3.1
44
3.3
5
3.3.1

3.3.2
2
2

3
2
3.3.3

3.3.4 2
4

3.3.5 (Production Rate)

(Delay)

45
3.4
3.3

3.1
3.1
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
46
3.2
3.2
1
2

2 1,200
1,200 . . 3
6 . .
1,130 .
220 .
1,000 .
9.00 .
1,340 .

3 2 3 2

3
1
4

2
2 1 2 3

4.1 1 ( 2)
4.1.1

1,000 . 9.00 . 1,340 .
344
4.1
48
4.1.2
1,200 . 1,000 .
3.00
250 . Slurry Earth Pressure Balance Bentonite
2
(Steel Concentric Double Cylinder Pipe : SCP)
9.00 2 (SCP) 6

5 .
5 .
1
1,200 .
1,000 .
(Flow Chart) 4.1
2
49
4.1 2
1.
1-8
Sheet Pile
Bracing
Base Slab
2. Jacking
System
Back Thrust Wall
9 -22
50
4.1 2 ()
3.
24 - 30
Steel Ring

4.
23 - 45
51
4.1 2 ()
Coating

52
4.1 2 ()
46 - 53
5.
(Hydrostatic Pressure
Test)
-
Pressure Guage
8 ksc.
53
4.1 2 ()
6.

Sheet
Pile Bracing
54 - 57
54
4.1.3

( 2)
4.2
4.2 2
55
4.1.4 1 (
2) Time Sheet
1 (Cycle)
( 2)
4.2
4.2 1 (Cycle) 2

/
()
/

8

Alignment
9

19

3
Spacer
3
(2.6 .)
2
20

43

Spacer

2
56

1.
18
2.
5
3.
7
4.
2
5. ( 2.50 )
16
6. ( 9.00 )
9
7. 1,000 . 8 /
4.1.5

4.3
(BOQ) 2

BOQ
()
350,000
392,000
()
150,000
125,000
( /
22,400
19,200
)

57

4.1.6 ( 2)
1. (BOQ)
9
14.30
2.

(Bill of Quantities ; BOQ)
3.
(BOQ)

4. (/)

8

4.1.7
( 2)
1. BOQ

2.
2 .
58
3.

4.

5.
(Monotape)
6. 9.00

7.

8.

9.

10.
11.
(Sheet Pile)

4.2 2 2 ( 1)
4.2.1 2 ( 1)
1 2
- (
) 2 1,200 . 1,130 .
59
4.3
4.2.2 2
1,200 . - (
) 3.50 .
200 . Slurry Earth Pressure Balance
2 6

2

2 1,200 .
(Flow Chart) 4.4
2 ( 1)
60
4.4 1
1.

1

1 - 22
Line & Grade
Sheet Pile
Bracing
Base Slab
Soft Eye
2. Jacking
System
Back Thrust Wall
23 -32
61
4.4 1 ()

1

32 - 62
3.

Dummy RC
Adapter SCP
SCP RC
Dummy
SCP
X-ray
62
4.4 1()
Coating
Primer Monotape

Steel Encasing
Spacer
SCP

4.
(Hydrostatic Pressure
Test)
63 - 68
63
4.4 1 ()
-
Pressure Gauge
8 ksc.
64
4.4 1 ()
5.

Sheet pile Bracing

1

69 - 70
65
4.2.3

2 ( 1) 4.4
4.4 1
66
4.2.4 1 2 ( 1)
Time Sheet
1 (Cycle)
1 2 4.5
4.5 1 (Cycle) 1

Alignment
Spacer
Monotape
Steel Encasing
( 6 .)
Spacer
()
34
26
151
48
164

1. Sheet Pile
15
2. Sheet Pile
10
3.
10
4. 2 ( 6.00 )
6 /
67
4.2.5 2 ( 1)

4.6
(BOQ) 1

BOQ
()
350,000
367,500
()
150,000
136,800
( / )
32,000
30,000

4.2.6 2 ( 1)
1.
(BOQ) 6
(Back Thrust Wall)

2.

