See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333208014

A method to estimate the jacking force for pipe jacking in sandy soils

Article  in  Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology · May 2019

DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2019.04.002

CITATIONS READS

5 1,540

8 authors, including:

Marco Barla Jian-Yong Han

Politecnico di Torino Shandong Jianzhu (Architecture and Engineering) University
118 PUBLICATIONS   1,107 CITATIONS    26 PUBLICATIONS   71 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Pengjiao Jia Yang Chen

Soochow University (PRC) Xi'an University of Technology
29 PUBLICATIONS   80 CITATIONS    20 PUBLICATIONS   62 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ENERTUN View project

Load transfer mechanism of ground anchor and mechanical properties of anchorage interface View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chaozhe Zhang on 24 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 90 (2019) 119–130

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

A method to estimate the jacking force for pipe jacking in sandy soils T
a,b a,⁎ c,d,⁎ e a a
Xinbo Ji , Wen Zhao , Pengpeng Ni , Marco Barla , Jianyong Han , Pengjiao Jia ,
Yang Chena, Chaozhe Zhanga
a
School of Resources and Civil Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang 110819, China
b
The Fifth Engineering Co., Ltd. of China Tiesiju Civil Engineering Group, Jiujiang 332000, China
c
School of Civil Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai 519082, China
d
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798, Singapore
e
Department of Structural, Geotechnical and Building Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Pipe jacking is a commonly used trenchless technology to install pipelines especially in congested urban areas or
Pipe jacking river crossings. However, the estimation of the jacking force is often heavily dependent on empirical calcula-
Jacking force tions. The jacking force needs to be greater than the combined frictional resistance and face resistance. This
Face resistance investigation proposes to use a modified Protodyakonov’s arch model to compute the face resistance. A series of
Frictional resistance
direct shear tests is performed to provide data of interface friction coefficient between different types of soil and
Discrete element
Pipe misalignment
pipe. The influence of slurry lubricant is also considered. A two-dimensional plane strain numerical model is
conducted, where the surrounding soil is simulated as discrete particles and the lining is simplified as a single big
particle. The novel modeling technique enables the evaluation of the normal force acting on the pipe. The
friction resistance is then determined by multiplying the interface friction coefficient by the normal force. A
‘wavy’ shaped pipeline model is proposed to define an angular deviation influence factor to scale up the cal-
culated jacking force due to pipe misalignment. In the end, comparison between calculated and field measured
jacking force is conducted for three different drives in a pipe jacking project to illustrate the effectiveness of the
proposed analysis framework.

1. Introduction A reasonable estimation of the jacking force is crucial, which con-

Pipe jacking has been commonly used to install sewers, pressurized
pipelines (transporting oil, gas and water), and electricity and com-
munication lines. It has advantages for use especially in congested
urban areas or river crossings, since only minimal excavation is re-
quired at the launch and reception shafts (Najafi, 2005). In the past, a
wide range of pipe size has been successfully jacked through different
soil stratums without causing substantial ground subsidence. For ex-
ample, Cui et al. (2015) reported the installation of four parallel jacked
reinforced concrete pipelines with an inside diameter of 3500 mm and a
wall thickness of 330 mm over a distance of 450 m crossing the River
Guan. Similarly, Ji et al. (2017) presented a case study of large-sized
reinforced concrete pipeline with a diameter of 3500 mm in sandy soils
below the Hun River over a length of 830 m. Zhang et al. (2016c)
summarized the use of combined curved pipe jacking and ground
freezing techniques for installing the largest curved pipe jacking roof to
date following a transition curve of 88 m and a circular curve of 167 m
in length.
trols the design of pipe segments and the efficacy of a pipe jacking
project (Shou and Jiang, 2010). Fig. 1 shows the different components
of forces, where the jacking force FJ needs to outweigh the frictions
mobilized at the soil-pipe/shield interface (e.g., shield friction FS, pipe
friction FP, and edge resistance FE) and the lateral earth pressure acting
on the excavation face FF.
FJ FF + FE + FS + FP (1)
It should be emphasized that if the jacking force is overdesigned
(too large), it will result in pipe wall failure or excessive ground heave;
whereas if the jacking force is not designed sufficiently (too small), the
micro-tunnelling machine cannot advance and the face instability will
occur (e.g., causing collapse).
Conventionally, empirical methods are proposed to calculate the
jacking force based on the interpretation of field measurements and are
formulated in design guidelines (ATV-A 161 E-90, 1990; PJA, 1995;
JMTA, 2000; ASCE, 2001; GB 50332-02, 2002). These empirical
methods should be modified for each project based on the tunneling

