Analysis of a 610-mm-Diameter Pipe Installed

Using Pipe Ramming

Tadesse Meskele, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE 1; and Armin W. Stuedlein, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE 2

Abstract: Departments of transportation are increasingly embracing pipe ramming for culvert installation under roadways due to its
cost effectiveness and ability to mitigate problems associated with open-cut trenching. Despite the increase in use, little technical guidance
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

is available for the engineering of pipe-ramming installations. This study presents the analysis of the performance of an instrumented
610-mm-diameter steel pipe installed using pipe ramming. Measurements include ground surface movement and dynamic force and velocity
waveforms to obtain driving stresses, hammer-pipe energy transfer, and static and dynamic soil resistance during the installation. Ground
movements are compared to existing settlement prediction models. Inverted normal probability distribution models commonly used in tunnel
engineering were evaluated and were observed to capture the observed settlement close to the center of the pipe but did not accurately predict
the observed transverse settlement profiles. The transfer of energy was observed to range from as low as 17–39% of the estimated hammer
energy. Compressive stresses were observed to remain relatively constant over the penetration length observed and were well below the yield
stress of the pipe. Soil resistance derived from wave equation analyses were compared to four pipe-jacking models to evaluate their accuracy
and applicability for planning pipe-ramming installations. The jacking models bracketed the static soil resistance components of the wave
analysis, indicating that the models may be adopted for pipe-ramming applications pending empirical modification. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
CF.1943-5509.0000463. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction Pipe ramming allows installation of casings in difficult ground

Culverts provide an essential service in the maintenance of road-
way drainage by transporting storm runoff and controlling stream
channel crossings. The majority of highway culverts were installed
in the 1950s and 1960s and are reaching the end of their functional
lives and therefore need replacement due to structural deterioration,
scour, corrosion, erosion, or increased hydraulic requirements
(Najafi 2008). Installation of new or replacement of existing cul-
verts are traditionally carried out using open-cut trenching. How-
ever, the conventional open-cut technique is becoming increasingly
unpopular due to the adverse impact on the daily life of road users
by creating road or rail closures, traffic delays, detours, undesirable
noises, loss of access to homes and businesses, and duration of the
excavation, installation, and back-filling operations (Ariaratnam
et al. 2006). Thus, the construction industry is gradually turning
away from the open-cut method for roadway crossings and adopt-
ing emerging trenchless methods for pipe installation that can mit-
igate many of the problems associated with open-cut trenching.
Pipe ramming is an efficient and cost-effective trenchless con-
struction technique used mainly in horizontal or near-horizontal
applications in which a pipe casing (e.g., culvert) is hammered
into the ground with high-frequency percussive blows generated
by a pneumatically or hydraulically powered pipe hammer.
1 driving are analyzed and compared to theoretical predictions
Former Graduate Research Assistant, Staff Engineer, Geotechnical
Resources, Inc. (GRI), 9725 SW Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy., Suite 140,
Beaverton, OR 97005. E-mail: tadessemeskele@gmail.com
2
Assistant Professor and Loosley Faculty Fellow, School of Civil and
Construction Engineering, Oregon State Univ., 220 Owen Hall, Corvallis,
OR 97331 (corresponding author). E-mail: armin.stuedlein@oregonstate
.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 11, 2012; approved on
March 28, 2013; published online on April 3, 2013. Discussion period open
until October 14, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for indivi-
dual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, © ASCE, ISSN 0887-3828/04014009(7)/$25.00.
conditions, such as gravelly soils with cobbles and boulders, which
can pose significant inconvenience to other trenchless techniques
(e.g., horizontal directional drilling, microtunneling) without
significant alteration of the equipment. Additionally, pipe ramming
is preferred for culvert installations at shallow depths where other
trenchless techniques could cause unacceptable ground settlement.
Despite growing contractor experience with pipe ramming,
there is very little engineering guidance available for engineers
to satisfactorily design pipe-ramming installations. An engineer-
ing framework for pipe ramming should include assessment of
the constructability of the required length and diameter of pipe
with a given hammer, an evaluation of the likelihood of damage
to the pipe due to excessive driving stresses, and the potential for
the generation of excessive ground movement and vibration.
Simicevic and Sterling (2001) and Najafi (2008) provide helpful
information for planning pipe-ramming projects; Stuedlein and
Meskele (2012) present the first engineering baseline framework
for pipe-ramming installations. Assessment of engineering calcu-
lations for pipe ramming must be validated against field perfor-
mance data if they are to be adopted in practice. This study
presents the performance of a pipe-ramming installation deduced
from field instrumentation and monitoring of 610-mm-diameter
steel pipe installation in Eugene, Oregon. The ground movements,
and the dynamic strains and accelerations measured during impact
adopted from pipe-jacking and microtunneling techniques. This
instrumented pipe installation provides helpful data for engineers
and contractors considering construction alternatives for replace-
ment of numerous culvert assets.
Project Background
The project was located in Eugene within the Wildish Sand and
Gravel Company quarry in the McKenzie river basin, positioned at
the edge of the Willamette Valley adjacent to the foothills of the

© ASCE 04014009-1 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2014.28.

