Proceedings of the ASME 2022 14th International Pipeline Conference

IPC2022
September 26-30, 2022, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2022-87129

SETTLEMENT RISK ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING FOR DIRECT PIPE®

CONSTRUCTION BENEATH CRITICAL INFASTRUCTURE

Urso A. Campos, PhD, PE Jonathan L. Robison, PE Gary W. Castleberry Amin Azimi, PhD, PE
GeoEngineers, Inc. GeoEngineers, Inc. GeoEngineers, Inc. GeoEngineers, Inc.
Cary, North Carolina, USA Springfield, Missouri, USA Springfield, Missouri, USA San Diego, California, USA

ABSTRACT
Direct Pipe® (DP) is an innovative trenchless construction Keywords: Direct Pipe®; settlement; MTBM; tunneling;
method that combines aspects of micro-tunneling and horizontal trenchless; construction; LiDAR.
directional drilling (HDD). In the DP method, ground
excavation and pipeline installation are simultaneous. In this 1. INTRODUCTION
method, the jacking frame in micro-tunneling is replaced with a The Direct Pipe® (DP) equipment and method was
pipe thruster and coupling is eliminated. Additionally, reaming developed by Herrenknecht, AG, in Germany in the early 2000s,
the bore hole, which is common with the HDD method, is and the first DP was completed in Germany in 2007. From a
eliminated. The DP method of construction is typically applied practical standpoint, DP is most often compared to the longer-
when subsurface conditions beneath a surficial obstacle are not established method of horizontal directional drilling (HDD), as
conducive for the HDD method of construction due to final hole both methods install pre-fabricated steel pipe in curved sections.
diameter, granular soils, and/or high risks of hydraulic fracture Because DP uses microtunneling technology to excavate the
leading to inadvertent drilling fluid returns. During tunneling ground in its heading, and the ground is continuously cased
operations, the microtunneling boring machine (MTBM) during the one pass installation, the method is capable of
excavates a space or tunnel that is typically a few to several handling ground conditions (such as gravels, cobbles, and
centimeters larger in radius than the jacking pipe; which is weathered bedrock). Finally, compared to conventional
thrust into place continuously behind the TBM. This overcut microtunneling which typically requires shored excavations, DP
annular space and the potential, occasional temporary can launch and exit at or near the ground surface as it is routinely
extraction of the MTBM and jacking pipe represent settlement installed in one or more curved sections.
risks during construction. For this reason, the pipeline
construction team should consider assessing settlement risks Figure 1 depicts a Herrenknecht 750 PT Pipe Thruster and a
associated with DP construction, and subsequently prepare and 42-inch (1,066-mm) Herrenknecht AVN800XC micro-tunneling
deploy a settlement monitoring plan during the pipeline boring machine (MTBM) welded to the leading end of a 42-inch-
construction phase, particularly where the proposed DP diameter sacrificial pipe.
alignment will cross railroad, highway, and/or other sensitive
features that may be adversely affected by settlement. This paper
presents an adopted settlement risk assessment and monitoring
plan for a recent trenchless crossing where the DP method of
construction was utilized to install a pipeline section beneath two
major interstates and a railroad outside of Washington D.C.,
United States. The paper also includes a Finite Element Analysis
(FEA) using Plaxis software with the purpose of exploring the
time variable in settlement analysis. Furthermore, the paper
expands on the planning characteristics of settlement monitoring
utilized during construction, which consisted of conventional
surveying and vehicle-mounted LiDAR scanning.