68
3. (/)
2
2

4.2.7 2 ( 1)

1
1. BOQ
2 6

2. 2

3.

4.

5.

150 1
6. (X-ray)

69
4.3 3 ( 2)
4.3.1
( 2)
2
2 4.2
1
3035 ( )
1,200 . 220 .
4.5
4.3.2

1,200 . 3035 (
) 3.50 .
200 . Slurry Earth Pressure Balance
3 .
70

Push-on

1,200 . (Flow Chart)
4.7
( 2)
71
4.7 2
1.
Line & Grade

2

1 - 16
Sheet Pile
Bracing
Base Slab
Soft Eye
2. Jacking System
14 -23
Back Thrust Wall
72
4.7 2 ()
3.
Steel Ring

Spacer
Liquid
Penetrant
Test

2

24 - 56
73
4.7 2 ()
4.
(Hydrostatic Pressure Test)
-
Pressure Gauge

2

41 - 42 , 57 - 59
74
4.7 2 ()
5.

Sheet
Pile Bracing

2

60 - 62
75
4.3.3

2 4.6
4.6 2
76
4.3.4 1 ( 2)
Time Sheet
1 (Cycle)
2 4.8
4.8 1 (Cycle) 2

Alignment

Spacer (2.6
.)
2
Spacer
2

()
8
15
22
4
4
25
40
/ /

-
Muck Tank
Muck Tank

77

1. Sheet Pile
15
2. Sheet Pile
10
3.
7
4.
10
5. (3.00 ) 9 /
4.3.5 ( 2)

4.9
(BOQ) 2

BOQ
()
350,000
394,700
()
250,000
230,000
(/)
39,200
41,000

78
4.3.6 ( 2)
1.
(BOQ)
6

8
4
3

2.
(BOQ)

3. (/)

(BOQ)
(BOQ)
2
-

1

-

3 .

79
2
(BOQ)
4.3.7 2

2
1.

3 .
(Butt Weld)

2. BOQ
1.

2
3.

4.
(Cement Lining)
4.4
3

4.10
80

1,000 .

2
1,200 .
2
2 ( 1)
( 2)
4.10
(/)
()
(/)
1

1,000 .

2
1,200 .

1,200 .
8
200-300
30,200
6,540,000
6
200
32,000
6,900,000
9
200-300
39,200
8,340,000
4.10 1
1
15,461 2 2
23,795 3
25,825
(.) 2.6
(.) 2546

81
2
4
(Pipe
Jacking) .

4.5 (Pipe Jacking)

4.11
4.11 (Pipe Jacking)

Sheet Pile

(Steel Circular
Shaft)
1.
Sheet Pile
2.

4.5.1 Sheet Pile Sheet Pile

(Jacking System)

(Thrust Wall Reaction Bock) (Hydraulic Jacks)
82
Sheet Pile
Sheet Pile
4.5.2 Sinking Caisson (In-situ
Casting) (Precast Segment)

Sheet Pile Sheet Pile

Sheet Pile

Sheet Pile

Sheet Pile

4.5.3 (Steel Circular Shaft)
(Receiving Shaft)
3.70 . 3 . 2.00
. H-Beam
Sheet Pile
(Steel Circular Shaft)

(Steel Circular Shaft) Sheet Pile

(Steel Circular Shaft)

5

3

(Pipe Jacking)

5.1
5.1.1 ( 2)

2

5.1.2 2 ( 1)

2
1 2

84
5.1.3 ( 2)

2

0.5
5.2
3
( 2) 9

( 2)
8 2 ( 1)
6
5.3

( 2) 1,000 .
2 1,200 .