 Oregon Cascades. The region is characterized as a broad alluvial
plain resulting from the continual filling of the valley lowlands
with sediment from the flanking mountain ranges (O’Connor et al.
2001). The Wildish Sand and Gravel Company quarries the high-
grade alluvial deposits to produce sand and gravel aggregates.
The embankment soils penetrated by the instrumented pipe were
predominantly characterized as silty sand with a small percentage
of gravel and clay (both less than 7%) based on laboratory particle
size analysis performed on samples retrieved from inside of the
pipe. The new 610-mm-diameter pipe was required to upgrade
the pressurized water supply used in the quarrying, crushing,
and screening operations at the Wildish quarry; a portion of the
pipe crossed a two-tier embankment that supported an access road
and powered conveyer belt used to transport aggregate (Fig. 1).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Based on cost, pipe ramming was selected by the contractor as
the preferred trenchless pipe installation method for the crossing
to avoid the loss of income resulting from the temporary closure
of the road and disruption of the conveying operations.
Project requirements called for an open-ended steel pipe of
610-mm-diameter and 13-mm wall thickness, 33.5 m in length.
A cutting shoe with an external diameter of 630 mm and internal
diameter of 550 mm was welded to the lead edge of the first seg-
ment of the pipe to reinforce the pipe section at the face and facili-
tate face penetration. The cutting shoe creates an overcut in the
ground and is thought to reduce the frictional drag on the pipe
due to the excavation of a cavity slightly larger than the diameter
of the pipe (Simicevic and Sterling 2001). The steel pipe installa-
tion commenced with the placement of a leveled 0.3-m-thick
compacted crushed rock bedding layer in the launching area on
the west side of the embankment. Due to the topography adjacent
to the embankment, excavation of insertion or receiving pits was
not required. Steel tracks approximately 20-m long and typically
used with auger boring operations were placed on the leveled
ground to help guide the hammer-pipe system and maintain the
required grade and alignment during the installation (Fig. 1).
The placement of the first segment of the pipe-hammer system
on the desired grade and alignment is critical, because correcting
the alignment after approximately 1.2 m of pipe insertion is
extremely difficult as pipe ramming is a nonsteerable technique
(Najafi 2008). Following installation of pipe segments, the tracks
Fig. 1. The 610-mm-diameter pipe-ramming installation looking east
at the embankment-supported conveyor belt (image by T. Meskele)
© ASCE 04014009-2
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2014.28.
were used to guide the auger boring machine following pipe instal-
lation to remove pipe spoils.
The installation was carried out in three stages with one pipe
segment driven in each stage. The first stage included a pipe seg-
ment 12.2-m long fitted with the welded cutting shoe at the leading
edge. All but approximately 1.5 m of the initial pipe length was
installed to allow for welding of the next pipe segment. The spoil
accumulated within the pipe was removed using auger boring prior
to welding the next segment. If the spoil was allowed to remain in
the pipe until the installation was complete, the soil would have
increased the total weight of the pipe and internal friction, and
would have resulted in a reduced rate of penetration. In the second
and third stages, pipe segments of 9.1 and 12.2 m in length were
welded to the previously installed segment (i.e., segment 1 for sec-
ond stage and segment 2 for third stage) and driven, respectively, to
cross the embankment. The project utilized a 400-mm pneumatic
HammerHead Mole hammer, produced by HammerHead Trench-
less Equipment of Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, with an estimated
rated energy of 6.4 kN-m and rate of blow of 231 stroke= min.
The hammer was fitted to the rear end of the pipe with collets that
facilitate the connection and distribute the impact force of the ham-
mer to the edge of the pipe casing. The pipe-collet-hammer system
was held in place by tensioned chains hooked to eye pads welded
on each segment of the 610-mm-diameter pipe (Fig. 1). The tension
in the chains is an important factor in successful pipe-ramming ap-
plications, as loose chains can result in significantly reduced trans-
fer of energy, and if left unattended, can lead to a loss of seating of
the hammer on the pipe.
Field Instrumentation
Monitoring of ground movements due to trenchless culvert instal-
lation is a relatively common practice because intolerable magni-
tudes of heave and settlement could cause loss of service to
adjacent buried utilities, structure foundations, or roadway pave-
ments. Despite the need for field performance data, very few case
histories of pipe-ramming installations with ground movement
measurements have been reported. Additionally, no measurements
of soil resistance to ramming are documented other than those re-
ported by Stuedlein and Meskele (2012). In order to broaden the
performance data of pipe-ramming installations, field instrumenta-
tion was used to monitor the performance of the pipe installation.
The instrumentation included ground deformation monitoring
points (GDMPs) and dynamic strain gages and accelerometers to
observe the pipe response to impact driving.
Observation of Ground Movement
The vertical ground movement was measured using a Leica DNA
10 digital level and bar-code invar rods. The measurement of ver-
tical displacement had an accuracy and resolution of 1.5 mm=km
and 0.1 mm, respectively. Ground movements were observed along
four cross sections transverse to the centerline axis of the pipe
(Fig. 2). Each cross section utilized seven GDMPs, with one point
located directly above the centerline of the pipe and three monitor-
ing points offset from each side of the centerline at 0.75D (0.46 m),
1.5D (0.91 m), and 3D (1.83 m), where D equals the diameter of
the pipe (in meters) and placed based on the anticipated area of
influence from the ramming operation. A fixed benchmark was es-
tablished approximately 50 m from the nearest location of the pipe
outside the zone of construction. Baseline elevation measurements
were taken prior to the beginning of ramming on each day of con-
struction. Measurements were generally performed every 10 m of
installation.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
 Conveyer Belt System
between the casing and the excavated bore, and displacement of
Relative Elevation 4m
the soil by the cutting shoe. The magnitude of ground deformation
can be modeled using empirical, analytical, or numerical methods.
2m The empirical approach proposed by Schmidt (1969) and Peck
Access Road
(1969) is commonly used to estimate the magnitude and extent
0 Location of control stations
of settlement resulting from tunneling. This method assumes that
the shape of the transverse settlement profile immediately behind
North-South Offset