1 © 2022 by ASME

FIGURE 1: HERRENKNECHT PIPE THRUSTER AND MTB
USED IN DIRECT PIPE® OPERATIONS
The project discussed in this paper consisted of the installation
of a 42-inch sacrificial pipe beneath two major interstates, the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (Metro)
railroad tracks, 5), associated side streets, and portions of a
popular recreational trail in Fairfax County, Virginia, USA. The
DP alignment (Path A) is oriented east to west (launch to
reception), primarily along existing utilities right-of-way (ROW)
with overhead powerlines and had a design horizontal length of
3,425 feet (1,043.9 m).
1.1 Subsurface Conditions
The project team explored the subsurface conditions at the
proposed DP site between June 3 and June 10, 2021, by
advancing three borings to depths of up to 155 feet (47.2 m)
below ground surface (bgs). Subsurface conditions along the
proposed DP alignment generally consist of very soft to hard lean
clay with varying amount of sand and silt and silt with varying
amount of sand and mica fragment overlying weathered mica
schist. Geologic mapping indicates the Path A likely crosses a
northeast striking thrust fault, known as the Plummers Island
thrust fault.
A thrust fault is formed when compressional forces in the Earth
cause the geologic materials one side of a fault plane to move up
and be deposited over the materials on the other side of the plane.
Displacement of this nature typically occurs along a relatively
shallow angle with respect to horizontal and is known for
depositing older geologic materials over younger materials. In
this regard, displacement along the Plummers Island thrust fault
in the Project region forced the older Mather George formation
over the younger Sykesville formation [1].
Groundwater was not observed during the subsurface
explorations. Additionally, lenses of fine-grained materials, like
clays and silts, interbedded within coarser grain materials can
create low permeability regions that are capable of storing
groundwater as a perched water table. As a result of these and
many other factors, groundwater elevations may vary before and
during construction.
1.2 Preliminary Settlement Analysis
During the design process, we estimated the potential surficial
settlement resulting from the removal of the soil during DP
installation using an inverted normal probability curve method.
Based on our calculations, it was recommended that the DP
contractor limit the radial overcut to 2 inches (50.8 mm).
Additionally, we anticipated that there was a high risk of
approximately 2 inches of surface settlement beneath the
monitored major interstate if the MTBM were to be extracted
during construction. In the context of this paper, extraction is
understood as the retraction of the Direct Pipe® assembly which
includes the MTBM and installed casing. As a result, we further
recommended that extraction of the MTBM not be allowed once
it has passed beneath the monitored major interstate, this is
because of the temporary unsupported open tunnel while the
MTBM is extracted. Furthermore, it is recommended that the
MTBM provide continuous face pressure during mining. Should
the face pressure be inadequate or the machine be allowed to
excavate without advancing, over-mining could occur which
would potentially result in large, surficial settlements.
This paper presents an adopted settlement risk assessment and
monitoring plan for the Path A crossing. Furthermore, the paper
also includes a Finite Element Analysis (FEA) using Plaxis
software with the purpose of exploring the time variable in
settlement analysis and compare the results to the preliminary
settlement analysis which predicted an approximate 2 inches of
surface settlement beneath the monitored major interstate in the
event of the MTBM were to be extracted during construction.
It is important to mention that at the time of writing this paper,
tunneling operations have been successfully completed and that
there was no instance in which the MTBM was extracted during
construction.
2. SETTLEMENT MONITORING
The Virginia Department of Transportation’s (VDOT)
requested an elevation monitoring plan and execution for the
Path A project. The elevation monitoring plan consisted of
utilizing conventional civil survey techniques to evaluate
potential settlement or heave along Path A. The conventional
methodology involves setting benchmarks on each shoulder of
the two major interstates and adjacent road, and utilizing civil
survey techniques to collect baseline elevation data. After the
baseline data has been collected, a survey team returned to the
site and collected elevation data during each construction shift.