⁎
Corresponding authors at: School of Civil Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai 519082, China (P. Ni).
E-mail addresses: zhaowen@mail.neu.edu.cn (W. Zhao), pengpeng.ni@ntu.edu.sg (P. Ni).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2019.04.002
Received 13 November 2017; Received in revised form 24 August 2018; Accepted 11 April 2019
Available online 01 May 2019
0886-7798/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Ji, et al.
Face
pressure, Shield friction, FS
FF
Edge resistance, FE
Fig. 1. Force equilibrium for pipe jacking.
boring machine (TBM), soil type and pipe diameter (Chapman and
Ichioka, 1999). Röhner and Hoch (2010) demonstrated how the design
method in ATV-A 161 E-90 (1990) could be improved by considering
the influence of the pipeline production tolerances, pipe radius, and
material of the pressure transmission rings. Statistic approaches can
also be employed during the pipe jacking process, where the behaviour
of the pipe could be monitored and calculated using non-linear con-
stitutive equations (Beckmann et al., 2007). Some researchers at-
tempted to develop semi-analytical techniques by establishing the static
equilibrium for each pipe segment (Shou and Jiang, 2010), but some
parameters must be a priori knowledge, such as the friction coefficient
at the soil-pipe interface, and the resultant force of earth pressures.
Cheng et al. (2017) presented a case history of slurry pipe jacking at
four drives for the Sulin district sewer network in Taiwan, and claimed
that the variation of jacking force during tunnelling could be induced
by overcut annulus, injected lubricant, work stoppages, geology and
misalignment. Zhang et al. (2016b) presented a modified Terzaghi
arching model to evaluate the vertical pressure acting on deeply buried
pipes, and calculated the ‘height of loosened soil’ as a function of soil
volume bulking factor, overcut, and pipe misalignment. The model of
Zhang et al. (2016b) followed the concept of the height of equal set-
tlement plane above the pipe (Qin et al., 2017) to distinguish between
shallow and deep burial conditions. However, the face resistance FF can
only be evaluated by multiplying an assumed value of lateral earth
pressure coefficient. Alternatively, Ji et al. (2018b) proposed a modified
Protodyakonov’s arch model for deeply buried pipes, and the variation
of lateral earth pressure with the inclination angle from the shield face
to the vertical was explicitly considered during the calculation of FF.
Zhang et al. (2016c) reported a case study to illustrate how the
curved pipe jacking can influence the jacking force. Milligan and Norris
(1999) measured the influence of idealized ‘asperities’ on the interface
friction between soil and pipe using a direct shear apparatus, and de-
monstrated that the amount of misalignment could increase the mobi-
lized frictions greatly. Researchers have tried to incorporate the influ-
ence of translation and rotation of TBM into the formulation to
calculate the jacking force (Broere et al., 2007). Pellet-Beaucour and
Kastner (2002) claimed that the frictional resistance can be determined
as the product of the total normal force acting on the pipe and the
effective friction coefficient at the soil-pipe/shield interface. They
suggested to estimate the interface friction coefficient between an
upper bound of soil friction angle φ and a lower limit of φ/3 – φ/2. It
should be noted that slurry lubricant is generally used for pipe jacking
to reduce the mobilized frictions (Reilly, 2014; Reilly and Orr, 2017).
Namli and Guler (2017) designed a testing scheme of pushing a cy-
lindrical concrete sample into a vertically arranged plexiglass cell
containing mixtures of soil and bentonite slurry lubricant. However, the
arrangement of jacking direction may not be representative for the field
response of jacked pipe in the horizontal direction.
The normal force acting on the pipe is often studied using numerical
approaches. The interaction between pipe and soil can be modeled as a
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 90 (2019) 119–130
Launch shaft
Pipe friction, FP
Jacking force, FJ
two-dimensional (2D) continuum problem, where an internal pressure
can be imposed at the boundary of the pipe to simulate the effect of
lining and slurry (Barla et al., 2003; Shimada et al., 2004; Barla et al.,
2006; Zhen et al., 2014). Alternatively, discontinuum modeling has
been employed by researchers to characterize the influence of different
geological conditions, such as joints in the rock mass (Barla et al., 2006)
and local cementation in the surrounding soil (Barla and Camusso,
2013). Calculation of the normal force using 2D numerical models must
be performed section by section along the jacking drive. Researchers
also conducted three-dimensional (3D) numerical simulations to eval-
uate the development of jacking force as the TBM advanced (Khazaei
et al., 2006; Shou et al., 2010; Sugimoto and Asanprakit, 2010; Yen and
Shou, 2015; Zhang et al., 2016a). However, 3D numerical models are
complex and computationally expensive, which may hinder their ap-
plication by practical engineers.
In this investigation, a method of calculating the jacking force for
pipe jacking in sandy soils is proposed. The modified Protodyakonov’s
arch model of Ji et al. (2018b) is used to estimate the face resistance FF.
Assuming that the jacked pipeline is straight, the frictional resistance
(FS, FP, and FE) can be determined by multiplying the interface friction
coefficient by the normal force acting on the pipe. A ‘wavy’ shaped
pipeline model is proposed to scale up the calculated frictional re-
sistance to take into account the influence of misalignment. A direct
shear apparatus is modified for interface tests, where the interface
friction angle between different pipe and soil materials can be mea-
sured. A discrete 2D numerical model is used to compute the normal
force on the pipe. In the end, three different drives in a pipe jacking
projects are analyzed, where the calculated pattern of jacking force is
compared with the measured data to demonstrate the effectiveness of
the proposed approach.
2. Face resistance
2.1. Modified Protodyakonov’s arch model
Different modifications of Terzaghi arching model in design guide-
lines (ATV-A 161 E-90, 1990; PJA, 1995; JMTA, 2000; ASCE, 2001; GB
50332-02, 2002) only adjust the silo width above the pipe, but follow
the original assumption that the failure planes initiate from the pipe,
propagate upwards, and eventually reach the ground surface. Zhang
et al. (2016b) proposed to reduce the soil prism load based on the
Terzaghi arching model using the concept of ‘height of loosened soil’,
above which the shear bands are diminished. They found that the
‘height of loosened soil’ should be greater than 2 times the pipe dia-
meter. The problems of all derivations based on the Terzaghi arching
model have been identified by Sladen and Oswell (1988) that the ap-
plication should be limited to a shallow burial depth of less than 5 m.
Actually, a deep burial condition can often be encountered in pipe
jacking projects. Ji et al. (2018b) developed a derivation based on the
modified Protodyakonov’s arch model to estimate the face resistance FF
120
X. Ji, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 90 (2019) 119–130

by taking into account the variation of lateral earth pressure coefficient. Using the boundary condition of σV = Q at z = 0, the average ver-
The advantage of the derivation of Ji et al. (2018b) is that the failure tical stress for the soil wedge within the range of pipe diameter can be
mechanism in the soil especially at a greater depth can be captured well calculated as:
by the modified Protodyakonov’s arch model, whereas the conventional E E
silo model is incapable of modeling the propagation of shear planes B2 B2 z B2 z c B2 z
V1 = + 1
within the soil (i.e., shear bands cannot propagate to the ground sur- 1 A B2 B2 Km tan B2
face). In fact, a self-stable arch can be formed within the soil, which can B2 z E
+ Q( )
be better described by the modified Protodyakonov’s arch model. The B2 (11)
modification to the Protodyakonov’s arch model is primarily conducted
where the parameter E is defined as E = Km tanδ tanα.
to the width of the arch, and interested readers can find more details in
The irregular soil wedge outside the range of pipe diameter can be
Ji et al. (2018b). The main derivations of the modified Protodyakonov’s
converted into a regular soil wedge with an intersecting angle α′ from
arch model are briefly introduced in the following.
the failure plane to the horizontal. The angle α′ is correlated with the
For a circular pipe with a diameter of Bc, the semi-major and semi-
angle β between the projection of the excavation face and the lateral
minor axes (i.e., A and B) and the semi-latus rectum N of the
failure plane as follows:
Protodyakonov’s arch can be written as:

Bc2 B2 1
2 B2
A= + c K0 + tan (1 + tan ) '= arctan 1
tan ( 2 B1 x) (12)
4 4 K0 (2)

2 By introducing two parameters G and T

Bc2 B2 tan
B= + c 1+ (1 + tan )
4K 0 4 K0 (3) G = 1 + Km (tan + cot( ' ))
ctan ' [(tan + tan ) + tan cot cot( ' )]
T=
1 tan (13)
N= Bc tan (1 + tan )
2K 0 (4)
For the boundary condition of σV = Q for z = 0, the average vertical
where K0 is the at-rest earth pressure coefficient, and ζ represents the stress σV2 for the soil wedge outside the range of pipe diameter is then
angle measured from the failure plane at the pipe springline to the derived by:
vertical as a function of soil friction angle (ζ = π/4 − φ/2). G 1 G 1
The soil prism load below the self-stable arch will act on the pipe, B2 B2 z B2 z T B2 z
V2 = + 1
and the depth of the modified Protodyakonov’s arch is expressed by: 2 G B2 B2 1 G B2

Bc B Bc B2 z G 1
z=B+N = B+ A2 x2 + + Q( )
2 A 2 (5) B2 (14)

The vertical earth pressure acting on the pipe can be calculated by: The total vertical prism load acting on the shield face can be finally
computed by σV = σV1 + σV2. The lateral earth pressure coefficient Km
Bc
K 0 tan B +N
2
z
Bc c can be subsequently introduced to calculate the lateral earth pressure
Q= 1 e Bc · acting on the shield face by FF = KmσV.
K 0 tan
(6)
2.3. Face resistance on an inclined excavation face
where γ represents the soil unit weight, and c denotes the cohesion.

