ENGINEERING INSPECTION

OF MICROTUNNEL PIPE JACKING

David C. Mathy 1

ABSTRACT
The trenchless installation of pipelines by microtunnel pipe jacking presents several new
challenges of understanding to both owners and engineers. One of these new challenges is in the
area of engineering inspection. The complexity of microtunneling equipment and the lack of
direct observation of the tunnel excavation present several inspection issues unique to
microtunnel pipe jacking. Specific engineering inspection topics presented in this paper include:
plans, specifications and contractor submittals; shafts; pipe; survey control; microtunnel boring
machine operation; and final project acceptance. With this overview of engineering inspection
issues unique to microtunneling, owners and engineers will be better equipped to successfully
manage a microtunnel pipe jacking project.

Keywords: microtunneling, inspections, geotechnical conditions, plans and specifications,

contractor submittals, shafts, microtunnel boring machine operation, final project acceptance.

Principal Engineer, DCM/Joyal Engineering, 484 North Wiget Lane, Walnut Creek, CA 94598
INTRODUCTION
Since the introduction of microtunneling technology to the United States in 1984, the use of this
trenchless method of pipeline installation has steadily increased with an average national growth
rate of about 20% per year. In Northern California, microtunnel pipe jacking installations and
microtunneling growth have principally occurred in the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento.
Each year, new owners, design engineers and construction managers are introduced to
microtunneling. The trenchless installation of pipelines by microtunnel pipe jacking presents
many new challenges of understanding to both owners and engineers. One of these new
challenges is in the area of engineering inspection. The complexity of microtunneling equipment
and the lack of direct observation of the tunnel excavation present requirements for engineering
inspection that are unique to microtunnel pipe jacking. As the number of new microtunnel pipe
jacking projects outpaces the number of qualified and experienced engineering inspectors, new
inspector training is often “on the job”. It is the intent of this paper to introduce key construction
issues unique to microtunneling that can serve as a reference for inspection.

This paper presents a checklist of engineering inspection issues for microtunnel pipe jacking
developed through direct experience on over 25,000 linear feet of microtunneling projects in the
San Francisco Bay Area. These projects have involved tunneling through San Francisco Bay
Mud, a variety of alluvial soils and soft sedimentary bedrock (inspection issues associated with
hard bedrock tunneling are not addressed in this paper). The inspection checklists refer to those
aspects of construction related to microtunneling only and should be placed within the context of
the project as a whole. Following a brief introduction to microtunneling, this paper is organized
into the following sections which will cover some of the construction methods and materials
unique to microtunnel pipe jacking:

• Plans, specifications and contractor submittals: submittal review and

coordination, construction contingency plans;
• Shafts: jacking and receiving shaft shoring, dewatering and base stability,
reaction walls and thrust blocks, soil stability at portals, ground
improvement, manhole construction, shaft backfill and shoring removal;
• Pipe: pipeline materials, pipe joints, maximum jacking stress, receiving,
storage and handling of pipe, pipe collars, gaskets and pipe cushions, and
lubrication ports;
• Survey Control: lasers, laser mounting, laser checking, ground surface
settlement monuments, and subsurface settlement monuments;
• Microtunnel Boring Machine Operation: system computer records, initial
launch alignment, steering corrections, jacking force, intermediate jacking
stations, overcut lubrication, hydrofracture, existing utility clearances,
excavated volume vs. tunnel volume, slurry mix and polymer additives,
slurry separation plant and spoils disposal; and
• Final Project Acceptance: manhole settlement measurements, ground
surface and subsurface monument settlement measurements.
MICROTUNNEL PIPE JACKING
Microtunneling is a hybrid of the tunneling industry (miniaturization of tunnel boring machines
in Japan in 1975) and the pipeline industry where pipe jacking has been used for more than 100
years. Detailed descriptions of microtunneling are contained in textbooks by Stein (1989) and
Thomson (1993). Microtunneling is commonly described as a remotely controlled, guided, pipe
jacking process that provides continuous support to the excavation face. The microtunneling
process does not require personnel entry into the tunnel (Bennett, 1995). However, man entry
into the tunnel at diameters of 600 to 760 mm (24 to 30 inches) and larger can and does occur for
in-field equipment repairs. Microtunneling equipment has five independent systems (Isley,
1997):

• microtunnel boring machine (MTBM);

• jacking or propulsion system;
• spoil removal system;
• laser guidance and remote control system; and
• pipe lubrication system.