1 2 3 4
1.8 m
the advancing pipe follows an inverted normal probability distribu-
tion curve and is symmetrical about the vertical axis normal to the
0 longitudinal centerline through the pipe (Fig. 4). The ground dis-
1.8 m
placement can be represented by
2
−y2
1 2 3 4
Sz ðyÞ ¼ Smax e 2i ð1Þ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 8m 16 m 24 m 32 m
Distance from West toe of embankment where Sz ðyÞ = vertical settlement at a distance y from the centerline;
Smax = maximum centerline settlement; and i = horizontal distance
Fig. 2. Profile and plan view of the access road and conveyer belt from the pipe axis to the inflection of the settlement trough (Fig. 4).
embankment and settlement monitoring points The maximum settlement Smax can be obtained by equating the
total volume of settlement trough and the ground loss due to the
over-cut, V s
Observation of Impact Forces and Velocity Z ∞ pffiffiffiffiffiffi
π
The pile-driving analyzer (PDA) is a widely used computerized V s ¼ ½D2c − D2
¼ Sz ðyÞdy ¼ 2π · i · Smax ð2Þ
4 −∞
system for dynamic load testing of piles during impact pile driving.
It is composed of high-frequency strain gauges and accelerometers
(Fig. 3) that are bolted on diametrically opposed sides of a pile, or Vs
Smax ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi
ffi ð3Þ
in this case the 610-mm-diameter pipe, to acquire the signals of i 2π
dynamic strain and acceleration due to hammer impact (Hannigan
et al. 1996). The strain and acceleration measurements are con- where V s = volume of soil loss per unit of length; Dc = external
verted by the PDA to force (i.e., F ¼ εEA) and velocity (i.e., V ¼ diameter of the cutting shoe or excavated bore; and D = external
∫ adt) time histories, respectively, where ε = strain, E = modulus of diameter of the pipe. Originally, Schmidt (1969) and Peck (1969)
the pipe, A = cross-sectional area of the pipe, and a = acceleration suggested that the width of the settlement trough (i) can be de-
of the propagating wave. The force and velocity records, in con- scribed as a function of the depth of the pipe below the ground
junction with wave equation analysis, are commonly used to evalu- surface (z0 ) and diameter of the pipe (D). Cording and Hansmire
ate the load-bearing capacity of piling, driving stresses, and the (1975) approximated the area under an inverted normal probability
energy transferred from hammer to a pile during driving. Details distribution curve with a triangular area and derived the half-width
on high-strain dynamic testing and measurement are given in of the settlement trough (w), given by
ASTM D-4945 (ASTM 2008). PDA measurements were made  
Dc π ϕ
for the second stage of the pipe-ramming installation (i.e., the sec- w ≈ 2.5i ¼ þ zo tan − ð4Þ
ond, 9.1-m-long pipe segment). The strain gauges and piezoelectric 2 4 2
accelerometers were mounted approximately 2D (1.22 m) from the
rear end of the pipe segment (Fig. 3). where z0 = depth of cover to the center of the pipe in meters.
O’Reilly and New (1982) generated another relationship for
the width of the settlement trough as a function of the depth of
Analysis of Ground Deformation the pipe. They performed multiple linear regression on field data