2 ( 1)
( 2) 1,200 .
2 1 2
1
1

85
5.4
( 2)

(Point Load)

2 ( 1)

(X-Ray)

2
2

( 2)
(X-Ray) (Liquid Penetrant Test)

Point Load

86
5.5
5.5.1

1 2 2
3 .
(Butt Weld)
5.5.2 2
2

2

5.5.3
200
1 2 1
5.5.4
200
2 2
5.5.5

5.5.6

87
5.6
5.6.1
2 1,000 .
1 2 2
1,200 .
2
2 1,000 .
5.6.2

5.6.3 1 (Cycle)

2

5.6.4 (Cost)

5.6.5
(Risk Management Plan)

[1] , 2547,
, , 1-40.
[2] , , 2546,
, , , 1-16.
[3] , 2539, Pipe Jacking, , 2539, 32-37.
[4] , 2548,
, , 1-53.
[5] Najafi, M., Iseley, D.T., Pumphrey, N.D. and Nishida, Jr.H., 1993, LLB,an Innovative
Microtunneling Propulsion System, Structural Performance of Pipes, Sargard, Mitchell, pp.
107-124.
[6] Phien-wej, N., 2002, Experiences From EPB Shield Tunneling Underneath Existing
Structures in Bangkok Soils (Invited Paper), National Convention of Civil Engineering
(NCCE-8), 23-25
[7] , 2539, ,
2, 22-24 2539, , GTE
213-235.
[8] Chalermkiat, W., 2002, Trenchless Technology: Environmentally Friendly Techniques,
[9] Tennyson, M.M. and Daniel, J.D., 2004, Pipe Jacking in a Complex Urban EnvironmentBoston Massachusetts [Online], Available : http ://www.ascelibrary.org [2005, Febuary 9].
[10] , 2545,
, 8, 23-25
2545,, GTE 357-362

( 2)
3 Sheet Pile

4 Bracing
5 Base Slab

6 Sofe Eye

.1 1,200 . 1,000 ( 2)
91
7 Back Thrust Wall

10

9
Laser
11 Segment

12

92
.1 1,200 . 1,000 ( 2) ()
13 Segment
16

14 Load

17

15 Bracing
Base Slab
18 Muck Tank
2

93
.1 1,200 . 1,000 ( 2) ()
19 Muck Tank
Tank
20 21
1 2

21
1 2
22

23
24
94
.1 1,200 . 1,000 ( 2) ()
25 Steel Ring
26

27
28
29
3
30

95
.1 1,200 . 1,000 ( 2) ()
31

34

32

35 Zinc Ribbon

33

36 Zinc Ribbon
96
.1 1,200 . 1,000 ( 2) ()
37

40 Stock

38

41

39

42
2.80 ksc. 2
97
.1 1,200 . 1,000 ( 2) ()
43 Primer
Monotape
44
1 . Primer
Monotape
45

46

47

48
Ultrasonic Thickness Measurement
98
.1 1,200 . 1,000 ( 2) ()
49

50

52 8 ksc 2
0.35 ksc
53 Pressure Guage

51 Grout

54

99
.1 1,200 . 1,000 ( 2) ()
55
Segment

56

57

100
.1 1,200 . 1,000 ( 2) ()
101

.1 2
12
2
1
Dump
2
Backhoe
1
6
1

1

2

2

1

1

102
.1 2 ()

1500 W
3
6 6
2
5 5
2
6
4
25
1
8
1
2
1
20
2
N.A.
103
Sheet Pile 3.25 x 14.30 x 5.10
Sheet Pile 8 Sheet Pile 40 ./
= 3.25 x 14.30 x 2) / 0.40 = 233
(1) Sheet Pile 60
13,980
(2) - 8 8,000 64,000
(3) H-Beam 300 x 300 Bracing 3 106 18 564

./
26 /. = 564 x 18 x 26 = 263,952 3
87,984
(4) Back Hoe 18 3,500

63,000
(5) 3.25x14.30x0.25x1,800
20,914
(6) 18 1,500
27,000
(7)
5,000
(8) 3.25x14.30x5.10x1.3x260
61,626
(9) 7 800
5,600
9
15 %

7 %

349,104
2,366
401,470
28,103
429,573
104
Sheet Pile 2.00 x 3.70 x 5.10
= (2.00 x 3.70 x 2) / 0.40 = 37
(1) Sheet Pile 60
2,220
(2) - 2 8000 16,000
(3) H-beam 300 x 300 Bracing 3 35 6 564 ./

