Trenchless Technology Systems –

An Environmentally Sound Technology for the Installation,

Maintenance and Repair of Underground Utility Services.

Dr John W Heavens, Partner, Jasons Consultants Group, London and Technical

Secretary, International Society for Trenchless Technology, London.

John Castle, Executive Secretary, International Society for Trenchless Technology,

London.

Introduction

Water and sewage infrastructure and other utility services represent a significant
investment on the part of most municipalities. For well over 100 years, the distribution
networks for utility services have been located underground in pipes or ducts that are
laid, repaired or replaced by trenching from the surface. In cities and urban areas, these
distribution networks are located underneath roads. This often makes access difficult,
particularly in areas congested with traffic and buildings.

“access difficult in areas congested with traffic” (Trench Hong Kong [Link])

When pipeline infrastructure is not well maintained, inefficiencies occur. For example, in
water distribution systems, this can lead to leakage and possible water shortages. In
sewage systems, cracked and damaged pipes can cause wastewater seepage, leading
to contamination of groundwater. These problems often give rise to related health and
environmental impacts.

The oldest underground utility services are usually found close to the surface. Services
installed later are most often found below or interwoven with the initial installations.
Construction and repair work, carried out from the surface, inevitably disrupts traffic,
business and other services. This disruption has a negative impact on the local
environment in terms of air quality, noise, and other pollution, as well as on local
vegetation and buildings. This, in turn, diminishes the quality of life for local residents.
Trenchless technologies, which minimise the requirement for surface excavation, can
significantly reduce this disruption.

The Development of Trenchless Technology Systems

Page 1 of 8
Until recently, city administrators and planners believed that the use of construction
techniques involving surface trenching was the only option for the installation and repair
of utility services. It was assumed that existing services were in good condition unless
there was evidence to the contrary. In reality, gradual deterioration went unnoticed and
failures occurred without warning, in many cases requiring urgent response.

“failure without warning (USA)” (Sewer [Link])

Over the last 25 years, it became apparent that little was known about existing utility
services. Installation drawings, where they existed, gave little information on pipe
capacity or materials used. Furthermore, the condition of the pipe linings was unknown,
leakage and infiltration were unmeasured and related health issues were often not
addressed.

A major breakthrough came with the development of closed circuit television (CCTV),
used in conjunction with remote-controlled tools. This enabled engineers to see the
internal condition of pipelines, identify voids and perform repairs to underground
services. With better knowledge of the problems came the demand to fix them and a
new discipline of civil engineering, known as trenchless technologies, began to emerge.
In countries where the business culture was receptive to change and where the general
public expected a sensible balance between good utility services and quality of urban
living, trenchless technologies have been readily adopted. Generally this has been in
the more developed countries. But worldwide, and in particular in less well developed
countries, the majority of underground utility services are still installed, maintained,
repaired and extended using “open cut” trenched methods.

“open cut (Mumbai,India)” (open cut india

.jpg)

Gaining Access to Underground Utilities .

Two broad approaches are currently available for access to underground utility
services- Open Cut and Trenchless.

For access by “open cut” there are four stages:

Excavation of the trench, removal of spoil, support of the trench walls and temporary
support of other services;
Laying and jointing the product pipe or service;
Refilling the trench and compacting the selected spoil or filling material;
Restoring above ground infrastructure.

All four stages are characterised by the amount of physical work to be undertaken.
Typically, 50 times the amount of spoil to be occupied by the product pipe or service has
to be moved - once during excavation and then again during refilling. Furthermore,

Page 2 of 8
much of the work in all four stages is labour intensive, involving different skills that
require co-ordination between several companies and authorities. Thus, a large project
can extend over a long period and be very disruptive in social, economic and
environmental terms.

Gaining access using trenchless techniques also requires surface work, but not on the
scale needed for open cut. Trenchless technology projects require careful consideration
of the existing condition of the underground pipes and ground conditions in order to
select the most appropriate technique. This is often viewed as an additional expense in
comparison to open cut techniques. However, the cost of the initial survey stage of a
trenchless project is usually offset by a shorter time on site.

Trenchless technologies present a number of other unique advantages. For example,

with new installations, engineers can drill and install pipe in the most favourable stratum,
irrespective of depth. For sewers in particular, there can be significant savings by
retaining gravity flow and avoiding pumping stations.

Site Assessment

Whatever construction method is used, the chance of success for any underground utility
project is greatly improved by an understanding, before work starts, of the condition of
existing services and the ground in which they are laid or to be installed. This is
particularly true for trenchless projects where the project will be based on a site
investigation report. For open cut projects, the trench itself is often "the investigation",
and “the plan” usually involves solving problems as they occur.