All of these systems are impacted by subsurface conditions which dictate the contractors
selection of various equipment options and combinations within these systems. Even the
selection of pipeline material is influenced by subsurface conditions based on jacking loads
(jacking resistance from soil and groundwater pressure acting on the face of the MTBM, and soil
friction acting on the MTBM and pipe string circumference) and long-term soil corrosivity.
Therefore, a thorough understanding and appreciation of geologic setting and subsurface
conditions as described in the project geotechnical investigation report is essential to successful
engineering inspection.

Most engineering inspectors arrive at microtunnel pipe jacking through the pipeline industry and
their experience with open cut trenching. Many of the subsurface conditions that most critically
impact open cut trenching are not critical to microtunneling and conversely many of the
subsurface conditions that most critically impact microtunneling are not critical to open cut
trenching. To assist in appreciating these differences, Table No. 1 is a qualitative comparison of
subsurface conditions and their relative influence on open cut trenching and microtunneling.

PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND CONTRACTOR SUBMITTALS

As with any construction project, the engineering inspector must be thoroughly familiar with the
project plans and specifications and the geotechnical investigation report. With respect to the
project plans, the engineering inspector should be especially vigilant to carefully review all
utility, creek and channel crossings with special emphasis on those crossings with little
separation (e.g., less than about three pipe diameters). Some examples of potential problems
with such crossings are:

• hydrofracture and slurry loss;

• abandoned shoring around existing utilities can damage the MTBM;
 Table 1: Subsurface Conditions and Open Cut Trenching vs. Microtunneling

Open Cut Microtunneling

Geologic/Geotechnical Condition Trenching Shafts Tunnel
1. Excavation Shoring ! ! "
2. Groundwater & dewatering ! ! "
3. Unstable soils (raveling, running, ! ! ◗
flowing - no stand-up time)
4. Contamination above pipe zone ! ! "
5. Bedding & backfill ! ◗ "
6. Soil gradation down to 2 microns " " ◗
7. Pipe friction and jacking resistance 1
" ◗ !
8. Cobbles/boulders, size and distribution " " !
9. Cobbles/boulders, compressive strength, " " !
abrasiveness
10. Swelling clays and claystones " " !
11. Tree roots, wood, fill debris and buried " " !
metal
12. Face stability and loss of ground " " !
producing large unanticipated
settlements 2
13. Systemic settlement (related to overcut) " " ◗
14. Shallow cover, adjacent utility trenches, " " !
hydrofracture and slurry loss
15. Reaction wall bearing capacity " ◗ ◗
16. Recompression settlement ◗ ◗ "
17. Bedrock hardness/strength ◗ ◗ !
18. Bedrock fracturing/jointing ◗ ◗ !
19. Bedrock abrasiveness " " !
20. Bedrock slake/durability " " ◗
21. Variable cementation " " ◗
22. Mixed-face condition 3
" " !
23. Changed-face condition 4
" " !
24. Unknown obstructions/utilities ◗ ◗ !
! - critical ◗ - important " - not critical
(1) influences shaft spacing, thrust wall design, IJS placement and pipe selection
(2) soil caused, operator influenced
(3) e.g., soil and bedrock in the tunnel cross-section - impacts cutter-head performance and
line and grade control; can lead to loss of ground or stopping the MTBM
(4) e.g., transition from soil to bedrock in the tunnel alignment - impacts cutter-head
performance and line and grade control; can stop the MTBM.