26 /. = 564 x 6 x 26 = 87,984 3
29,328
(4) Back Hoe 7 3,500

24,500
(5) 2.0x3.7x0.25x1800
3,330
(6) 7 1,500
10,500
(7)
3,000
(8) 2.0x3.7x5.1x1.3x260
12,757
(9) 5 800
4,000
9
15 %

7 %

105,635
15,846
121,481
8,504
129,985
105
Segment 3.70
x 5.10
Segment 3.70 x 2.00 3 Concrete Deck
(1) Segment 3,000
9,000
(2) Segment -
3,000
(3) Back hoe 5 3,500

17,500
(4) x3.7x0.25x1800
5,229
(5) 5 1,500
7,500
(6)
3,000
(7) x3.7x5.1x1.3x260
20,028
(8) 5 800
4,000
(9)
10,000
9
15 %

7 %

79,257
11,889
91,146
6,381
97,527
106
1,200 . 2.50
1,000 . 9.00
9
(1) 4
200 //
1
600 //
1
800
/
/

2,200
(2) 1
2,000
(3) (Holiday Test) Coating

2,000
(4) 1
700
(5)
300
(6) 1,500
1,500
(7) 2,000
2,000
(8) Back Hoe 3,500

3,500
(9) 800
800
(10) 800
800
10
15,800 / 9 = 1,755.55
3,830
9,875
15 %

7 %

15,800
1,756 /
15,461
2,320
17,781
1,245
19,026

2 ( 1 )
.1
2 (SSteel Concentric Double
D
Cylinder Pippe : SCP) 1200 . ( 1)
108
7
Shheet Pile
8 Sheet Pile
9 Sheet Pile
P
10 Sheet Pile
11
12

109
.1
D
Cylinder Pippe : SCP) 1200 . ( 1) ()
13
14
15
166

17
18

110
.1
D
19
22
20

21

23

(Back Thrust Wall)
24

(Back Thrust Waall)
111
.1
2 (Steel Concentric Doouble Cylinder Pippe : SCP) 1200 . ( 1) ()
25 (Guide Rail)
Entrance Ring

26

228
29

27

30

112
.1
D
31

32
33
34
35

36

113
.1
D
37 Spacer

38 Dumm
my RC Pipe
Driving SCP
39

40
41
422
114
.1
D
43

44

455
46 Adapter
SCCP
Dumm
my RC Pipe Driving
47 SCP
Dummy RC Pipe Driving Adapter
A
48 SCP
115
.1
D
49 Spacer

50 Dummyy RC Pipe
Drriving
51
5 SCP
552
SCP
53 Number

X-Ray (Radiographic Test)
54 Number
116
.1
D
555 X--Ray
56 X-RRay
577 Primer
Monotape
58
Steel
Encasing
59 Steel Encasing
600 Steel Ring

117
.1
D
61
Spacer
62

633
64
65

66

118
.1
D
67 8 ksc
2 .
0.35
k
68
699
70
119
.1
D
120

.1 1
40

12
Dump
2
Backhoe
1
6
1
1.5
1
Compact Jump
2

1

2

2
121
.1 1 ()

65 KVA
2

300 A
6

1500 W
3
6 6
2
5 5
2
25
2
5
2
8
1
2
1
20
2
3.2 . YAWATA
10
4 . YAWATA
10
LB 52 KOBE (3.2 X 350)

10
122
.1 1 ()

LB 52 KOBE (4 X 400)
10
LB 52U KOBE (3.2 X 400)

10
(Monotape)
50
(Epoxy) 10
5
123
Sheet Pile 3.50 x 8.20 x 6.00
= (3.50 x 8.20 x 2) / 0.40 = 144
(1) Sheet Pile 60
8,640
(2) - 5 8,000 40,000
(3) H-Beam 300 x 300 Bracing 3 70 12 564 ./