The primary source of pipe ramming–induced ground deformation

is caused by the collapse of the overcut, or the annular space

Fig. 3. Pile-driving analyzer with strain transducer and accelerometer

attached to the pipe (images by T. Meskele) Fig. 4. Idealized transverse settlement trough

© ASCE 04014009-3 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2014.28.

 representative of cohesive and cohesionless soil and suggested that
the width of the settlement trough could be modeled using i ¼
0.28z0 − 0.12 for noncohesive soils and i ¼ 0.43z0 þ 1.1 for cohe-
sive soils. For all practical purposes, the regression equations can
be simplified to the form i ¼ Kz0 , where K is a trough width
parameter ranging from 0.25 to 0.45 for sandy soils and 0.4 to
0.6 in clays (Mair and Taylor 1997).
The settlement of the silty sand embankment was evaluated us-
ing the three empirical settlement prediction methods described.
Fig. 5 presents the total ground movement measured transverse
to the advancing pipe at the top of the embankment, away from
the embankment crest, and the settlement predictions. The settle-
ment measurements were taken on the access road and the main
embankment (Fig. 2). The height of the embankment supporting
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the access road, where Section 1 was located, was 1.3 m, whereas
the height of the main portion of the embankment where the other
three sections were located was 4.1 m. Because Section 1 had such
a small depth of cover, the empirical approaches described above
do not adequately capture the settlement observed, which ranged in
magnitude from 1 to 8 mm. Because Section 2 lies along the crest
of the embankment, settlements were anticipated to be greater than
for level ground conditions due to amplification of ramming-
induced vibrations associated with slope crests. Fig. 5 presents
the monitoring results for Sections 2, 3, and 4, and indicates that
the largest settlements were those at the crest of the embankment.
Generally the three empirical models appear to capture the ob-
served settlement close to the center of the pipe; however, measure-
ments at distances greater than 1 m on either side from the center of
the pipe suggest a greater extent of settlement than that predicted.
The maximum observed settlement and heave were approximately
14 and 6 mm, respectively, indicating that total magnitude of set-
tlement is small to negligible. The observations did not agree with
Distance from the Center of the Pipe (m)
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
-10
0 be attributed to compressive, tensile, and flexural forces. However,
Settlement (mm)
10
Section 3
Section 4
20 O'Reilly & New (1982)
Mair & Tayler (1997)
Cording & Hansmire (1975)
(a) 30
Distance from the insertion point of the Pipe (m)
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
-10
0 equation for uniform elastic bar subjected to impact by a rigid body,
Settlement (mm)
10
Center 0.75D Left
20
0.75D Right 1.5D Left
1.5D Right 3D Left
3D Right
(b) 30
Fig. 5. Observed ground movements and settlement prediction profiles
(a) at Sections 3 and 4 transverse to the centerline axis of the pipe; and
(b) along and adjacent to the centerline of the pipe
© ASCE
the theoretical shape predicted by the models, which represents
settlements anticipated for pipe-jacking and tunneling applications.
For tunneling, the same outcome has been observed by other re-
searchers (Schmidt 1969; Cording and Hansmire 1975; O’Reilly
and New 1982), indicating that the inverted normal distribution
may not be suitable for noncohesive soils.
Analysis of Stress-Wave Measurements
Pipe ramming forces a near horizontal pipe to penetrate the ground
using a series of short-duration hammer impacts. The impact force
needs to overcome the soil resistance to ramming exerted by the
surrounding soil on the pipe to generate a permanent displacement
(i.e., set) and therefore penetrate the ground. Analysis of the dy-
namic response of the pipe can be performed through the use of
stress wave theory. The force and velocity measurements near
the rear end of the pipe are used to evaluate the hammer perfor-
mance, driving stresses, and soil resistances during pipe-ramming
installation. The PDA applies the simple-closed form case method
solution of the wave equation (Goble et al. 1975; Rausche et al.
1985) and provides the energy transferred, driving stresses, and soil
resistances associated with driving in real time from the dynamic
measurements of force and velocity. The energy transfer from the
hammer for each impact can be computed by integrating the prod-
uct of force and velocity signals with respect to time, which is given
by Goble et al. (1980)
Z
t
Etransfer ðtÞ ¼ FðtÞ · vðtÞdt ð5Þ
0
where Etransfer = energy transferred; F = force trace (i.e., time
history); and v = velocity trace at head of the pipe. The maximum
energy transferred to the pipe for each hammer strike can be
obtained by taking the maximum value of Etransfer . This allows an
2 3 4 5
evaluation of the performance of the hammer utilized in the pipe-
ramming installation.
The stress developed in the pipe during impact driving can
the compressive stress is usually the most important component due
to the nature of the impact (compression) and the presence of soil
resistance. The PDA computes the maximum compression stress at
the rear end of the pipe by dividing the maximum measured force
with cross-sectional area of the pipe for each hammer blow. The
maximum compressive stress developed in the pipe should not
exceed the limiting design strength of the pipe (i.e., the yield stress)
to prevent damage. The maximum allowable compressive stresses
should generally be limited to 90% of the nominal yield stress of
the steel pipe (i.e., f y ¼ 241 MPa) based on recommendations for
pile-driving operations (Hannigan et al. 1996). The compressive
stress, σc , can also be estimated using the axial wave propagation
given by Stuedlein and Meskele (2012)
E
σc ¼ ·v ð6Þ
c p
where E = elastic modulus of the pipe; c = wave speed of the steel
pipe (5,155 m=s); and vp = pipe particle velocity. Eq. (6) provides a
conservative upper bound stress estimate if the velocity of the pipe
is set equal to the velocity of the ram; however, Fellenius (2011)
showed that vp can be derived from the hammer (or ram) velocity
immediately before impact, vr
04014009-4 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2014.28.
 vr vr
vp ¼ ¼ ð7Þ
1 þ Zp =Zr 1 þ Ap =Ar
where Zp and Zr = impedance of the pipe and ram, respectively;
and Ap and Ar = the cross-sectional area of the pipe and ram
(i.e., encased piston), respectively. The impedance, Z, of a pipe
is a function of its modulus of elasticity, cross-sectional area,
and wave speed (Z ¼ EA=c). The ratio of impedance reduces to
the ratio of their area if the pipe and hammer are made of the same
material as is the case for pipe ramming.
The soil resistance during pipe ramming consists of dynamic
and static components of soil resistance. The Case method, which
is originally developed for pile driving, approximates the dynamic
portion as a linear function of the case damping factor, J c ,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
significant presence of the casing resistance component of soil
resistance to ramming, confirmed through CAPWAP analysis of
the blow as described below. The energy transfer with respect to
time was computed based on Eq. (5) and shown in Fig. 6 and
indicates a maximum transferred energy equal to 2.3 kN-m. Thus,
the hammer-pipe energy transfer efficiency, which is the ratio of
maximum transferred energy to rated energy of the hammer, at this
particular impact blow was about 36%.
The Case method analysis of maximum transferred energy and
induced compressive stresses are provided on Fig. 7. This analysis
was derived in accordance with dynamic pile load test procedures,
over the penetration length of 11.7–20.4 m following welding of
the second pipe segment. The dynamic pipe material properties re-
quired to evaluate driving stresses include the elastic modulus,

