1

 

Oregon Department of Transportation SPR-710 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PIPE RAMMING INSTALLATIONS

PI: Armin W. Stuedlein, PhD, PE, Oregon State University

SURVEY ON THE APPLICATION OF PIPE RAMMING INSTALLATIONS

Seventeen states took part responding to the questionnaires. These states are Vermont, Virginia, Utah, Texas, Ohio, New York, Nevada, North Dakota, Montana, Missouri, Minnesota, Maryland, Indiana, Illinois, Georgia, Arizona and Alaska. It seems that most of the states do not have experience with Pipe ramming. Alaska is the only state that entirely uses Pipe ramming (100%). Vermont has an experience of employing 50% of their pipe installation with Pipe ramming. Three states with very small percentage of pipe ramming practice are Illinois (7%), Missouri (5%) and Virginia (once).

1. How often do you design, specify, and build culverts?

2. Approximately what percent of these culverts employ trenchless technologies such as micro-tunneling, pipe jacking, and pipe ramming?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1 to 2 times 2 to 4 times 4 to 8 times 8 to 16 times16 or more times

Number  of States

How often do you design, specify, and build culverts

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 to 20% 20 to 40% 40 to 60% 60 to 80% 80 to 100%

Number of States

what percent of these culverts employ trenchless technologies 

2

 

3. What percent of trenchless pipe installation employ:

4. Considering only pipe ramming installations, which efforts are presently used to improve

the rate of installation (check all that apply)? Use of internal cutting shoe Use of external cutting shoe Use of both an external and internal cutting shoe Use of lubrication Frequent removal of cuttings/spoils

RESPONSE: 

 

 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Micro tunneling

Pipe jacking Pipe ramming HDD Pipe Bursting

Number of Respondents

Percent of trenchless pipe installation 

0

1

2

3

4

5

Use of Internal cutting shoe

Use of external cutting shoe

Use of both Internal and 

external cutting shoe

Use of lubrication

Frequent removal of 

cuttings/spoils

Number of Responses

Efforts used to improve the rate of installation 

3

 

5. Considering only pipe ramming installations, which effort is most preferred to improve the rate of installation (check only one)?

Use of internal cutting shoe Use of external cutting shoe Use of both an external and internal cutting shoe Use of lubrication Frequent removal of cuttings/spoils

   RESPONSE: 

0

1

2

3

4

Use of Internal cutting shoe

Use of external cutting shoe

Use of both Internal and 

external cutting shoe

Use of lubrication

Frequent removal of 

cuttings/spoils

Number of Responses

Efforts preferred to improve the rate of installation 

4

 

6. In pipe ramming installations, what is typically included in owner/consultant construction drawings/specifications (check all that apply)?

Layout of pipe ramming and associated equipment at each pit location Shop drawings including pipe configuration (cutting shoes, overcut,

lubrication) Details of spoil removal system Grade and alignment control plan and system Provisions for the control of groundwater Shoring/stabilization of working pits Hammer and ancillary equipment Other (specify):

__________________________________________________ RESPONSE: 

0

1

2

3

4

Number of Responses

Items included in owner/consultant construction drawings/specifications  

5

 

7. In pipe ramming installations, what is typically included in contractor construction

drawings/specifications (check all that apply)? Layout of pipe ramming and associated equipment at each pit location Shop drawings including pipe configuration (cutting shoes, overcut,

lubrication) Details of spoil removal system Grade and alignment control plan and system Provisions for the control of groundwater Shoring/stabilization of working pits Hammer and ancillary equipment Other (specify):

__________________________________________________ RESPONSE: 

0

1

2

3

4

5

Number of Responses

Items included in contractor construction drawings/specifications 

6

 

8. To the best of your knowledge, what diameter pipe and how many of each was installed

using pipe ramming in the last 10 years under your direct or indirect supervision? _______ < 2’ diameter _______2 to 4’ diameter _______4 to 6’ diameter _______6 to 8’ diameter _______8 to 10’ diameter _______ > 10’ diameter

RESPONSE: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

< 2' diameter 2'to 4' diameter

4'to 6' diameter

6'to 8' diameter

8'to 10' diameter

> 10' diameter

Number of Pipes Installed

Number of pipes installed using pipe ramming in the last 10 years 

7

 

9. In your experience, how is the pipe hammer specified? Specified in design phase by owner Specified in design phase by consultant Selected by contractor in bid Determined by contractor in the field

 

RESPONSE: 

0

1

2

3

Specified in design phase by owner

Specified in design phase by consultant

Selected by contractor in bid

Determined by contractor in the 

field

Number of Responses

Pipe hammer specification

8

 

10. How do you determine the appropriate size of hammer? Wave equation analysis Experience U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Guidelines (2004) ASCE Guidelines (2008) Do not determine size of hammer Other (specify): _________________________________________

RESPONSE: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

1

2

3

Wave equation analysis

Experience U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Guidelines (2004)

ASCE Guidelines (2008)

Do not determine size of hammer

Number of Responses

Appropriate hammer size determination

9

 

11. If the wave equation is used to evaluate the pipe ramming hammer during the design phase, how is it implemented?

In-house code/spreadsheet GRL WEAP Other commercial software (specify): ________________________ Wave equation is not used

RESPONSE: 

0

1

2

3

4

5

In‐house code/spreadsheet

GRL WEAP Other commercial software

Wave equation is not used

Number of Responses

Evaluation of the pipe ramming hammer during the design phase

10

 

12. In your experience, how is pipe wall thickness specified? Specified in design phase by owner Specified in design phase by consultant Selected by contractor in bid Determined by contractor in the field