When the shield machine is not driven horizontally through the soil,
2.2. Face resistance on a vertical excavation face
the angle between the inclined excavation face and the vertical is de-
fined as θ. The lateral earth pressure coefficient Kn is now modified as
Considering the geometry of soil wedges in front of an vertical ex-
Ke and Ke' for cohesionless and cohesive materials, respectively.
cavation face, the circular excavation face is converted into a rectan-
gular area, having a width of B1 = Bc and a height of B2 = 2Bc. The 3(cos2 C + K a sin2 C )
Ke =
failure plane of the soil wedge now intersects the vertical excavation 3+ (cos2 2
C + cos D + cos C cos D )(K a 1) (15)
face with an angle of ω = π/4 − φ/2, and the angle from the failure
(K e 1) c
plane to the horizontal becomes α = π/4 + φ/2. The interface friction K e' = K e +
angle between pipe and soil is denoted as δ. The intersecting angle V tan (16)
measured from the major principal stress at the soil-shield interface and Here, θC and θD preserve the same definitions to represent the in-
the major principal stress at the failure plane to the horizontal can be tersecting angle measured from the major principal stress at the soil-
expressed as θA and θB, respectively, as follows: shield interface and the major principal stress at the failure plane to the
horizontal, respectively.

=
arcsin ( )+sin
sin
sin
A
2 (7) C = arcsin +
2 sin (17)
B = /4 /2 + (8)
= +
The lateral earth pressure coefficient Km is a function of Rankine D
4 2 (18)
active pressure coefficient Ka, and is written as Kc and Kc′ for cohe-
Similarly, two parameters U and V are defined as follows:
sionless and cohesive materials, respectively.
Kn (tan + tan )
3(cos2 A + K a sin2 A) U=1+ tan + cot
Kc =
3+ (cos2 2
A + cos B + cos A cos B )(K a 1) (9) V=
c tan
(tan + cot )tan (19)
' (K c 1) c
Kc = Kc + Using the boundary condition of σz = Q for z = 0, the vertical earth
V tan (10)
pressure σV3 for the soil wedge within the range of pipe diameter is

121
X. Ji, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 90 (2019) 119–130

derived as: face resistance FF is not considered following the static equilibrium of
U 1 U 1
one pipe segment in Fig. 2b.
B2 B2 z B2 z V B2 z
V3 = + 1 1 1 1 1
2 U B2 B2 1 U B2 FJ = 4 L0 f + + + +
B2 z U
cos 0° cos cos 2 cos(n 1) (24)
+ Q( ) 1
B2 (20) where f is the frictional resistance per meter length of the pipe.
For the soil wedge outside the range of pipe diameter, an inter- If the whole pipeline keeps straight during the jacking process, the
secting angle α'' between the failure plane and the horizontal plane is angular deviation should be χ = 0, and the jacking force FJs becomes:
defined to convert the irregular soil wedge into a regular one as follows: FJs = 4 L0 f (25)

B2 Therefore, the angular deviation influence factor fk on the jacking

" = arctan 1 force can be calculated as:
tan ( 2 B1 x) (21)
FJ 1 1 1 1
fk = = + + + +
Introducing two parameter P and S, FJs cos 0° cos cos 2 cos(n 1) (26)
Kn cot( '' )(
1
tan tan ) + Kn tan Based on a review of pipe jacking case histories (Milligan and
cos
P=1+ Norris, 1999; Broere et al., 2007; Cui et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2016c; Ji
tan + cot ''
tan tan tan et al., 2017), the steering angle χ is often less than 2° and the maximum
c 1 cot( '' ) cot '' +
S=
tan tan
angular deviation (n − 1)χ is less than 30°; otherwise, leakage seal
tan + cot ''
(22) failure could occur. In this investigation, three steering angles of
The average vertical stress σV4 for the soil wedge outside the range χ = 0.5°, χ = 1°, and χ = 2° and three maximum angular deviations of
of pipe diameter can be assessed for the given boundary condition of (n − 1)χ = 10°, (n − 1)χ = 20°, and (n − 1)χ = 30° are used to cal-
σV = Q for z = 0 as follows: culate the angular deviation influence factor fk as tabulated in Table 1.
It can be seen that the difference in the steering angle χ does not result
in a significant change in fk. When the maximum angular deviation
P 1 P 1
B2 B2 z B2 z S B2 z
= + 1
V4
2 P B2 B2 1 P B2 (n − 1)χ increases from 10° to 30°, the fk value increases by approxi-
B2 z P mately 4.5%. For a pipe jacking project, the estimated jacking force for
1
+ Q( ) a straight alignment can be multiplied by the angular deviation influ-
B2 (23)
ence factor fk to consider the influence of pipe misalignment.
The total vertical earth pressure acting on the shield face σV is
eventually calculated by summing σV3 and σV4, and the face resistance is 4. Interface friction
then derived by FF = KnσV.
The friction coefficient at the soil-pipe interface is generally esti-
3. Influence of pipe misalignment mated to vary between an upper bound of soil friction angle φ and a
lower limit of φ/3 − φ/2 (Pellet-Beaucour and Kastner, 2002). With the
Milligan and Norris (1999) initially proposed that the jacked pipe- addition of slurry lubricant, the interface friction can be reduced sig-
line could follow a ‘wavy’ shaped pattern based on their field measured nificantly (Reilly, 2014; Reilly and Orr, 2017). The inclusion of ben-
profile of deviation. Each pipe segment could be considered as a pre- tonite slurry can also help to keep the stability of the borehole and
stressed segmental beam to span across pipe joints, experiencing lateral minimize the ground surface subsidence due to pipe jacking. Experi-
bending against the surrounding soil. They only proposed the con- mental efforts have been taken to investigate the degree of reduction of
ceptual framework of ‘wavy’ shaped pipeline model, but did not include interface friction induced by slurry lubricant, such as the use of stan-
the effect of pipe misalignment in their calculation of jacking force. For dard Casagrande apparatus (Milligan and Norris, 1999) and the use of a
a pipe jacking project, a real-time monitoring is a prerequisite, which vertically pushed concrete sample in soil samples (Namli and Guler,
can help to adjust the deviation during the construction. However, it is 2017). In this study, a direct shear apparatus is modified as given in
still worth investigating whether the frictional resistance will be in- Fig. 3 for interface tests, since the soil-pipe friction occurs in the hor-
creased due to misalignment. izontal plane and the applied overburden pressure (from 50 to 250 kPa)
A ‘wavy’ shaped pipeline model is illustrated in Fig. 2a, where the can be adjusted to simulate different pipe burial depth (from approxi-
half ‘wavelength’ is expressed as L0. Within the half ‘wavelength’, the mately 3 to 16.5 m).
first pipe segment has an angular deviation (i.e., steering angle) of 0°, Pipe specimens of varying materials (reinforced concrete and steel
the second pipe segment will deviate in an angle of χ, the third pipe pipes) can be fabricated into blocks with dimensions of
segment will deviate by 2χ, and the n-th pipe segment will deviate by 90 mm × 90 mm × 10 mm (width × length × height). The outside
(n-1)χ. It is assumed that the n-th pipe segment reaches the maximum surface of the pipe should be protected for use as the sliding interface.
angular deviation (in the middle of the half ‘wavelength’), after which Sandy soils are taken from three different sites along the Hun River in
the driving of the pipe is adjusted. Therefore, within the distance of L0, Shenyang, China. Results from a series of laboratory element tests, in-
two pipe segments could deviate by (n − 1)χ. Assuming that the wa- cluding sieve analysis, specific gravity testing, minimum and maximum
venumber is λ, the total jacking force FJ can be roughly evaluated if the density tests and triaxial compression tests, and field plate load tests (Ji,