multiplied by the pipe face velocity, Rd ¼ J c · Z · V face , with the
assumption that the damping effects are concentrated at the pipe
face (Goble et al. 1975). The Case damping factor has a significant
effect on the magnitude of the soil resistance predicted by the Case
method, and the selection of its value is an important task. For rec-
ommendations on typical ranges, see Goble et al. (1975). The static
soil resistance component can be computed by (Rausche et al.
1985)
   
Fðt1 Þ þ Z · vðt1 Þ Fðt2 Þ − Z · vðt2 Þ
Rs ¼ ð1 − J c Þ þ ð1 þ J c Þ
2 2
ð8Þ
where F = measured force; v = measured velocity; t1 = time of
initial impact; t2 = time of reflection of initial impact from pipe
face (t1 þ 2L=c); and L = length of pipe. The Case method offers
an approximate estimate of the total soil resistance and does not
distinguish between the casing and face resistance components.
Thus, a more reliable estimate of the soil resistance requires a
rigorous analysis of the force and velocity traces by performing
a signal matching process. The Case Pile Wave Analysis Program
(CAPWAP) (Rausche et al. 1972) is probably the most widely
E ¼ 210 GPa; material density, γ ¼ 7881 kg=m3 ; wave speed,
c ¼ 5155 m=s; and nominal pile impedance, Z ¼ 964 kNs=m.
In general, the energy transfer depends on the type of hammer,
the hammer-pipe connection (e.g., collets, ram cones), the hammer
alignment, and the degree of tension on restraining chains (Meskele
and Stuedlein 2013). The actual energy transfer profile decreases
with penetration length, from 39 to 17%, of the rated hammer
energy. The reduction in efficiency is believed to result from a com-
bination of infrequent tensioning of the restraining chains and the
cumulative increase in inertial forces of the spoils, which had com-
pletely filled the pipe at the end of the drive. The induced compres-
sive stress profile indicates a somewhat constant average stress
of 60 MPa, which is significantly smaller than the allowable com-
pressive stress in the pipe. Eq. (6) was used to compute the com-
pressive stress based on an assumed piston diameter of 330 mm,
because manufacturers do not report their piston geometries, and
resulted in a slight overestimate of the actual maximum compres-
sive stress. It appears that Eq. (6) can be adopted for the prediction
of compressive stress in the absence of wave propagation analysis,
provided the piston diameter can be accurately estimated.
8
Max. Energy transferred (kN-m)