• thrust blocks on water mains are usually not well documented and if
encountered by the MTBM will result in damage to the water main and
MTBM; and
 • as-built locations of existing utilities installed by horizontal directional
drilling (HDD) are often not as reliable as open-cut installation.

The plans and geotechnical investigation report should be checked for all locations where the
microtunnel alignment is within fill. Fill, in general, and older undocumented fill in particular
can contain obstructions (e.g., oversize material, metal, wood, etc.) that can damage or stop the
MTBM. The geotechnical investigation report should be checked for potential obstructions (e.g.,
cobbles and boulders) and significant changes in soil/bedrock within a microtunnel drive (e.g.,
mixed-face and changed-face conditions).

With respect to the project specifications, the engineering inspector should be familiar with:

• the definition of obstructions;

• the required safety factors for jacking pipe and reaction walls;
• line and grade tolerances;
• Underground Classification (in California, required by the State Division of
Occupational Safety and Health, Mining and Tunneling Unit with a mandated
pre-job conference prior to commencing any tunnel construction, typically
required at tunnel diameters of 760 mm [30 inches] and larger).
• required contractor submittals;
• required contractor contingency plans; and
• for projects with a Geotechnical Baseline Report (GBR), know the
definitions of anticipated subsurface conditions and baseline quantities
specified in the contract documents.

Microtunnel specifications typically require contractor submittals for a wide range of issues
including detailed descriptions of: microtunneling equipment and equipment set-up for
consistency with subsurface conditions as defined by the geotechnical investigation report,
sample MTBM system operation records, topside equipment layout plans, tunneling operation
sequence, launch and exit/entry seals, portal stabilization measures, jacking system, spoil
removal system, guidance and remote control system, lubrication system, pipe materials, operator
experience, survey monument plans, and various construction contingency plans. The following
contractor submittals should receive special attention from the engineering inspector to assure
coordination between the general contractor, microtunnel subcontractor, shoring designer and
pipeline supplier:

1. Microtunnel contractor’s estimated maximum jacking force.1

1
There are several methods of estimating maximum jacking force given drive length, pipe diameter and soil and
groundwater conditions. The reader is referred to Bennett and Cording (1999) for a detailed analytical description of
this calculation.

2. Maximum safe jacking capacity of microtunnel pipe (using specified safety

factor).
 3. Shoring designers maximum allowable thrust block/reaction wall capacity at
jacking shafts (using specified safety factor).
4. Shoring design for jacking and receiving shafts.
5. Jacking and receiving shaft dewatering plans, if any.
6. Ground improvement plans and/or dewatering plans, when required, at
MTBM launch and retrieval portals and/or behind thrust block/reaction wall
due to weak and unstable soil conditions.
7. Plans for ground surface settlement monuments, subsurface settlement
monuments and critical structure surveys.
8. Shoring removal and shaft backfill plan.
9. Storm water management plan.
10. Slurry make up including chemical additives (with Material Safety Data
Sheets).
11. Slurry and solids waste handling and disposal site.

In addition, the engineering inspector should be thoroughly familiar with the microtunnel
contractor’s contingency plans for at least the following items:

12. Obstructions and obstruction removal through emergency (911) shafts or

other means (e.g., back tunneling from receiving shaft).
13. Mechanical breakdowns and recovery of the MTBM through 911 shafts or
other means.
14. Control of hydrofracture and slurry loss.
15. Recovery of lost line or grade and maximum steering correction consistent
with pipe joints.
16. Repair or replacement of pipe damaged by handling, misalignment, edge
loading, cobbles and boulders, etc.
17. Remediation of loss of ground and excessive ground surface settlement.
18. Reduction of jacking force should pipe or thrust block/reaction wall become
overstressed or jacking system capacity exceeded.
19. Handling and treatment of contaminated soil and groundwater.
20. Control of overflow from slurry separation plant.