26 /. = 564 x 12 x 26 = 175,968 3
58,656
(4) Back hoe 15 3,500

52,500
(5) 3.5x8.2x0.25x1,800
12,915
(6) 15 1,500
22,500
(7)
5,000
(8) 3.5x8.2x6x1.3x260
58,204
(9) 7 800
5,600
9
15 %

7 %

264,015
39,603
303,618
21,254
324,872
124
Sheet Pile 2.30 x 4.30 x 6.00
= (2.30 x 4.30 x 2) / 0.40 = 50
(1) Sheet Pile 60
3,000
(2) - 2 8000
16,000
(3) H-Beam 300 x 300 Bracing 3 40 7

564 ./
26 /. = 564 x 7 x 26 = 102,648 3
34,216
(4) Back Hoe 7 3,500

24,500
(5) 2.3x4.3x0.25x1800
4,450
(6) 7 1500
10,500
(7)
3,000
(8) 2.3x4.3x6x1.3x260
20,057
(9) 5 800
4,000
9
15 %

7 %

119,723
17,959
137,682
9,638
147,320
125
2 1,200 . 6
2
(1) 4 200 //
1
600 //
1
800 //
2 2,200
4,400
(2) 1
4,000
(3) X-Ray
4,000
(4) 1
700
(5)
300
(6)
200
(7) 2 1500
3,000
(8) 2 2000
4,000
(9) Back Hoe 2 3500

7,000
(10) 2 800
1,600
(11) 2 800
1,600
11
30,800 / 6 = 5133.33
Segment 18,660 /
15 %

7 %

30,800
5,135
23,795
3,570
27,365
1,915
29,280

( 2)
.1 1,200 . ( 2)
127
128
.1 1,200 . ( 2) ()
129
.1 1,200 . ( 2) ()
130
.1 1,200 . ( 2) ()
131
.1 1,200 . ( 2) ()
.1 1,200 . ( 2) ()
132
.1 1,200 . ( 2) ()
133
.1 1,200 . ( 2) ()
134
.1 1,200 . ( 2) ()
135
.1 1,200 . ( 2) ()
136
.1 1,200 . ( 2) ()
137
138

.1 2

12
36
Dump
2
Backhoe PC200
1
Backhoe
1
6
1
1.5
1
Compact Jump
2

1

2

2
139
.1 2 ()
65 KVA
1

1500 W
3
6 6
2
5 5
2
6
4
25
1
5
2
8
1
2
1
20
2
3.2 . YAWATA
1
4 . YAWATA
1
LB 52 KOBE (3.2 X 350)

1
140
.1 2 ()

LB 52 KOBE (4 X 400)
1
LB 52U KOBE (3.2 X 400)

1
(Monotape)
50
(Epoxy) 10
2
141
Sheet Pile 3.00 x 10.00 x 8.00
= (3.00 x 10.00 x 2) / 0.40 = 150
(1) Sheet Pile 60
9,000
(2) - 5 8000
40,000
(3) H-Beam 300 x 300 Bracing 4 104 18 564 ./

26 /. = 564 x 18 x 26 = 263,952 3
87,984
(4) Back Hoe 15 3500

52,500
(5) 3.0x10.0x0.25x1800
13,500
(6) 15 1500
22,500
(7)
5,000
(8) 3.0x10.0x8x1.3x260
81,120
(9) 7 800
5,600
9
15 %

7 %

317,204
47,581
364,785
25,535
390,320
142
Sheet Pile 3.00 x 5.00 x 8.00
= (3.00 x 5.00 x 2) / 0.40 = 75
(1) Sheet Pile 60
4,500
(2) - 3 8000
24,000
(3) H-Beam 300 x 300 Bracing 4 64 11

564 ./ 26 /. = 564 x 11 x 26 = 161,304
3
53,768
(4) Back Hoe 10 3,500

35,000
(5) 3.0x5.0x0.25x1800
6,750
(6) 10 1500
15,000
(7)
3,000
(8) 3.0x5.0x8x1.3x260
40,560
(9) 7 800 5,600