(a) Pipe/ground contact Half 'wavelength' (b)

h, L
0

le ngt
P ipe Friction force, L 0 f

Jacking force, FJn Nn

FJn
L0 f
Resultant longitudinal
(n-1)α Normal force, Nn
thrust at pipe ends
Fig. 2. Soil-pipe interaction during pipe jacking: (a) ‘wavy’ shaped pipeline, and (b) force equilibrium of a pipe segment.

122
X. Ji, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 90 (2019) 119–130

Table 1 proportions of slurry, the frictional resistance can be evaluated by

Calculated angular deviation influence factor fk.
(n − 1)χ χ Averaged fk
0.5° 1° 2°
10° 1.0052 1.0054 1.0056
20° 1.0212 1.0215 1.0221
30° 1.0496 1.0500 1.0510
Dial gauge
Porous stone
Upper part of
shear box
Lower part of Proving ring
Soil / Mud Dial gauge
shear box
Pipe sample
Fig. 3. Modified direct shear apparatus for interface tests.
2017) show that the properties of sandy soil in Shenyang are quite
uniform (see Table 2). A typical muddy clay in Shenyang is also tested
for comparison. The optimized ratio has been determined based on field
experience and laboratory tests (Ji, 2017) as Bentonite: Carboxymethyl
cellulose (CMC): Sodium carbonate (Na2CO3): Water = 1: 0.012: 0.05:
6 (by weight). The influence of three Sand: Slurry ratios of 1: 0.5, 1: 1,
and 1: 1.5 is investigated.
The correlation between shear stress and normal stress is depicted in
Fig. 4. A linear curve fitting of the measured data points can be conducted
to evaluate the apparent interface friction angle μ, and the results are
summarized in Table 3. It is clear that the mobilized friction could be
smaller when the pipe is jacked through a clay layer than in a sandy layer.
For reinforced concrete pipes, the frictional force can be reduced by 30%
when the pipe is jacked through clay, and by 60% when the pipe is sur-
rounded by pure slurry compared to pipe jacking in sandy soil. In reality,
bentonite slurry is injected to mix with sandy soil, and the reduction of
friction could be improved by 24% when the Sand: Slurry ratio increases
from 1: 0.5 to 1: 1.5. Steel pipes will experience a less extent of friction
compared to concrete pipes, and the beneficial effect of slurry lubricant is
also apparent for steel pipes. If overcut occurs (i.e., a gap forms between
the pipe and the soil), the gap is normally filled by bentonite slurry. Hence,
the skin friction mobilized at the soil-pipe interface will be reduced, which
is beneficial to the pipe. From Fig. 4, it is also demonstrated that the shear
stress mobilized at the interface becomes smaller when slurry is used.
During pipe jacking, the jacking force will also be reduced with the oc-
currence of overcut as time elapses. The use of the friction coefficient
determined without considering the influence of overcut will provide a
conservative estimation for the jacking force.
5. Discrete numerical modeling of pipe jacking
5.1. Modeling strategy
For a pipe jacking project in different soils with addition of various
multiplying the measured interface friction coefficient by the normal
force acting on the pipe (Pellet-Beaucour and Kastner, 2002). The
normal force on the pipe can be calculated from a 2D plane strain
discrete numerical model using the general purpose distinct-element
software PFC2D code. The interaction between particles in the distinct-
1.0054
1.0216 element model can reproduce the friction mobilized at the soil-pipe
1.0502 interface better than the finite element-based simulation. In finite ele-
ment analysis, the interaction at the interface is often explicitly defined
using a friction coefficient. Following the study of Barla and Camusso
(2013), two modeling strategies for characterizing the pipeline ex-
cavation process and the lining are compared.
A micro-tunnel excavation with an outside diameter of 1 m and an
overcut of 50 mm is modeled. The lining is assumed to have a unit
weight of 25 kN/m3, and a thickness of 0.1 m. The numerical model has
a width of 10 m, which produces the distance from the model boundary
to the pipe that is about 5 times the pipe diameter to eliminate the
boundary effects (Ni et al., 2018). The burial depth measured from the
ground surface to the pipe crown is 1 m, and a total model height of 4 m
is modeled. To fill soil particles within the boundaries most efficiently,
a concentric upscale technique for particle radius is employed, and
interested readers can find more details in Barla and Camusso (2013).
The concentric upscale approach can essentially generate a synthetic
model with proper porosity, where its mechanical behaviour is gen-
erally equivalent to that of real geomaterials. The presence of looser
and denser areas within the model can be effectively eliminated. In-
deed, the calibration process using the concentric upscale technique
corresponds to an iterative process to general a numerical model of
being more reflective of the measured data. How the upscale factors are
determined have been explained in details in Ji et al. (2018a) by
comparing the stress-strain curves calculated using the numerical
model and measured in direct shear tests for different types of sand in
Shenyang. The numerical model is divided into four zones using three
temporary walls (Wall 1, Wall 2 and Wall 3) as shown in Fig. 5. The
presence of walls in the numerical model requires the definition of the
force-displacement relationship at the ball-wall contacts. The motion of
the wall can be defined explicitly by the user (fixed in the spatial po-
sition in this case). The calculation cycle is in a time-stepping algo-
rithm, where the law of motion is repeatedly applied to all particles
(balls). The use of these temporary walls is to assign different porosity
for soils in different zones easily. The porosity and the deformability
microparameters of the material are kept consistent in each zone, al-
though different upscale factors are used in four zones (see Table 4).
Three temporary walls are removed once the model reaches the equi-
librium (at the ball-ball contacts).
Following the work of Camusso and Barla (2009), a synthetic ma-
terial with a simplified and restrained grain-size distribution (from 5 to
20 mm) is simulated to produce equivalent properties compared to
sandy soils in Shenyang. It should be emphasized that all solid particles
in PFC2D are rigid and spherical in shape, and overlap could occur to
simulate the deformability characteristics of geomaterials. Therefore,
clumps are introduced randomly in the model using 3 spherical parti-
cles to replace some particles, as such the effect of angularity in par-
ticles and asperities can be modeled. The details for the calibration of
the two-dimensional porosity by varying the proportions of particles
within the restrained range can be seen in Ji (2017). The selected

Table 2
Properties of sandy soil in Shenyang (Ji, 2017).
Sample Water content Specific Dry density (g/cm3) Minimum density (g/cm3) Maximum density (g/cm3) Friction angle Bearing capacity Elastic modulus
(%) gravity (°) (kPa) (MPa)

1 11.1 2.66 1.531 1.37 1.65 33 1075 76.8

2 28.5 2.63 1.582 1.35 1.75 36 900 91.1
3 21.0 2.62 1.723 1.55 2.09 37 911 72

123
X. Ji, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 90 (2019) 119–130

Fig. 4. Apparent interface friction angle for: (a) concrete pipe, and (b) steel pipe.