SHAFTS
Shafts are the “foundation” of a microtunnel pipe jacking project. Well-constructed shafts with
adequate space for top side equipment allow for the greatest levels of safety and productivity for
the microtunnel contractor. The very subsurface conditions that make microtunneling a desirable
construction method (e.g., high groundwater, weak soils with no stand-up time) make shaft
construction particularly challenging. The engineering inspector should differentiate between
jacking shafts, receiving shafts and 911 shafts. Jacking and receiving shafts should be
considered long-term excavations. 911 shafts may be considered short-term excavations. The
following points relate specifically to microtunneling jacking and receiving shafts:
 1. Check base stability of jacking and receiving shafts. Unstable base
conditions can lead to shifting of the jacking frame and long-term manhole
settlements.
2. Check thrust block/reaction wall construction to assure conformance with
submittal design.
3. Check shaft dewatering systems when used. External dewatering will lead to
increased effective stress in the soil around the shaft which will in turn
increase jacking forces required to advance the MTBM and pipe string.
4. Check shaft ground improvement when used (sometimes used locally at
launch and retrieval portals and behind thrust block/reaction walls).
5. Check shafts to make sure that shoring is “water-tight” and that no soil
particles are entering shaft. This is especially critical in loose, non-cohesive
soils below groundwater where the flowing ground conditions can produce
voids and sink holes outside the shoring.
6. Check surface drainage conditions around the perimeter of the shaft. Make
sure that the shaft is adequately protected from rainfall runoff and flooding.
7. Check launch and retrieval portals to make sure that they are “water-tight”
and that no soil particles are entering the shafts.
8. Check thrust block/reaction wall for any visible signs of deflection upon
jacking.
9. Check manhole construction and microtunnel pipe tie-ins to ensure that the
manhole foundation is stable and that pipe joints are properly seated.
10. Check manhole elevation as shaft is backfilled to monitor recompression
settlement in soft ground.
11. Check manhole elevation as shoring is removed to monitor vibration-induced
settlement particularly when a vibratory pile driver is used to extract sheet
piles in loose, saturated, non-cohesive soils.

PIPE
Pipe materials installed by microtunnel pipe jacking include vitrified clay, reinforced concrete,
polymer concrete, glass-fiber reinforced plastic, PVC lined and coated reinforced concrete, and
steel. Due to the axial loads imposed on microtunnel pipe during pipe jacking, the pipe
straightness, roundness, thickness, squareness and length are manufactured within strict
tolerances. The engineering inspector should:

1. Check all sections of pipe for damage upon arrival at the site, especially at
the pipe ends.
2. Prior to starting any individual microtunnel drive, check to make sure that all
sections of pipe required for that drive length are on-site and undamaged. In
some soil conditions, delays in tunneling can lead to “freeze” of the MTBM
and pipe string.
3. Check that pipe collars delivered to the site are consistent with the
specifications. This is particularly important in corrosive soils.
4. Check that pipe collars are flush fitting with no protrusions that may cause
soil drag and void formation near the launch portal.
 5. Check for proper installation of pipe collars, gaskets and pipe cushions.
6. Check for lubrication ports in the pipe string and proper spacing/plumbing of
the ports.
7. Know the maximum safe jacking capacity of the pipe and check the MTBM
drive records for applied jacking force. Require the contractor to implement
contingency plan(s) should applied jacking force approach the jacking
capacity of the pipe.
8. Check sealing of lubrication ports.
9. Check removal of intermediate jacking stations and closure of the pipe string.

SURVEY CONTROL
Survey control involves two different facets of inspection on a microtunnel pipe jacking project.
The first is related to the laser guidance and remote control system controlling pipeline alignment
and maintenance of line and grade and the second relates to loss of ground at the tunnel face and
resulting ground surface settlement.