RESPONSE: 

 

0

1

2

3

Specified in design phase by owner

Specified in design phase by consultant

Selected by contractor in bid

Determined by contractor in the 

field

Number of Responses

Pipe wall thickness specification

11

 

13. How do you determine pipe wall thickness for pipe ramming installations? Wave equation analysis Experience U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Guidelines (2004) ASCE Guidelines (2008) Do not determine pipe wall thickness Other (specify): _________________________________________

RESPONSE: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

1

2

3

Wave equation analysis

Experience U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Guidelines (2004)

ASCE Guidelines (2008)

Do not determine size of 

hammer

Number of Responses

Pipe wall thickness determination for pipe ramming installations

12

 

14. If the wave equation is used in the design phase, how is it implemented? In-house code/spreadsheet GRL WEAP Other commercial software (specify): ________________________ Wave equation is not used

RESPONSE: 

15. How is installation resistance along the pipe casing and facing considered in design (check all that apply)?

Static soil strength calculations only Dynamic installation stresses only Both static soil strength calculations and dynamic installation stresses Installation loads along casing not considered in design

RESPONSE: 

0

1

2

3

4

5

In‐house code/spreadsheet

GRL WEAP Other commercial software

Wave equation is not used

Number of Responses

Implementation of wave equation

0

1

2

3

4

5

Static soil strength calculations only

Dynamic installation stresses only

Both static soil strength calculations 

and dynamic installation stresses

Installation loads along casing not 

considered in design

Number of Responses

Installation resistance along the pipe casing and facing  

13

 

16. What are the primary parameters used in your pipe casing and facing resistance design calculations (check all that apply)?

SPT N-value CPT Data Pressuremeter data Dilatometer data

Friction angle () and cohesion (c) RESPONSE: 

17. How is corrosion considered in design?

Romanoff (1957) corrosion model Standard corrosion allowance dictated by in-house guidance Corrosion not explicitly considered in design Other (specify): __________________________________________

RESPONSE: 

0

1

2

3

SPT N‐value CPT Data Pressuremeter data

Dilatometer data Friction angle (f) & cohesion (c)

Number of Responses

Parameters used in the pipe casing and facing resistance calculations

0

1

2

3

4

Romanoff (1957) corrosion model

Standard corrosion allowance dictated by in‐house guidance

Corrosion not explicitly considered in design

Number of Responses

Corrosion consideration

14

 

18. How is corrosion incorporated in practice? Added wall thickness/section Galvanization Epoxy coating Combination of added wall thickness and galvanization/coatings Corrosion not incorporated into design Other (specify): __________________________________________

RESPONSE: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

1

2

3

Number of Responses

Corrosion incorporation in practice

15

 

19. What do you typically specify/submit in the construction record of the pipe ramming installation (check all that apply)?

The position of the pipe in relation to the design line and grade Date and time of ramming start and finish Inclination of the pipe Rate of advance, delays Hammer stroke rate (blows per minute, bpm) Pipe set (blows per foot, bpf) Operating pressure Quantity of spoil removed Quality of spoil removed (i.e., characterization/classification of spoils) Log of lubricant system (pressure, quantities, viscosity, etc.) Other (specify): __________________________________________

 

RESPONSE: 

 

 

 

 

 

0

1

2

3

4

5

Number of Responses

Typically specifcation of the construction record of the pipe ramming installation

16

 

20. Considering site characterization, what percent of pipe ramming installations are guided by a soils report?

0 to 20% 20 to 40% 40 to 60% 60 to 80% 80 to 100%

RESPONSE: 

0

1

2

3

4

0 to 20% 20 to 40% 40 to 60% 60 to 80% 80 to 100%

Number of Responses

Percent of pipe ramming installations guided by a soils report

17

 

21. What methods are used to adequately characterize the geotechnical conditions of the project site (check all that apply)?

Soil survey/geologic maps Historical embankment construction documents Test pits Borings with split-spoon sampling and SPT blow count Cone penetration testing Test ram installation Other (specify): _________________________________________ No geotechnical investigation performed

RESPONSE: 

 

0

1

2

3

4

5

Number of Responses

Characterization method  used for the geotechnical conditions of the project site

18

 

22. What method is preferred to adequately characterize the geotechnical conditions of the project site (check only one)?

Soil survey/geologic maps Historical embankment construction documents Test pits Borings with split-spoon sampling and SPT blow count Cone penetration testing Test ram installation Other (specify):

___________________________________________________ No geotechnical investigation performed

RESPONSE: 

0

1

2

3

4

Number of Responses

Characterization method  preferred for the geotechnical conditions of the project 

19

 

23. How are obstructions dealt with (please describe)?  

RESPONSE: 

Missouri The majority of encountered obstructions are geotechnical in nature, particularly cobbles and boulders. These are normally broken up by the leading edge (reinforced) band on the pipe or swallowed by the pipe. Spoil removal from the open-ended pipe ram is facilitated by the use of lubricants (bentonite + water + polymer). Metal as an obstruction should be removed and contaminated soils should be removed before ramming begins.

24. Considering construction, how often has dynamic testing with PDA and subsequent CAPWAP analyses been performed?

0 to 20% 20 to 40% 40 to 60% 60 to 80% 80 to 100%

RESPONSE: 

0

1

2

3

4

0 to 20% 20 to 40% 40 to 60% 60 to 80% 80 to 100%

Number of Responses

Percent of dynamic testing with PDA and subsequent CAPWAP analyses