used signal matching program that can compute the total static
7 Rated Energy of Hammer
soil resistance (i.e., the casing and face components) following
installation. 6
Fig. 6 depicts the force, the product of velocity and impedance, 5
and the energy transfer time histories for a hammer blow at a pen- 4
etration length of 11.9 m. A qualitative interpretation of the soil
resistance can be made by observing the form of the force and 3
Actual Energy Transfer
velocity curves between the time of peak impact loading (t ¼ 0) 2
and first reflected stress wave from the pipe face (t ¼ 2L=c). 1
Initially, there exists proportionality between the force and velocity
0
traces loading up to the peak via F ¼ Z · v. Thereafter, separation 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
of the two curves is observed after t ¼ 6 m=s, indicating the (a) Length of penetration (m)

250
Max. Compressive stress (Mpa)

Max. allowable stress

3000 4.0
Force 200
2500 Z*velocity 3.5
2000 Energy 3.0
150
Force (kN)

Energy (kN-m)

1500 2.5
1000 2.0
100 Predicted with Eqn. 6
500 1.5
0 1.0
50
-500 0.5 Induced max. Compressive stress
-1000 0.0 0
2 L/C
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Time (ms) (b) Length of penetration (m)

Fig. 6. Force, velocity, and energy time histories for a hammer blow at Fig. 7. Case method results of pipe performance: (a) maximum trans-
a penetration length of 11.9 m ferred energy; (b) maximum induced compressive stress in the pipe

© ASCE 04014009-5 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2014.28.