Microtunneling is a laser-guided system, therefore, achieving desired line and grade depends on
laser set-up and laser accuracy. The engineering inspector should:

1. Check that the laser is consistent (i.e., strong enough) with the specifications
and drive length. Review laser calibration. Check beam dispersion and
distortion as a function of tunnel length and heat build-up within the tunnel.
2. Double check the laser set-up (i.e., projected line and grade) with an
independent survey.
3. Check that the laser is set-up independent of the thrust block/reaction wall.
Hanging the laser on the rear wall of the jacking shaft can result in movement
of the laser as jacking forces are applied to the thrust block/reaction wall.
4. Periodically check that the laser is properly protected in the jacking shaft and
has not been bumped or inadvertently moved by activity in the jacking shaft.

The protection of the public requires that the engineering inspector carefully monitor the ground
surface above and adjacent to the tunnel for any signs of settlement. Establishment of survey
monuments and preconstruction condition survey of the street, curb, sidewalks and other
improvements above the tunnel are critical to objective monitoring and documentation. The
engineering inspector should:

5. Periodically check ground surface settlement monuments established directly

above and offset from the tunnel.
6. Periodically check any subsurface settlement monuments established directly
above the tunnel.
7. Periodically check monuments established on critical utilities and critical
structures in close proximity to the tunnel alignment.
8. Check ground surface conditions directly above and adjacent to the tunnel
alignment against documented preconstruction conditions.
Excessive settlements above the tunnel indicates loss of ground into the MTBM as a result of
mechanical failure, improper slurry mix design, adverse mixed face conditions or operator error.
In such cases, the contractor’s contingency plan for loss of ground should be implemented
immediately.

MICROTUNNEL BORING MACHINE OPERATION

The MTBM is a complex mechanical system adaptable to a wide range of soil, bedrock and
groundwater conditions. Various equipment options and equipment combinations are selected
by the contractor on the basis of subsurface conditions, drive lengths and specified pipe
materials. MTBM operation is monitored and recorded by computer on a near continuous basis.
Computer records vary from manufacturer to manufacturer in detail but typically include the
following fundamental recorded information:

• Date and time

• Jacking length
• Jacking force
• Jacking rate
• Cutter head torque
• Horizontal deviation from alignment
• Vertical deviation from alignment
• Roll (deviation of MTBM from vertical axis)
• Slurry inlet pressure
• Slurry outlet pressure
• Slurry flow volume
• Slurry bypass valve position
• Lubrication injection pressure1
• Lubrication volume1

The engineering inspector must rely on the MTBM operator for the validity of records and, to a
certain extent, assistance in interpreting the computer reports. The MTBM operator is
experienced with the equipment (some form of experience pre-qualification is usually required
by the specifications) and is best suited to interpret the record and any anomalies in the record
(e.g., spikes in jacking force, spikes in cutter-face torque, loss of slurry pressure, etc.). However,
the engineering inspector should always temper trust in the MTBM operator with independent
verification whenever possible.
1
Supplemental information maintained by MTBM operator if not recorded by computer.
MTBM functions should be monitored daily, especially line and grade, jacking force, and jacking
length. Copies of MTBM records, printed reports and/or electronic files, should be collected
regularly at no more than weekly intervals or at the end of each drive, whichever is less. The
inspector should personally collect the reports from the operator at the MTBM control console.

In addition to daily review of MTBM records, the engineering inspector should:

1. Check MTBM cutter face gauge cutters vs. pipe diameter for conformance to
specified overcut.
2. In some soil conditions, delays in tunneling due to lack of preparedness can
lead to “freeze” of the MTBM and pipe string and significant increases in
jacking force. Check that all of the following are complete prior to MTBM
launch:
• all pipe for the drive is on-site;
• all other material supplies for the drive are on-site (e.g., pipe
collars, cushions, slurry hoses and pipe fittings, bentonite,
polymers, etc.);
• the microtunnel computer system is operating with all
functions recording properly;
• all portal stability measures are complete (e.g., dewatering,
soil improvement, launch seals);
• separation plant overflow protection system is in place; and
• all surface and subsurface settlement monuments are in
place with baseline measurements.
3. Check the contractor’s method of initial launch alignment including
alignment of jacking frame guide rails. Check for steering corrections
required upon launching and require launch modifications at subsequent
jacking shafts, as necessary.
4. At initial launch, carefully check the launch portal and jacking shaft for
inflow of slurry and slurry/native soil. This is particularly problematic for
shafts above groundwater with gaps in the shoring where the high volume of
slurry at the face of the MTBM can backwash into the shaft. Slurry
backwash into the shaft can carry non-cohesive silts and sands with it
creating voids behind the shoring and possible sink holes endangering
utilities, streets and the public.
5. Check slurry mixture for consistency with subsurface soil conditions (e.g.,
cohesionless soils require a bentonite based slurry with sufficient viscosity
and gel strength to provide face stability and prevent loss of ground and void
formation at the tunnel face).
6. Check lubrication system, verify location of pipe segments with lubrication
ports, confirm lubricant volume is equal to overcut volume on a per foot of
length basis.
7. Check installation of intermediate jacking stations, document location and
confirm removal and pipe closure at completion of drive.
8. Check for backward movement of the pipe string upon retraction of the jacks.
This can occur in areas of high groundwater where hydrostatic pressure
pushes back on the face of the MTBM. Backward movement of the pipe
string can cause the launch seal to “flip” backwards, resulting in uncontrolled
inflow of groundwater and soil into the shaft.
9. Note the number of pipe segments installed per shift and periodically
document the time required to install each pipe length differentiating between
tunneling time and disconnect/reconnect time for the next pipe length placed
in the jacking frame.
10. Periodically check the shaker screen and solids discharge at the slurry
separation plant for consistency of subsurface materials and conformance
with the descriptions of tunnel zone soil in the geotechnical report. Collect
periodic bag samples with notation of date, time and location of MTBM.
Check shaker screens for foreign objects: metal, wood, concrete, or other
signs of fill/obstructions. Collect samples with notation of date, time and
location of MTBM. Also check shaker screens for damage and clogging and
ensure that they are well maintained.
11. At the end of each drive check the cutter face bits for wear and abrasion,
particularly if foreign objects or cobbles and boulders have been encountered
during tunneling. Confirm that damaged bits are replaced prior to next drive.
Also, check the crushing chamber and slurry ports for damage.
12. Check ground surface along tunnel alignment for hydrofracture and slurry
loss. Special attention should be given to areas of low overburden (e.g.,
under creeks and drainages) or in congested utility corridors (slurry can come
to ground surface through granular trench backfill).
13. Check solids out of slurry separation plant. A typical slurry separation plant
includes shaker screens, hydrocyclones (desanders and desilters) and
centrifuges. Periodically check slurry mix and polymer additives, if used.
The solids discharged from the plant should contain little to no free water.
Also, check liquid level in slurry tank to avoid overflows.
14. Check excavated volume vs. tunnel volume. Excessive excavated volume
indicates loss of ground at the tunnel heading.
15. Check ultimate solids disposal site and ensure that no unauthorized dumping
occurs. Periodically check slurry separation plant to ensure that no
unauthorized slurry discharge occurs into sanitary sewers, storm drains or
drainages.
16. Periodically check noise levels around the jacking shaft, particularly at the
power plant. The microtunneling equipment at the jacking shaft typically
requires a 300 kw to 400 kw generator that often requires noise suppression.
Pumps and cranes can also produce high noise levels.
17. Check that storm water control measures around the jacking shaft have been
properly constructed to prevent storm water-related shaft flooding.
18. Standby time charges can be very high relative to conventional open-cut
trenching. Therefore, the engineering inspector must maintain careful
records of down time and differentiate between standby time caused by
 mechanical breakdowns from that caused by obstructions as defined in the
specifications.
19. From the MTBM system records, plot jacking force vs. drive length with
annotations for time, dewatering, IJS installation and other pertinent
construction activities. Plotting jacking force vs. drive length allows for
evaluation of effects of dewatering, work delays, steering corrections and
lubrication and provides adequate warning before overstressing the pipe.
20. From the MTBM system records, plot cutting head torque and advance rate
over drive length. Rotation of the cutter head without advancing the MTBM
can lead to significant loss of ground at the tunnel face, particularly in non-
cohesive soils. Spikes in cutting head torque often indicate the presence of
cobbles and boulders or obstructions. Low trends in cutting head torque can
indicate loss of ground at the tunnel face.