Table 3 Table 4
Interface friction coefficients measured from direct shear tests. Generated particle numbers in different zones.
Pipe Soil μ Zone Area (m2) Upscale Particle radius (mm) Particles/area (m−2)
factor
Concrete Sandy soil 0.5 5–10 10–15 15–20 5–10 10–15 15–20
Muddy clay 0.35
Sand: Slurry = 1:0.5 0.31 Z1 0.785 1.2 4382 1633 248 8039 2996 456
Sand: Slurry = 1:1 0.264 Z2 6.28 1 50,484 18,814 2863 8039 2996 456
Sand: Slurry = 1:1.5 0.234 Z3 10.164 1.5 36,314 13,533 2059 8039 2996 456
Slurry 0.2 Z4 25.335 2 50,917 18,975 1158 8039 2996 456

Steel Sandy soil 0.38

Muddy clay 0.31
Sand: Slurry = 1:0.5 0.29 Table 5
Sand: Slurry = 1:1 0.24 Microparameters for sandy soils, single particle lining model and layered par-
Sand: Slurry = 1:1.5 0.18 ticles lining model (Ji, 2017).
Slurry 0.15
Component Description Value

Sandy soils Particle friction coefficient 0.5

proportion between particles as listed in Table 4 can well represent the Particle normal stiffness (N/m) 4 × 107
macro-mechanical behaviour of sandy soils as summarized in Table 2. Particle shear stiffness (N/m) 2 × 107
Parameters used to describe all these particles for sandy soils are ta- Single particle lining Unit weight (kN/m3) 9
bulated in Table 5. This investigation is focused on the calculation of Particle normal stiffness (N/m) 2 × 108
pipe jacking force in sand, where drained analysis should be conducted. Particle shear stiffness (N/m) 2 × 108
The pore water cannot be explicitly modeled, and the influence of Layered particles lining Unit weight (kN/m3) 25
groundwater is neglected in the analysis. In fact, if the pipe jacking is Particle normal stiffness (N/m) 2 × 108
conducted below the groundwater table, the jacking force could be Particle shear stiffness (N/m) 2 × 108
Parallel bond radius multiplier 3
reduced due to the increased contribution of lubricant from water. The
Parallel bond normal strength (Pa/m) 1 × 1015
present analysis can hence provide a conservative estimation of pipe Parallel bond shear strength (Pa/m) 1 × 1015
jacking force.
The zone Z1 in Fig. 5 represents the location of the micro-tunnel.
One modeling technique for the lining is to define a single big particle weight of the big particle is calculated as 9 kN/m3, which can reproduce
to replace soil particles in zone Z1 as illustrated in Fig. 6a. Therefore, the total weight of the lining. The coordinate of the center of the pipe is
the diameter of the big particle is 1 m. In fact, the lining has a width of defined as G(xP, yP), and the coordinate of the excavation center is
0.1 m, and a unit weight of 25 kN/m3. The total weight of the lining can written as E(xE, yE). The diameter of the micro-tunnel is expressed by
be calculated easily. Based on the principle of equivalence, the unit DE, and the overcut is denoted as hgap. Therefore, the outside diameter

Wall 4
H=1 m
Wall 1
R = 0.5 m 1m 1m
Z4 Z3 Z2 Z1
Wall 7 Wall 5
3m
Wall 2

Wall 3 Wall 6

10 m
Fig. 5. Dimensions of the numerical model.

124
X. Ji, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 90 (2019) 119–130

(a)
Soil
Overcut gap

Lining

(b)
Soil
Overcut gap

Lining

ς
DID/2 DOD/2

Dlining
Fig. 6. Schematics of lining model: (a) using a single big particle, and (b) using
a layer of small particles.

of the pipe/lining DOD can be calculated as follows:

xP = xE (27)
Fig. 7. Distribution of contact force between particles: (a) before excavation,
yP = yE 0.5· hgap (28)
(b) lining model with a single particle after excavation, and (c) lining model
with layered particles after excavation.
DOD /2 = 0.5·(DE h gap) (29)

An alternative approach for the lining is to define a layer of bonded
small particles to have the exact dimensions of the lining as presented in
Fig. 6b. Soil particles within the lining are therefore removed. There-
fore, the diameter of each small particle is defined as Dlining = 0.1 m.
Now, the outside and inside diameter of the pipe is defined as DOD and
DID, respectively. The central angle ς can be estimated as follows:
RP = 0.5·(DE hgap)
DID /2 = DOD /2 hlining
0.5· Dlining
= 2·arcsin( ) rounding soil above the pipe. The contact force flows around the pipe
RP 0.5· Dlining
It should be noted that the lining model with layered small particles
requires to define parallel bonds between each particle. Table 5 reports
all parameters employed in this study to define sandy soils, single
particle lining model and layered particles lining model.
5.2. Numerical results
The contact force between particles is illustrated in Fig. 7 for the
numerical model before excavation, the numerical model with single
particle lining after excavation and the numerical model with layered
particle lining after excavation. As expected, higher contact force
(thicker lines) occurs at a greater depth for the numerical model under
the geostatic stresses as shown in Fig. 7a. After excavation, higher
contact force occurs around the pipe for both modeling strategies for
the lining. When a single big particle is employed to model the lining,
the contact force acting on the big particle in all directions passes
through the center of the lining as presented in Fig. 7b. Therefore,
summing the contact forces in all directions can help to derive the total
normal force acting on the pipe for further use in the calculation of
jacking force. The results of the alternative modeling technique of
constructing a layer of small particles as the lining are given in Fig. 7c,
where the contact force at each small particle points towards the center
of the lining. Again, all contact forces at the layered particles lining can
be summed to evaluate the total normal force acting on the pipe. From
(30) Fig. 7, the influence of overcut on the ground behaviour can also be
glanced, where the overcut gap is closed after all particles are stabilized
(31) at the new position. Due to the relative movement between the pipe and
the soil (i.e., overcut gap closure), a soil arch is formed in the sur-
(32) following the arch.
A direct comparison on the effectiveness of the two modeling
techniques is demonstrated in Fig. 8. The ground surface settlement
profiles calculated from the two models are plotted in Fig. 8a. It can be
seen that the maximum settlement occurs at the center of the micro-
tunnel. The single particle lining model produces a maximum settle-
ment of 23 mm, which is much less than the value of 32 mm derived
using the layered particles lining model. This can be attributed to two
reasons: (a) the outer surface of the layered particles lining model is not
smooth, where some small particles of sandy soils outside the lining
could move and fill the voids between lining particles to increase the
ground settlement; and (b) parallel bonds are used to connect adjacent
particles for the layered particles lining model, and higher deformation
could occur at the location of parallel bonds. Although the ground
settlement profiles calculated from the two lining models differ by
about 30%, a generally good agreement is achieved for the total normal
stress acting on the lining. As expected, with the increase of overburden
pressure, the normal force acting on the pipe increases. Considering the
complexity in the layered particles lining model, the single particle