 Analysis of Soil Resistance
Although not yet common practice for pipe ramming, the soil
resistance to ramming should be estimated for planning and
specification of installations. For example, estimation of the total
(i.e., static and dynamic) soil resistance to ramming can allow for
the informed selection of an appropriate pipe-ramming hammer.
The total static soil resistance may presently be estimated by sum-
ming the face resistance, calculated using an empirical approach
proposed by Weber and Hurtz (1981) for jacking loads associated
with microtunneling, and the casing resistance, calculated with the
ATV (1990), PJA (Milligan and Norris 1994), Staheli (2006),
or Terzaghi (1943) methods for pipe-jacking loads. Stuedlein and
Meskele (2012) summarize these models and their applicability to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
pipe ramming in detail. These soil resistance models were applied
to the installation of the 610-mm-diameter pipe installation using
an angle of internal friction ϕ ¼ 42°, unit weight of the soil
γ ¼ 20.5 kN=m3 , and soil-pipe interface angle δ ¼ 0.5ϕ.
Fig. 8 presents the observed total static soil resistance (i.e., com-
prising face and casing) and total soil resistance (i.e., sum of static
and dynamic) to ramming and static soil resistances computed us-
ing the various pipe-jacking and microtunneling methods presented
in Stuedlein and Meskele (2012). Static soil resistances were
observed in real time using the case method solution to the wave
equation and CAPWAP analysis for two hammer impact blows
corresponding to penetration lengths of 11.9 and 20.2 m. The per-
formance of the pipe-jacking models for prediction of static soil
resistance can be evaluated by comparing to the Case method static
soil resistance obtained in the field and the CAPWAP-based static
soil resistance, both of which are presented in Fig. 8. The selection
of the appropriate Case damping constant for comparison to the
pipe-jacking methods must be informed; for this case, a Case
damping constant of J c ¼ 0.8 was selected based on the results
of the more accurate CAPWAP analysis. The static soil resistances
were observed to be relatively high initially at the resumption of
driving following the welding of the second pipe segment, and de-
creased thereafter as ramming continued. The initial high resistan-
ces were likely due to a loss of soil arching over the interval of
welding while the decrease in soil resistance in the later ramming
stage can be associated with reestablishment of the soil arch above
the pipe. Because the pipe-ramming installation was performed
“in the dry,” that is, above the water table, the reduction in driving
resistance cannot be attributed to positive excess pore water pres-
sures. The effect of piston velocity and hammer energy on the total
(static and dynamic) soil resistance can be observed over penetra-
tion lengths of 18–21 m. The sharp reduction in total soil resistance
is partially attributed to the smaller dynamic soil resistances
700
PJA
600 ATVA 161
Soil Resistance (kN)
Terzaghi (1943)
500
Staheli (2006)
400
CAPWAP
300
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20
Length of penetration (m)
Fig. 8. Total and static soil resistance based on CAPWAP, case method,
and selected pipe-jacking methods
© ASCE
associated with lower induced pipe velocities, and therefore
hammer energy, developed during loss of tension in the restraining
chains (Fig. 7).
The CAPWAP-based static face and casing resistance was ob-
served to equal 69 and 156 kN, and 68 and 203 kN for penetration
lengths of 11.9 and 20.2 m, respectively. The face resistance esti-
mated using the Weber and Hurtz (1981) method, equal to 136 and
152 kN for penetration lengths of 11.9 and 20.2 m, respectively,
overpredicted the CAPWAP-based face resistance by a factor of
two or greater. The corresponding casing resistance was computed
as 154 and 334 kN, 152 and 328 kN, 25 and 43 kN, and 76 and
135 kN based on the ATV, PJA, Staheli (2006), and Terzaghi
(1943) methods and for the two impact blows investigated, respec-
tively. Based on these calculations, the ATV and PJA methods pro-
vide good estimates of casing resistance at a penetration length of
11.9 m, but reduce in accuracy at a penetration length of 20.2 m.
Additionally, the total static soil resistance (i.e., face and casing
resistance) estimates produced using the ATV and PJA methods
overestimate the CAPWAP-based total resistance, largely because
of the inaccurate estimate of face resistance, as shown in Fig. 8. The
Terzaghi (1943) approach appears to provide a good estimate
of total static soil resistance as a result of compensating overpre-
diction and underprediction of face and casing resistance, respec-
tively. Despite the wide range in prediction performance, empirical
modification of these methods for application to pipe ramming
could provide suitable soil resistance estimates as additional data
become available.
As shown in Fig. 8, the total soil resistance (i.e., static and dy-
namic) is larger than the static resistance alone. Thus, the selection
of a pipe-ramming hammer must consider the dynamic component
of resistance. Research is presently underway to address the esti-
mation of dynamic soil resistance to pipe ramming.
Summary and Conclusions
Development of technical guidance and implementation in practice
requires the assessment of appropriate engineering calculations and
validation against full-scale performance data. This paper presents
the performance of a pipe-ramming installation derived from mon-
itoring a 610-mm-diameter instrumented steel pipe. Vertical ground
movements, dynamic strains, and accelerations were observed dur-
ing the production installation. Methods for the estimation of driving
stresses, energy transfer, soil resistance, and settlement have been
evaluated to examine the applicability of existing techniques devel-
oped for pile-driving, pipe-jacking, and microtunneling techniques.
Ground deformations observed during the installation indicated
that settlements and heave were relatively small, less than 15 and
10 mm, respectively. The settlement profiles observed were evalu-
ated using the inverted normal probability distribution approach for
Total soil
resistance tunneling and pipe jacking, including methods by O’Reilly and
New (1982), Cording and Hansmire (1975), and Mair and Taylor
Static soil (1997). Generally, these methods seem to predict the maximum
resistance observed settlements close to the center of the pipe; however,
the settlement was underpredicted at distances greater than 1 m