9
15 %

7 %

188,178
28,227
216,405
15,149
231,554
143
1,200 .
3
3
(1) 6
200 //
1
600 //
1 800 //

2,600
(2) Liquid Penetrant Test 3

6,000
(3) 3
3,000
(4)
900
(5) 1,500
1,500
(6) 2,000
2,000
(7) Back Hoe 3,500

3,500
(8) 800
800
(9) 800
800
9
21,100 / 9 = 2,344.44

15 %

7 %

21,100
2,345
23,480
25,825
3,874
29,699
2,079
31,778
145
146

A Comparative Study of Pipe Jacking Techniques of the Provincial Waterworks Authority
1 2 3

(Pipe Jacking)
3 1)
2) 2 3)

3

2

: , ,
Abstract
Because of the traffic problem and physical conditions of the high population zones in some provinces, pipe jacking
techniques are adopted by the Provincial Waterworks Authority (PWA) in order to mitigate the problems caused by the waterwork
projects in the congested areas. This research studied and compared three types of pipe jacking construction projects, i.e. 1) steel
pipe with concrete sleeve pipe 2) Steel Concentric Double Cylinder Pipe, and 3) reinforced concrete pressure pipe. Data of the pipe
jacking construction time, cost, and the problems in the jacking activities of each technique are summarized.
The result of the research showed that reinforced concrete pressure pipe could be installed with the shortest construction
time because of its non-welding connections. The inner connections of concrete sleeves were done by the push-on connectors. The
cost of construction of the Steel Concentric Double Cylinder Pipe (SCP) is minimal because there are fewer construction steps.
Concerning on the efficiency of installation, reinforced concrete pressure pipe is the best one, because it could be installed
accurately and is suitable to install in a curve path. This research is very useful for PWA in selecting the right jacking technique for
a job.
Keywords: pipe Jacking, reinforced concrete pressure pipe, push-on
1

3

2
147
1.
(.)

1 )..2550-2554(

(Pipe Jacking)

[3]

(Pipe Jacking) 3

2.
2.1 (Pipe Jacking)

(Launching Shaft)
(Receiving
Shaft) 1
1 [1]
1 (Launching Shaft)
(Receiving Shaft) [1]
2.2

1,000 . 3
1.

2
2.

1,000 .

3
148
3.
1,000
.
4
0.5

2.4

3
1. (Sheet Pile)

6
4

2.3 ( Shield )

(Slurry Shield) 5

1,000 .

[4]
6 (Sheet Pile)
2.
(.)

7
7
5 Slurry Shield [4]
149
3.
3.70
3 . 2.00
H-Beam
8 [3]

[2]
3.
8
2.5
Phien-wej (..2002)

10

[5]
(..2546)

(Sheet Pile)
1,000 1,500 . 3 1)
2)
3)

3.1

1)

1,000 . 9.00 .
1,340.
2)

1,200 . 6 .
1,130 .
1,200 .
3 . 220.
150

1,200 .

3.2
1)

2)

3)
4)

5)

1 1
1,000
.
1.
18
2.
5
3.
7
4.
2
5. (2.50 .) 16
6. ( 9.00 .)
9
7.
8 /
1,000 .
2
1,000 .

BOQ*
()
()
350,000
()
150,000
(/)
30,200
1 ()
6,540,000
* (Bill of Quality;BOQ)
4.

3
4.1
1
1
2
151
4.2
1
3
4
3 1
1, 2 00.
1.
15
2.
10
3.
10
4. 2
( 6.00 )
6 /
4
1,2 00.

BOQ*
()
()
350,000
()
150,000
(/)
32,000
1 ()
6,900,000
10
4.3
1
5
6
5 1
1, 2 00.
1.
15
2.
10
3.
7
4.
9 /
(3.00 )
6
1, 2 00.

BOQ*
()
()
350,000
()
250,000
(/)
39,200
1 ()
8,340,000
11
152

1,000 .

1,200
.