125
X. Ji, et al.
(a) 0 (b) 100
−5
Ground settlement (mm)
−10
−15
−20
−25
−30
−35
−5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
Distance from the pipe centerline (m)
Fig. 8. Comparison between two modeling strategy for lining: (a) ground surface settlement profile, and (b) normal stress acting on the lining.
lining model is suggested for use in design.
6. Method of calculating the jacking force
In the formulation of jacking force FJ, the contribution of edge re-
sistance FE can be neglected conservatively. By introducing the angular
deviation influence factor fk to consider the impact of pipe misalign-
ment, the jacking force in Eq. (1) is now rewritten as follows:
FJ = (FF + FS + FP ) fk = (FF + S µS LS + P µP LP ) fk
where μS and μP correspond to the interface friction coefficient at the
soil-shield and soil-pipe interface, respectively; σS and σP are the total
normal stress acting on the shield and the pipe, respectively; LS and LP
represent the total length of the shield and the pipe, respectively.
The calculation procedure of pipe jacking force in sandy soils in
Shenyang is summarized as follows:
Step 1: define the pipe material and geometry parameters (diameter
and wall thickness).
Step 2: determine the total jacking distance.
Step 3: calculate the angular deviation influence factor fk (Eq. (26)
or Table 1).
Step 4: discretize the pipe along the driving direction based on
burial and geological conditions.
Step 5: simplify the lining as a single big particle using the principle
of equivalence (Eqs. (30)–(32)).
Step 6: calculate the total normal force acting on the pipe using 2D
discrete numerical method (Section 5.1).
Step 7: determine the interface friction coefficient for different pipes
and soils (Table 3).
Step 8: calculate the face resistance (Section 2).
Step 9: establish the lower bound of jacking force considering dif-
ferent mixing ratio of slurry lubricant and pipe misalignment (Eq.
(33)).
Step 10: establish the upper bound of jacking force considering the
compressive strength of pipes and joints and the bearing capacity of
thrust block.
7. Case study
7.1. Overview of the project
Wu’ai Electrical Power Tunnel connects the Nanhu electrical sub-
station on the north side of Hun River and the building of Northeast
China Grid Co., Ltd. on the south side of Hun River, Shenyang. The pipe
jacking project runs through a distance of 1000 m underneath the Hun
River. As shown in Figs. 9 and 10, the pipe jacking project has four
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 90 (2019) 119–130
Single particle
Layered particles
80
Normal stress (kPa)
60
40
20
Single particle
Layered particles
0
5 0 50 100 150 200
Overburden pressure (kPa)
Nanhu electrical
substation
5# shaft
1# shaft
2# shaft Hun River
3# shaft
(33) Northeast China
200 m Grid Co., Ltd.
4# shaft
1000 ft
Fig. 9. Plan layout of the pipe jacking project of Wu’ai Electric Power Tunnel.
working shafts. The first drive starts from #2 launch shaft to #3 re-
ception shaft in a length of 170 m using a hand shield machine (mon-
itoring data available for 92.5 m). The second drive is planned to drive
from #3 launch shaft to #4 reception shaft using an earth pressure
balance (EPB) machine, but is not successful due to unexpected con-
struction difficulties after 160 m drive (Ji et al., 2017). The third drive
completes the pipeline from #5 launch shaft to #4 reception shaft in a
length of 830 m using a slurry shield (SS) machine.
Each reinforced concrete pipe segment has an inside diameter of
3500 mm, a wall thickness of 320 mm, and a length of 2500 mm. Fig. 11
shows some details of the slurry shield (SS) machine and the size of the
pipe. The soil on the site consists of backfill soil, round gravel, silty clay,
medium coarse sand and round sand. At the average pipe burial depth
of 9 m, the route primarily contains gravel sand and round gravel with
properties that are close to those listed in Table 2.
7.2. Field monitoring
The deviation of the pipe during pipe jacking is recorded for three
drives as presented in Fig. 12. For pipe jacking using the hand shield
machine, the pipe alignment moves upwards by 29 mm. In the lateral
direction, the jacked pipe reaches a maximum deviation of −11 mm,
after which adjustment operation results the pipe to move in the op-
posite direction by 20 mm. For pipe jacking using the EPB machine, the
maximum deviation is 30 mm and −55 mm in the vertical and hor-
izontal directions, respectively. In design guidelines (GB 50332-02,
2002), for a jacked pipe with a diameter greater than 1500 mm and a
drive distance of less than 400 m, the maximum upward deviation is
40 mm, and the maximum deviation in the other direction is 50 mm. It
can be seen that the jacked pipe using the hand shield machine is within
the limits, and the jacked pipe using the EPB machine is not. Interested
readers can find the reason for the failure of the jacked pipe using the
126
X. Ji, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 90 (2019) 119–130

56 m 2# shaft 3# shaft & 5# shaft 4# shaft

Launch shaft Reception & Launch shaft Reception shaft
48 m 43.7 m

-1.42% Hun River

40 m
34 m 37.3
-1.42%
32 m -0.3%
31 m
24 m
170 m 830 m

170 m jacking from 160 m jacking from 830 m jacking from

#2 shaft to #3 shaft #3 shaft to #4 shaft #5 shaft to #4 shaft

Hand Shield Earth Pressure

Slurry Shield (SS)
Balance (EPB)

Fig. 10. Elevation view of the pipe jacking project of Wu’ai Electric Power Tunnel.

EPB machine and the associated remediation schemes in Ji et al.
(2017). For pipe jacking using the SS machine, the steering angle is
measured to be less than the limit of 2° (Milligan and Norris, 1999;
Broere et al., 2007), which demonstrates the success of the driving.
The measured jacking force for three pipe jacking projects is plotted
in Fig. 13. Small collapse occurs at a driving distance of 35 m and 65 m
for the jacked pipe using the hand shield machine, at which further
slurry is injected to cause a sudden change of jacking force as shown in
Fig. 13a. The jacked pipe using the EPB machine encounters the round
gravel layer after a driving distance of 80 m. The volume of slurry in-
jection is then increased, which explains the dramatic variation of
jacking force at 80 m as given in Fig. 13b. For the jacked pipe using the
SS machine, the jacking force increases gradually throughout the whole
driving process as illustrated in Fig. 13c.
The records of frictional resistance are presented in Fig. 14 for three
pipe jacking projects. The average frictional resistance can be calcu-
lated as 45 kPa, 55 kPa, and 102 kPa for the jack pipe using the hand
shield machine, the EPB machine, and the SS machine, respectively.