from the center of the pipe.
The Case method analysis of observed hammer impact-induced
force and velocity time histories showed that driving compressive
stresses were relatively constant over the length of penetration and
25 30 were approximately 60 MPa, indicating no risk of damage to the
structural integrity of the pipe. An equation based on elasticity
theory and wave mechanics was shown to provide a good estimate
of the compressive stress in the absence of the wave equation analy-
ses, although it requires an accurate estimate of the hammer piston
04014009-6 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2014.28.
 diameter. The maximum energy transfer profile deduced from the
Case method analysis indicates that the hammer efficiency ranged
from approximately 37% to as low as 17% over the length of pipe
monitored for the 400-mm hammer used.
The soil resistance was observed using the Case method in real
time and CAPWAP analysis following installation, similar to dy-
namic load test analysis of driven piling. The observed soil resis-
tance was compared to several pipe-jacking methods. The total soil
resistance (i.e., static and dynamic) was noted to be larger than the
static resistance estimates given by the four jacking methods evalu-
ated, as the pipe-jacking methods do not consider the dynamic
component of soil resistance. However, comparison of static soil
resistances showed that the four conventional jacking methods in-
vestigated in this study bracketed the static soil resistance incurred
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
from wave propagation analysis, indicating that these models may
hold promise for pipe-ramming applications pending modification.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge support from the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT) and Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) through Research Contract SPR-710. This
study was carried out with the help of the Wildish Sand and Gravel
Company and Gonzales Boring and Tunneling. The support of the
Oregon and Southwest Washington Chapter of the National Utility
Contractors Association (NUCA) is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Ariaratnam, S., Chan, W., and Choi, D. (2006). “Utilization of trenchless
construction methods in mainland China to sustain urban infrastruc-
ture.” Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-
0680(2006)11:3(134), 134–141.
ASTM. (2008). “Standard test method for high-strain dynamic testing of
deep foundations.” D4945, West Conshohocken, PA.
ATV. (1990). “Structural calculation of driven pipes.” ATV-A 161E, Gesell-
schaft zur Förderung der Abwassertechnik (German Association for the
Water Environment), Bonn, Germany.
Cording, E. J., and Hansmire, W. H. (1975). “Displacement around soft
ground tunnels.” Proc., 5th Pan American Congress on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 571–633.
Fellenius, B. H. (2011). “Basics of foundation design.” Electronic Ed.,
〈www.Fellenius.net〉 (Jan. 21, 2012).
Goble,, G. G., Likins, G., and Rausche, F. (1975). “Bearing capacity of
piles from dynamic measurements.” Final Rep., Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Case Western Reserve Univ., Cleveland, OH.
© ASCE 04014009-7
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2014.28.
Goble, G. G., Rausche, F., and Likins, G. E. (1980). “The analysis of pile
driving—A state of the art.” Proc., 1st Int. Seminar on the Application
of Stress-Wave Theory on Piles, Ashgate Publishing, Stockholm,
Sweden, 131–161.
Hannigan, P. J., Goble, G. G., Thendean, G., Likins, G. E., and Rausche, F.
(1996). Design and construction of driven pile foundations, Publication
No. FHWA-HI-97-014, Federal Highway Administration, Arlington,
VA, 404.
Mair, R. J., and Taylor, R. N. (1997). “Bored tunneling in the urban envi-
ronment.” Proc., 14th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Hamburg, Germany, 2353–2385.
Meskele, T., and Stuedlein, A. W. (2013). “Hammer-pipe energy transfer
efficiency for pipe ramming.” Proc., No-Dig 2013, Paper WM-T4-02,
Annual Meeting for the North American Society for Trenchless Tech-
nology, Benjamin Media, Inc., Brecksville, OH, 10.
Milligan, G. W. E., and Norris, P. (1994). “Pipe jacking: Research results
and recommendations.” Pipe Jacking Association, London, 18.
Najafi, M. (2008). “Pipe ramming projects.” ASCE Manuals and Rep. on
Engineering Practice, No. 115, Reston, VA, 115, 1–71.
O’Connor, J. E., Sarna-wojcicki, A., Wozniak, K. C., Polette, D. J., and
Fleck, R. J. (2001). “Origin, extent, and thickness of quaternary geo-
logic units in the Willamette Valley.” U.S. Geological Survey Profes-
sional Paper 1620, Oregon Water Resources Dept., Salem, OR.
O’Reilly, M. P., and New, B. M. (1982). “Settlements above tunnels in the
United Kingdom—Their magnitude and prediction.” Proc., Tunnelling,
IMM, London, 173–181.
Peck, R. B. (1969). “Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground.”
Proc., 7th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Int. Society for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, London,
U.K., 225–290.
Rausche, F., Goble, G., and Likins, G. (1985). “Dynamic determination of
pile capacity.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1985)
111:3(367), 367–383.
Rausche, F., Moses, F., and Goble, G., (1972). “Soil resistance predictions
from pile dynamics.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 98(9), 917–937.
Schmidt, B. (1969). “Settlements and ground movements associated with
tunnelling in soil.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Illinois, Champaign, IL.
Simicevic, J., and Sterling, R. (2001). “Guidelines for pipe ramming.”
Technical Rep., Vol. 4, Trenchless Technology Center of Louisiana
Technological Univ., Ruston, LA, 1–21.
Staheli, K. (2006). “Jacking force prediction: An interface friction approach
based on pipe surface roughness.” Ph.D. dissertation, Georgia Institute
of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
Stuedlein, A. W., and Meskele, T. (2012). “Preliminary design and engi-
neering of pipe ramming installations.” J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.,
10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000107, 125–134.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics, Wiley, New York.
Weber, W., and Hurtz, G. (1981). “Ermittlung der Rohrreibung und
Entwicklung eines Bohrgerätes.” Tiefbau, Ingenieurbau, Straßenbau,
23(8), 550–555.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.