This perceived disadvantage for using trenchless techniques is being steadily removed.
Recent advances in the design and use of CCTV camera technology have considerably
reduced the cost of surveying water and sewage networks, and information on conditions
below the water level in sewers can be obtained using special surveying sonars. Ground
Penetrating Radar has also been developed and can be used from the surface to detect
buried objects, voids and leakage from defective pipelines. Locators, using magnetics,
are now regularly used to detect underground services. These devices, used in
conjunction with vacuum excavation techniques, have simplified and reduced the cost of
site investigations thereby making trenchless solutions more appropriate.

“CCTV camera survey” (Brick lined [Link])

Technology Selection

A traditional rule for most underground projects is that cost usually rises in direct
relationship to the depth of work below the surface. As a result, the first consideration
has traditionally been to make any new installation as shallow as practical, and any
access to an existing service as short and direct as possible. These requirements favour
“open cut”. For trenchless projec ts there is little relationship between cost and depth,

Page 3 of 8
indeed trenchless techniques have a significant cost advantage the deeper the work has
to be carried out.

For trenchless work on existing services, the access points already provided can be
used and work can be planned to use them. Trenchless techniques have also been
developed for the remote repair of damaged services so that direct access is not
needed.

For new projects, the nature of the ground and depth of the water table can influence the
chosen technology and process to be used. By using trenchless technologies, project
designers can take advantage of the most favourable ground conditions irrespective of
depth and water table, allowing for the installation of new services in areas where open
cut methods are impossible. The ability to drill and install pipe at greater depths can also
help to simplify designs by allowing longer pipe runs with shallow gradients, thus
avoiding the need for pumping stations and sumps.

Trenchless technology has therefore pushed back the boundaries of all forms of
underground work required to support human settlements. Where previous work was
limited to the depth dictated by safe open cut methods, depth is no longer the limiting
factor. Where services already exist, they can be refurbished; and where new services
are required, they can be constructed beneath the existing infrastructure. The ability to
“renew”and optimise rather than construct additional underground services has clear
environmental advantages.

Environmental Considerations
Concern over our treatment of the environment has been growing steadily over recent
years. Much of the opinion forming has been undertaken by The United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) which has been leading international discussion on
ways of reconciling the need for healthy urban living yet at the same time as protecting
the environment. UNEP have established the concept of Environmentally Sound
Technologies (ESTs) which are defined as those which “meet the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs”. In relation to
underground utilities, trenchless technologies meet many of the criteria for being
environmentally sustainable.

For example, all underground utility projects require some surface access. If carried out
using trenchless methods, the reduction in both the surface area required and the time
for which surface space is needed in comparison to traditional open cut methods is a
major benefit.

In terms of the environment, which has no fixed boundaries around the work site, the
additiional benefits of trenchless technologies are, under broad headings:

Page 4 of 8
 Reduced emissions and air pollution due to traffic congestion and accidents;
Reduced vehicle emissions due to material transport for removal and
replacement;
Reduced collateral damage (and rework) for roads and highways due to
the removal and replacement of spoil;
Reduced collateral damage to adjacent trees, buildings, monuments and urban
green spaces;
Reduced use of non renewable materials such as sand and gravel;
Reduced consequential costs due to poor installation and reinstatement;
Reduced damage to the surrounding strata and ground water.

“reduced damage to trees (UK)” (UK new water main [Link])

Overall therefore, the non disruptive characteristics of trenchless technologies in terms

of surface access, the reuse of existing underground structures and space, or for new
installations, the economic use of additiional space, make them environmentally
attractive.

Cost Considerations
At present there are no well established procedures for making absolute cost
comparisons between trenchless technologies and existing traditional open cut methods.
While, technically, the best solution depends upon the ground conditions and the
location of the water table, in practice the short term financial boundaries of a project and
the current conventions of financial risk generally play a more significant role in the
decision-making process.

The most difficult aspect is “the cost to whom?” The client is responsible for the direct
costs of the work and sometimes compensation for loss of amenity or trade by local
residents and businesses. But this means that other unquantified costs in the longer
term have to be borne by local citizens and future generations.

“the cost to whom” (Traffic [Link])

The direct costs of both the trenchless and the open cut methods in terms of materials,
time and equipment can be established relatively easily. But other indirect costs such as
reinstatement of the surface, long term repairs to roads and buildings due to delayed
settlement, useful life of the service after the work and degree of risk for unplanned or
additional emergency work which may arise during the project, are subjective and are
less easy to establish even though they may in the longer term exceed the direct costs.

There are also a third category of costs which are even more difficult to establish and are
those which UNEP, in the absence of quantitative procedures for evaluating

Page 5 of 8
environmental issues, feel should play a greater role in decision making in future.
Broadly these are the “Social Costs” which are derived from giving a monetary value to
the environmental and societal impacts of, in this case, work on underground utilities.