FINAL PROJECT ACCEPTANCE

Final project acceptance testing such as pressure testing and/or video inspection can follow
procedures typical of open cut pipeline construction. However, the engineering inspector should
be especially vigilant at the pipe joints within the transition area between pipe segments installed
by jacking (compresses the joint/cushion material) vs. pipe segments installed in shafts without
jacking load where joint material may not be adequately compressed. For most microtunnel
projects, manholes will be built within jacking and receiving shafts. Backfilling these shafts
around the manholes will produce recompression settlement in underlying soils. In soft ground
conditions, the weight of backfill may initiate consolidation settlement. In these conditions,
lightweight backfill or pre-treatment of the ground may be specified. Since the pipeline installed
by microtunnel pipe jacking will typically not induce settlement (there is no increase in effective
stress within soils beneath the pipeline), there is often a strong potential for differential
settlement between the microtunnel pipe and manhole. Manhole elevations should be monitored
not only during backfilling but for a period of months to a year (depending on soil conditions) to
check for long-term differential settlement between the pipeline and manholes.

Surface and subsurface monuments and preconstruction condition surveys established over the
pipeline alignment and on critical structures should likewise be monitored for a period of months
to a year (depending on soil conditions) in the event that undetected loss of ground occurred
during tunneling. Such undetected loss of ground will produce a void above the finished pipeline
that migrates upward over time (depending on soil and groundwater conditions) to the ground
surface causing surface settlement and damage to overlying utilities and roadway pavements.

CLOSURE
As the use of microtunnel pipe jacking as a trenchless pipeline construction method continues to
grow, it is important that owners and engineers understand the capabilities and limitations of the
equipment involved. The published references contained herein provide excellent descriptions of
microtunneling equipment and the pipe jacking process.

The design of a microtunnel pipe jacking project is significantly different than a conventional
open-cut trench design. The geotechnical investigation for a microtunnel project is also
significantly different than a conventional open cut trench investigation (see Table No. 1).
Likewise, the engineering inspection of a microtunnel project is significantly different than an
open cut trench project. The specific engineering inspection issues discussed herein are the
result of the complexity of microtunneling equipment and the lack of direct observation of the
excavation face. Many of the items contained in these checklists are “lessons learned” from past
projects. Therefore, each project completed will add to the thoroughness of these checklists.

REFERENCES
[1] Standard, American Society of Civil Engineers, Standard Construction Guidelines for
Microtunneling, April 25, 2000, Draft.
[2] Bennett, R.D., Guice L.K., Khan, S., Staheli, K. (1995), “Guidelines for Trenchless
Technology: Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP), Fold and Formed Pipe (FPP), Mini-Horizontal
Directional Drilling (Mini-HDD), Microtunneling”, Trenchless Technology Center
Technical Report #400.
[3] Bennett, R.D., Cording, E.J. (1999), “Jacking Loads Associated with Microtunneling”,
Geo-Engineering for Underground Facilities, Proceedings of the Third National Conference
of the Geo-Institute, Geotechnical Special Publication No.90, Fernandez, G. and Bauer,
R.A., eds.
[4] Iseley, T., Gokhale, S.B. (1997), “Trenchless Installation of Conduits Beneath Roadways”,
National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Synthesis of Highway Practice 242,
Transportation Research Board.
[5] Stein D., Mollers, K., Bielecki, R. (1989), Microtunneling, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin.
[6] Thomson, J. (1993), Pipejacking and Microtunneling, Blackie Academic and Professional,
London.