Fig. 11. Photos of the slurry shield (SS) jacked pipeline from #5 shaft to #4 shaft: (a) setup of the slurry shield machine, (b) excavated soil discharge, (c) finish
tunnelling, (d) view of the interior of the pipeline.

127
X. Ji, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 90 (2019) 119–130

(a) 30 (a) 80
Vertical direction
Horizontal direction
20

Jacking force (MN)

60
Deviation (mm)

10
40
0 1000 kN/m

−10 20
750 kN/m

−20 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Jacking distance (m) Jacking distance (m)
(b) 40 (b) 140
20 120

Jacking force (MN)

Deviation (mm)

0 100

−20 80
1500 kN/m
60
−40
40 500 kN/m
−60 Vertical direction Sandy gravel
Horizontal direction 20 Medium increase of grout quantity
−80 coarse sand
0 20 40 60 80 100 0
Jacking distance (m) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Jacking distance (m)
1.5
1 Horizontal direction
(c) 1400
0.5 1200
1500 kN/m
Jacking force (MN)
Rotation (°)

0 1000
−0.5
Vertical direction
−1
−1.5
−2
−2.5
0 200 400 600 800
Jacking distance (m)
Fig. 12. Alignment survey during pipe jacking: (a) hand shield jacking from #2
shaft to #3 shaft, (b) earth pressure balance (EPB) jacking from #3 shaft to #4
shaft, and (c) slurry shield (SS) jacking from #5 shaft to #4 shaft.
7.3. Comparison between calculations and measurements
The comparison between measured and calculated jacking force is
illustrated in Fig. 15. Two extreme conditions of interface friction have
been considered. The calculation for sandy soil without slurry lubricant
represents an upper bound of frictional resistance, whereas the calcu-
lation for pure slurry corresponds to a lower bound of frictional re-
sistance. In reality, a Sand: Slurry ratio of approximately 1: 1.5 is used,
which produces the calculated results that are slightly higher than those
estimated for pure slurry. It is interesting that the proposed method can
provide a reasonable range of jacking force compared to field mea-
surements. It is suggested to use the calculation for sandy soil without
slurry to provide a conservative evaluation of jacking force. In design
guidelines (GB 50332-02, 2002), the pipe jacking force is often esti-
mated empirically. All parameters are site-specific, being influenced by
the geological condition, burial depth, pipe diameter, jacking distance,
the type of slurry lubricant, and the jacking machine. Based on field
measurements, the parameters in empirical formulas can be fitted, after
which a single number of pipe jacking force is suggested. For example,
800
600 750 kN/m
400
200
1000 kN/m
1000
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Jacking distance (m)
Fig. 13. Records of jacking force: (a) hand shield jacking from #2 shaft to #3
shaft, (b) earth pressure balance (EPB) jacking from #3 shaft to #4 shaft, and
(c) slurry shield (SS) jacking from #5 shaft to #4 shaft.
the range of pipe jacking force can vary from 14.5 MN to 30 MN based
on empirical calculations for the hand shield jacking drive from #2
shaft to #3 shaft. It should be noted that the jacking force estimated
using empirical approaches deviates from the true field measurements
as the jacking distance increases. All empirical methods cannot consider
the variation of soil parameters along the pipe alignment. The influence
of pipe misalignment can be explicitly included in the current deriva-
tion. Alternatively, researchers tend to use finite element simulations to
analyze the pipe jacking process. The interaction at the soil-pipe in-
terface is often simplified using the Coulomb model, and the normal
force is evaluated from a predefined friction coefficient. The current
analysis is developed based on the distinct-element model, where the
interaction between particles can reproduce the friction mobilized at
the soil-pipe interface more realistically.
8. Conclusions
In this investigation, a calculation procedure of the jacking force for

128
X. Ji, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 90 (2019) 119–130

(a) 100 (a) 80

Field measurements
Frictional resistance (kPa)
Calculations (Sandy soil)
80 Calculations (Sand:Slurry = 1:1.5)

Jacking force (MN)

60 Calculations (Slurry)

60
40
40

20
20

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Jacking distance (m) Jacking distance (m)
(b) 140 (b) 140 Field measurements
Frictional resistance (kPa)

120 120 Calculations (Sandy soil)

Calculations (Sand:Slurry = 1:1.5)

Jacking force (MN)

100 Calculations (Slurry)
100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Jacking distance (m) Jacking distance (m)
(c) 300
(c) 1400 Field measurements
Frictional resistance (kPa)

250 1200 Calculations (Sandy soil)

Calculations (Sand:Slurry = 1:1.5)
Jacking force (MN)

Calculations (Slurry)
200 1000

150 800
600
100
400
50
200
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 0
Jacking distance (m) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Jacking distance (m)
Fig. 14. Records of frictional resistance: (a) hand shield jacking from #2 shaft
Fig. 15. Comparison between measured and calculated jacking force: (a) hand
to #3 shaft, (b) earth pressure balance (EPB) jacking from #3 shaft to #4 shaft,
shield jacking from #2 shaft to #3 shaft, (b) earth pressure balance (EPB)
and (c) slurry shield (SS) jacking from #5 shaft to #4 shaft.
jacking from #3 shaft to #4 shaft, and (c) slurry shield (SS) jacking from #5
shaft to #4 shaft.
pipe jacking in sandy soils is proposed. The jacking force should exceed
the summation of frictional resistance and face resistance. The face
Acknowledgements
resistance acting on the excavation face can be computed using the
modified Protodyakonov’s arch model of Ji et al. (2018b). The frictional
This work was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for
resistance is considered as the product of the interface friction coeffi-
the Central Universities from the Ministry of Education of China (Grant
cient and the normal force acting on the pipe. Direct shear experiments
N130601004).
are conducted to provide the interface friction coefficient between
different pipes and soils considering the injection of slurry lubricant. A
Appendix A. Supplementary material
novel modeling technique of characterizing the surrounding soil using a
discrete 2D numerical model and the lining as a single large particle is
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
proposed to evaluate the normal force on the pipe. During pipe jacking,
doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2019.04.002.
the pipeline could follow a ‘wavy’ shaped pattern. Based on the as-
sumption of ‘wavy’ deformed pipeline, the angular deviation influence
References
factor can be used to scale up the calculated jacking force to take into
account the impact of pipe misalignment. In the end, the efficacy of the
ASCE, 2001. Standard Practice for Direct Design of Precast Concrete Pipe for Jacking in
proposed calculation framework is demonstrated by comparing ana- Trenchless Construction. American Society of Civil Engineering, Reston, Virginia, US.
lyses with field measurements for three different drives in a pipe ATV-A 161 E-90, 1990. Structural Calculation of Driven Pipes. German ATV Rules and
jacking project. The proposed method is found to be simply and effec- Standards, Hennef, Germany.
Barla, M., Borghi, X., Mair, R.J., Soga, K., 2003. Numerical modeling of pipe-soil stress
tive, and can be used to give a first-level screening of design para- during pipe jacking in clays. In: XIII European Conference on Soil Mechanics and
meters. Geotechnical Engineering (ECSMGE), Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 453–458.
Barla, M., Camusso, M., 2013. A method to design microtunnelling installations in