In most countries, these costs are still ignored, while in others they are, as a result of the
UNEP work, beginning to play a role in the decision making process. For example, and
the list is not exclusive;

Accidents . Open cut is a hazardous activity and, even in well-regulated

countries, death and injuries from trenching work are still significant. Obstructions
and openings in the highway, which are significantly greater for open cut, also
cause accidents to pedestrians and vehicle drivers. Yet these long term social
costs to the victims are not being taken into account.
Pollution. The delays to road traffic caused by open cut significantly raise the
level of air pollution in the vicinity of work. In addition there is the additional
pollution caused by having to move large volumes of spoil and bedding materials.
Even though there is a growing correlation between vehicle exhaust particulate
pollution and respiritory diseases, the long term effects on and costs of the ill
health caused by this pollution is still not being taken into account. To these can
be added a similar acidic corrosive damage to trees and buildings although they
at present considered to be of a second order.
Noise. Noise is most usually considered a nuisance. But it has an impact on the
utility of land, for example in the vicinity of an airport. Although increased noise
may only be temporary for the period of a project, it can result in a temporary loss
of amenity, which can be significant, for example, for a hotel or cinema. As a rule
this loss of amenity is often self evident and can be given a monetary value, it can
be significantly reduced by the use of trenchless techniques.
Collateral damage. Trenching is very disruptive to ground stability. In addition, if
a trench penetrates into ground water, which has to be removed, it disturbs
ground stability over an increasingly larger area for the period that water is
removed. Building foundations can be disturbed and trees and vegetation can be
damaged or killed. Trenchless techniques, unless they involve increasing the
size of the utility, do not disturb the surrounding ground and do not require the
removal of ground water. The difficulty arises because the costs of collateral
damage only become apparent after a project is completed. Risk mitigation
procedures are rarely used for utility projects. This disadvantages trenchless
solutions because many of the risks due to trenching do not exist for trenchless.
There is a similar perception for damage to adjacent services. With trenching a
strike on an adjacent service can be repaired relatively easily because it is
exposed. With trenchless techniques a strike can require an unplanned
excavation and is therefore more expensive. On the other hand trenches leave
adjacent services unsupported and collateral damage occurs because providing
proper support is particularly difficult.

Page 6 of 8
 Weather. Because trenchless methods minimise excavation, indeed many use
existing accesses, the working face is not exposed. Weather conditions can
never be reliably forecast and always present some risk for open cut work.
Trenchless techniques invariably expose less of the work site and once started
are shorter, reducing the time at risk. Because unplanned disruption of the work
site is rarely taken into consideration the contingency cost advantages of
trenchless techniques are often never considered.

Overall if there is a proper comparison of trenched versus trenchless costs, trenchless

methods offer an advantage because surface access is less disruptive, projects (once
started on site) are shorter, and hence social and environmental costs are considerably
reduced.

Strategic Considerations
In the more developed regions of the world, underground work can disrupt roads,
buildings and other infrastructure. The duration of these disruptions is a major source of
frustration for local residents, business and the public. This has resulted in growing
opposition to construction work in general, including concern about damage to the
natural environment, as well as an increase in claims for compensation. Trenchless
techniques are therefore gaining an advantage.

In developing regions however, the use of open cut methods is still widely accepted and
frequently justified by the employment of large numbers of unskilled workers. The
political advantages of creating work and supporting a local economy often outweigh all
other considerations. Increasingly, however, mechanical and electrical equipment is
being used for all types of construction and this macro-economic justification for manual
techniques is being eroded.

The health and safety of workers is another considedration. In many countries legislation
is being introduced requiring the use of safe working practices. In the case of
underground utilities, the closer workers and operators are to mechanical and electrical
equipment, or the more they have to work in confined spaces, below the surface, or
close to moving traffic, the greater the risk of accidents. With trenchless projects,
surface excavation is confined to relatively small entry and exit pits or shafts and it is
often possible to locate these away from hazardous areas and road traffic . Trenchless
projects also make extensive use of machines and processes remotely controlled from
the surface, thereby separating workers from the risks of working underground.

In general, in comparison to the use of open cut methods, trenchless projects are
characterised by minimal surface disruption over a much shorter period of time. Indeed,
for a well managed trenchless project, the public may not be aware that major
construction work is actually going on below them. So in strategic terms, trenchless

Page 7 of 8
techniques are becoming socially desirable in the more developed countries and less
economically undesirable in developing countries

Future Directions

The creation of the spectrum of trenchless techniques over the past 25 years has been
dramatic. However, although trenchless technology systems have an excellent track
record, many planners, designers and engineers are not yet accustomed to using them.
Resistance to change and a reluctance to adopt more inclusive processes for evaluating
the costs of underground work in social and environmental terms are delaying the more
widespread selection of trenchless technologies. Accordingly, there is a need for further
technological refinements, better information dissemination, and greater public
awareness and understanding regarding the use of trenchless technologies to reduce
social costs and improve the environmental sustainability of urban dwelling.

Page 8 of 8