COMPARISON OF DUST GENERATION FROM OPEN CUT AND TRENCHLESS TECHNOLOGY
METHODS FOR UTILITY CONSTRUCTION
by
SAHAJANAND MADHUSUDAN KAMAT
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
The University of Texas at Arlington in
Partial Fulfillment of Requirements
for the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON
MAY 2011
Copyright © 2011 by Sahajanand Madhusudan Kamat
All Rights Reserved
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge Dr. Mohammad Najafi, my academic advisor and committee chair.
Dr. Najafi has always been helpful for all the technical issues during my graduate studies at UT Arlington..
He has always acted as a great guide in my journey through this sea of endless knowledge and
information. I would also like to give special thanks and regards to Dr. Ghandehari for his support and
motivation in the statistical analysis required for this study. I would like to express my gratitude to Dr.
Melanie Sattler for her help and support during the air sampling and for serving on my thesis committee.
They assisted me and gave me feedback to improve this study. Also, I would like to give thanks Dallas
Water Utilities (DWU) especially Mr. Charles Stringer, Mr. Chad Kopecki, Mr. Ben Stephenson, Mr. Asim
Hasan, Mr. Jim Modesitt, Mr. Gimel Gimeno, and Mr. Evans Chambers, for their invaluable advice,
immense motivation, and providing me the opportunity to visit several utility projects.
I am grateful to all the UT Arlington faculty and staff members, and my colleagues and friends
who provided help during my studies. When I look back, all that I remember is the love, help, and support
of professors, faculty members, and friends during this stressful journey of two and a half years.
Finally, I would like to thank my parents for their love and understanding. Although being far
away, they have always been my greatest supports and strength.
April 11, 2011
iv
ABSTRACT
COMPARISON OF DUST GENERATION FROM OPEN CUT AND TRENCHLESS TECHNOLOGY
METHODS FOR UTILITY CONSTRUCTION
Sahajanand Madhusudan Kamat, M.S.
The University of Texas at Arlington, 2011
Supervising Professor: Mohammad Najafi
Construction industry has changed many aspects of human life and is still evolving at a rapid
pace. New and better technologies which are environmentally friendly and safe have been and are being
introduced in this industry. At the same time, the construction industry is challenged by safety issues,
public inconvenience and disruption of everyday life due to nature construction operations. One of the
major contributors to such conditions is dust generation on a construction site. The amount of dust a
worker inhales during his or her career can be harmful to his or her health. This research focuses on
underground utility installations using conventional open cut and trenchless technology methods.
Trenchless technology includes a family of methods for installation and renewal of underground utilities
with minimum disruption of surface and subsurface. The results of this thesis indicate that with using
trenchless technology, the workers’ exposure to dust can be reduced significantly.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................. iii
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS .......................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………………………………......viii
Chapter Page
1 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Utility Construction .............................................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Social Costs ........................................................................................................................................ 3
1.4 Air Pollution ......................................................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Noise Pollution .................................................................................................................................... 5
1.6 Traffic .................................................................................................................................................. 6
1.7 Trenchless Technology ....................................................................................................................... 7
1.8 Motivation............................................................................................................................................ 9
1.9 Problem Statement ........................................................................................................................... 10
1.10 Objectives and Scope ..................................................................................................................... 11
1.11 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 12
1.12 Expected Outcome ......................................................................................................................... 12
1.13 Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................................... 13
2 LITERATURE SEARCH ........................................................................................................................... 14
2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 14
2.2 RSPM Exposure to Construction Workers in US.............................................................................. 14
vi
2.3 Major Reasons for Dust Generation ................................................................................................. 14
2.4 Relationship between the RSPM Generation and Production Rate ................................................. 19
2.5 Effects of Dust .................................................................................................................................. 19
2.6 Current Safety Methods and Standards ........................................................................................... 22
2.7 Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................................. 25
3 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................... 26
3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 26
3.2 Personal Exposure Sampler ............................................................................................................. 26
3.3 Data Collection ................................................................................................................................. 27
3.4 Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................................. 29
4 RESEARCH RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 30
4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 30
4.2 Comparison between Trenchless Technology sites and Open Cut sites ......................................... 30
4.3 Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................................. 40
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS for future research ......................................................... 41
5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 41
5.2 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 41
5.3 Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................................... 42
Appendix
A. SITE DATA…………………………………………………………………………………………………...41
B. SAMPLING DATA…………………………………………………………………………………………...55
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 64
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................................... 67