2

7
1,2 00.
1, 2 00.
( / (
6
9
)(
200
200-300
)/(
32,000
39,200
1
6,900,000
8,340,000

2

-

200

350,000
150,000
200 x 32,000 = 6,400,000
6,900,000
1

200

3
8
153
8

1. 1.

2.
2.
3. (Point Load)

3.

4.

1. 1.

2.
( X Ray)

2
2.

1. 1.

(X-Ray)
2. (Liquid Penetrant Test)

3. 2.

(Rigid)
4. 3.
(Point Load)
154
5.

)Rigid)

( X Ray)

0.5

(X-Ray) (Liquid
Penetrant Test)

( Point Load)

6.
[1] , 2547,

, , 1-40.
[2] ,
, 2546,
,
,
, 1-16.
[3] , 2553,
,
, 1-53.
[4] , 2539, Pipe
Jacking, , 2539, 32-37.
[5] Phien-wej, N.,2002, Experiences From EPB
Shield Tunneling Underneath Existing Structures
in Bangkok Soils (Invited Paper), National
Convention of Civil Engineering (NCCE-8), 2325
155

15 2524
236 12 57170

.. 2548
.. 2548 -

##127100ศึกษาท่อลอด

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

##127100ศึกษาท่อลอด

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PIPE JACKING TECHNIQUES OF

THE PROVINCIAL WATERWORKS AUTHORITY

A Comparative Study of Pipe Jacking Techniques of

2.1 Sheet Pile. 11

2.1 (Pipe Jacking) ... 5

2.23 (Back Thrust Wall) .

2.1 (Pipe Jacking)

2.2 (Blind Shield)

2.3 Closed Face Shield Earth Pressure Balance (EPB)

2.4 Slurry Shield

2.5 Remote Control

2.6 Skip Car Blind Shield

2.7 Closed Face Shield

2.9 Sheet Pile

1000 8.00 2.50 0.5-0.8 8.00

1200 8.00 3.00 0.6-0.8 8.00

1300 8.00 3.00 0.6-0.8 8.00

1500 8.00 3.00 0.6-0.8 8.00

1800 8.00 3.00 0.6-0.8 8.00

2.3 (Pipe Jacking)

7. (Line & Grade)

2.16 (Line & Grade)

10. (Cathodic Protection System)

2.17 (Anode) Zinc Ribbon

2.19 (Line & Grade)

2.23 (Back Thrust Wall)

2.24 (Guide Rail) Entrance Ring

2.26 Radiographic Test Liquid Penetrant Test

2.27 (Steel Plate) (Concrete Deck)

2.31 150 . PVC Production Rate Nishida, et al.

Chalermkiat (2002) [8] (Trenchless

2.32 (Pipe Jacking) Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD)

3.3.5 (Production Rate)

Back Thrust Wall

Line & Grade

Back Thrust Wall

Line & Grade

4.5.1 Sheet Pile Sheet Pile

7 Back Thrust Wall

(2) - 8 8,000 64,000

(3) H-Beam 300 x 300 Bracing 3 106 18 564

(4) Back Hoe 18 3,500

(2) - 2 8000 16,000

(3) H-beam 300 x 300 Bracing 3 35 6 564 ./

(4) Back Hoe 7 3,500

(3) Back hoe 5 3,500

(3) (Holiday Test) Coating

(8) Back Hoe 3,500

600 Steel Ring

LB 52 KOBE (3.2 X 350)

LB 52U KOBE (3.2 X 400)

(2) - 5 8,000 40,000

(3) H-Beam 300 x 300 Bracing 3 70 12 564 ./

(4) Back hoe 15 3,500

(3) H-Beam 300 x 300 Bracing 3 40 7

(4) Back Hoe 7 3,500

(9) Back Hoe 2 3500

LB 52 KOBE (3.2 X 350)

LB 52U KOBE (3.2 X 400)

(3) H-Beam 300 x 300 Bracing 4 104 18 564 ./

(4) Back Hoe 15 3500

(3) H-Beam 300 x 300 Bracing 4 64 11

(4) Back Hoe 10 3,500

(9) 7 800 5,600