After the survey data was collected and processed, a comparison
2 © 2022 by ASME
was made between the daily measurements and the control
baseline measurement to evaluate changes in elevation at each
benchmark.
In addition to the conventional monitoring program, a sensor-
mounted drone was utilized to monitor the surface along the Path
A alignment. The mobile lidar data was collected via truck
mounted LiDAR equipment. The truck drove the highway lanes
once a day, usually in the middle of the night when traffic
volume was low.
2.1 Deliverables
The conventional surveying delivery consisted in a
tabulation delivery comparing the original elevation of the
monuments along the tunnel alignment. There were no visible
indications of settlement during the project and after completion.
Figure 2 shows a typical deliverable documenting daily survey
elevation measurement, via conventional survey, of critical
points along the tunnel alignment.
FIGURE 2: TYPICAL CONVENTIONAL SURVEY REPORT
FIGURE 3: CAPTURE POINTS ALONG A MAJOR
INTERSTATE
The additional survey deliverable consisted of surface
subsidence monitoring along the alignment using a Trimble
MX9 Mobil LiDAR system. The monitoring program consisted
in driving the referenced equipment over the alignment once a
day, six days a week. Figure 3 shows capture points, defined for
the monitoring program, along the monitored major interstate.
Similar capture points were defined for an adjacent monitored
major interstate, and any on/off ramps that were above the
alignment. Similar to the conventional reports, the LiDAR
survey indicated that there were no settlement occurrences along
the tunnel alignment. It is noteworthy that the LiDAR detected
small changes on surfaces after storm events. These detections
were triggered by minor erosion and soil displacement due to
excess runoff water on surfaces. Furthermore, LiDAR detected
small changes in elevation due to ongoing asphalt regrading in
some of the surveyed lanes.
3 © 2022 by ASME
3. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS IN PLAXIS
The loading conditions considered in our PLAXIS analyses
is the short-term condition that occurs immediately after the
tunneling is complete and assumes that the MTBM was extracted
during construction. Figure 4 shows the two-dimensional soil
model developed in PLAXIS for the critical section along the
monitored major interstate. The static groundwater was modeled
below the tunnel, as there were no indications of groundwater at
the time of subsurface explorations (as discussed in Section 1.1).
FIGURE 4: TWO-DIMENSIONALSOIL MODEL DEVELOPED
IN PLAXIS
The model consisted of the paved surface of the monitored major
interstate (dark blue surface), a medium stiff lean clay layer
(yellow), a very stiff to hard silt layer (light blue), and bedrock
(green). The soil properties were obtained from a geotechnical
boring drilled approximately 200 feet (61 m) from the centerline
of the monitored major interstate.
The PLAXIS model resulted in a predicted settlement of
0.2 inches (5 mm) on the surface of the monitored major
interstate. Figure 5 shows the total displacement as modeled in
PLAXIS.
FIGURE 5: TWO-DIMENSIONALSOIL MODEL DEVELOPED
IN PLAXIS – TOTAL DISPLACEMENT
4. CONCLUSIONS
The initial analytical settlement conducted prior to construction
indicated a potential settlement of up to 2 inches (50.8 mm) if
the MTBM were to be extracted during construction. The
PLAXIS model predicted a total settlement of 0.2 inches (5 mm)
if the MTBM were to be extracted during construction. One of
the limitations of the analytical settlement calculation is that it
can only account for one soil unit, thereby the softer soil unit
(clay) was considered for the analysis, resulting in a very
conservative result.
The conventional and LiDAR settlement monitoring showed no
indication of settlement throughout construction and after
completion. The combination of two separate monitoring
methods that rely on different sources of measurement provide
additional confidence in that the two monitoring programs can
be used to validate each other.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Dominion Energy Transmission Inc.
for allowing us to share this project with the IPC community. We
would like to also commend Donnie Smith for all the long hours
dedicated to the project performing Construction Observation
activities at the site.
REFERENCES
[1] Drake, A.A., Jr., and Froelich, A.J. Geologic map of the
Falls Church quadrangle, Fairfax and Arlington Counties and
the City of Falls Church, Virginia, and Montgomery County,
Maryland, U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Quadrangle Map
GQ-1734 [1 sheet], Scale 1:24,000, 2017.
4 © 2022 by ASME