129
X. Ji, et al.
randomly cemented Torino alluvial soil. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 33, 73–81.
Barla, M., Camusso, M., Aiassa, S., 2006. Analysis of jacking forces during microtunnel-
ling in limestone. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 21 (6), 668–683.
Beckmann, D., Stein, R., Fabri, T., Uhlenbroch, A., 2007. CoJack – A new statics method
of computing and controlling pipe jacking. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 22 (5),
587–599.
Broere, W., Faassen, T.F., Arends, G., van Tol, A.F., 2007. Modelling the boring of curves
in (very) soft soils during microtunnelling. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 22 (5),
600–609.
Camusso, M., Barla, M., 2009. Microparameters calibration for loose and cemented soil
when using particle methods. Int. J. Geomech. 9 (5), 217–229.
Chapman, D.N., Ichioka, Y., 1999. Prediction of jacking forces for microtunnelling op-
erations. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 14 (Supplement 1), 31–41.
Cheng, W.-C., Ni, J.C., Shen, J.S.-L., Huang, H.-W., 2017. Investigation into factors af-
fecting jacking force: a case study. Proc. Instit. Civ. Eng.-Geotech. Eng. 170 (4),
322–334.
Cui, Q.-L., Xu, Y.-S., Shen, S.-L., Yin, Z.-Y., Horpibulsuk, S., 2015. Field performance of
concrete pipes during jacking in cemented sandy silt. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol.
49, 336–344.
GB 50332-02, 2002. Structural design code for pipeline of water supply and waste water
engineering. The Ministry of Construction of China & General Administration of
Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People's Republic of China,
Beijing, China.
Ji, X., 2017. Estimation of jacking force during jacking pipes in Shenyang sandy stratum.
In: Ph.D. thesis, Northeastern University, Shenyang, China.
Ji, X., Ni, P., and Barla, M. 2018a. Analysis of jacking forces during pipe jacking in
granular materials using particle methods. Underground Space.
Ji, X., Ni, P., Barla, M., Zhao, W., Mei, G., 2018b. Earth pressure on shield excavation face
for pipe jacking considering arching effect. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 72, 17–27.
Ji, X., Zhao, W., Jia, P., Qiao, L., Barla, M., Ni, P., Wang, L., 2017. Pipe Jacking in sandy
soil under a River in Shenyang, China. Indian Geotech. J. 47 (3), 246–260.
JMTA, 2000. Pipe-Jacking Application. Japan Micro Tunneling Association, Tokyo,
Japan.
Khazaei, S., Wu, W., Shimada, H., Matsui, K., 2006. Effect of lubrication strength on
efficiency of slurry pipe jacking. In: Underground Construction and Ground
Movement, GeoShanghai International Conference 2006, Shanghai, China.
Milligan, G.W.E., Norris, P., 1999. Pipe–soil interaction during pipe jacking. Proc. Instit.
Civ. Eng. – Geotech. Eng. 137 (1), 27–44.
Najafi, M., 2005. Pipe jacking and utility tunneling. In: Trenchless Technology: Pipeline
and Utility Design, Construction, and Renewal. McGraw Hill Professional, Access
Engineering.
Namli, M., Guler, E., 2017. Effect of bentonite slurry pressure on interface friction of pipe
130
View publication stats
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 90 (2019) 119–130
jacking. J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 8 (2), 04016016.
Ni, P., Moore, I.D., Take, W.A., 2018. Numerical modeling of normal fault-pipeline in-
teraction and comparison with centrifuge tests. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 105, 127–138.
Pellet-Beaucour, A.L., Kastner, R., 2002. Experimental and analytical study of friction
forces during microtunneling operations. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 17 (1),
83–97.
PJA, 1995. Guide to Best Practice for the Installation of Pipe Jacks and Microtunnels. Pipe
Jacking Association, London, UK.
Qin, X., Ni, P., Zhou, M., 2017. Improved analytical solution of vertical pressure on top of
induced trench rigid culverts. Geosynthet. Int. 24 (6), 615–624.
Reilly, C.C., 2014. The influence of lubricant slurries on skin friction resistance in pipe
jacking. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering,
Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Reilly, C.C., Orr, T.L., 2017. Physical modelling of the effect of lubricants in pipe jacking.
Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 63, 44–53.
Röhner, R., Hoch, A., 2010. Calculation of jacking force by new ATV A-161. Tunn.
Undergr. Space Technol. 25, 731–735.
Shimada, H., Khazaei, S., Matsui, K., 2004. Small diameter tunnel excavation method
using slurry pipe-jacking. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 22 (2), 161–186.
Shou, K., Yen, J., Liu, M., 2010. On the frictional property of lubricants and its impact on
jacking force and soil–pipe interaction of pipe-jacking. Tunn. Undergr. Space
Technol. 25 (4), 469–477.
Shou, K.J., Jiang, J.M., 2010. A study of jacking force for a curved pipejacking. J. Rock
Mech. Geotech. Eng. 2 (4), 298–304.
Sladen, J., Oswell, J., 1988. The induced trench method—a critical review and case
history. Can. Geotech. J. 25 (3), 541–549.
Sugimoto, M., Asanprakit, A., 2010. Stack pipe model for pipe jacking method. J. Constr.
Eng. Manage. 136 (6), 683–692.
Yen, J., Shou, K., 2015. Numerical simulation for the estimation the jacking force of pipe
jacking. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 49, 218–229.
Zhang, D., Liu, B., Qin, Y., 2016a. Construction of a large-section long pedestrian un-
derpass using pipe jacking in muddy silty clay: A case study. Tunn. Undergr. Space
Technol. 60, 151–164.
Zhang, H., Zhang, P., Zhou, W., Dong, S., Ma, B., 2016b. A new model to predict soil
pressure acting on deep burial jacked pipes. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 60,
183–196.
Zhang, P., Ma, B.S., Zeng, C., Xie, H.M., Li, X., Wang, D.W., 2016c. Key techniques for the
largest curved pipe jacking roof to date: A case study of Gongbei tunnel. Tunn.
Undergr. Space Technol. 59, 134–145.
Zhen, L., Chen, J.-J., Qiao, P., Wang, J.-H., 2014. Analysis and remedial treatment of a
steel pipe-jacking accident in complex underground environment. Eng. Struct. 59,
210–219.