vii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1-1 Open Cut Utility Construction. ................................................................................................................ 2
1-2 Health Impact of Air Pollution ................................................................................................................. 4
1-3 Noise Pollution ........................................................................................................................................ 6
1-4: HDD Rig, Trenchless Methods of Utility Construction ........................................................................... 8
2-1: Soil Excavated from an Open Cut Method .......................................................................................... 16
2-2: Dust Control Measure on Site .............................................................................................................. 19
2-3 Construction Site Before Cleaning. ....................................................................................................... 24
2-4 Construction Site After Cleaning ........................................................................................................... 25
4-1 Result Graph From Trenchless Technology Sites ................................................................................ 31
4-2 Result Graph For Open Cut Sites ......................................................................................................... 31
4-3 Trenchless Technology Vs. Open Cut Sites ......................................................................................... 32
4-4 All Readings on Trenchless Technology Sites ..................................................................................... 33
4-5 All Readings on Open Cut Sites ........................................................................................................... 33
4-7 Temperature on An Open Cut Sites And Corresponding RSPM Generated ........................................ 35
4-8 Humidity on Trenchless Technology Sites and corresponding RSPM generated ................................ 36
4-9 Humidity on Open Cut Sites And Corresponding RSPM ...................................................................... 36
4-10 Production Rate on Trenchless Technology Sites and Corresponding RSPM Generated ................ 37
4-11 Production Rate on Open Cut Sites and Corresponding RSPM Generated ...................................... 38
4-12 Relationship between Machine Power and RSPM generated for open cut sites ............................... 39
4-13 Relationship between Machine Power and RSPM Generated For Trenchless Technology Sites…..39
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2-1 ASTM Classification of Soil and its Susceptibility to Dust Generation ................................................. 17
A-1 Data for Site 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 44
A-2 Data for Site 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 45
A-3 Data for Site 3 ....................................................................................................................................... 46
A-4 Data for Site 4 ....................................................................................................................................... 48
A-5 Data for Site 5 ....................................................................................................................................... 49
A-6 Data for Site 6 ....................................................................................................................................... 50
A-7 Data for Site 7 ....................................................................................................................................... 52
A-8 Data for Site 8 ....................................................................................................................................... 53
A-9 Data for Site 9 ....................................................................................................................................... 54
B-1 Sampling Data from Various Sites Around Dallas ................................................................................ 58
B-2 Sampling Data for Various Sites According To Their Production Rate ................................................ 59
B-3 Sampling Data of Sites According To Temperature ............................................................................. 59
B-4 Sampling Data of Sites According To Moisture .................................................................................... 61
B-5 Sampling Data for Various Boring Machines Used .............................................................................. 62
B-6 Sampling Data for Various Excavators Used ....................................................................................... 62
B-7 Sampling Data with Various Backhoes Used ....................................................................................... 63
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
This chapter presents a brief introduction to the concept of dust generation in relation to
underground utility construction. It also introduces various costs to society due to utility construction and
its effects on the quality of life.
1.1 Background
Construction projects are generally carried out to support economic growth and/or the social
welfare of society. However, during the construction phase, the community surrounding the construction
site often finds itself subjected to negative effects such as traffic impairment, noise, dust and subsequent
economic losses. Over the past ten years, construction-related costs to parties not engaged in the
contractual agreement (social costs) are gaining growing attention by city planners, municipal
administrators and the engineering community. While widely recognized, social costs are rarely
considered in the design, planning cost estimating and scheduling or bid evaluation phases. This is
attributed to the difficulty associated with quantifying social costs in standard estimating methods and the
fact that these costs are borne by the community rather than the contractual parties. Increased
awareness of environmental issues, the growing numbers of large construction projects conducted in
highly urbanized environments and the ever growing congestion in and around large North American
cities have contributed to an increasing interest in the mitigation of social costs. In a nut shell, there are
promising prospects of researching the social costs involved in utility construction and its effect on
environment.
2
1.2 Utility Construction
Utility construction and asset management are branches of civil engineering which include
planning, designing, executing, and managing the underground sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water, gas,
telecommunications, and other lifeline services. Utility construction is commonly under control of public or
semi-public entities and follows regulations come from local governments (city, county, etc.) to state
government agencies. The high cost of infrastructure development to produce and deliver products such
as electricity or potable water requires massive amounts of investments. In addition to initial capital costs,
underground infrastructure requires constant inspection. However, considering out of sight nature of
these infrastructure, sometimes inspection, maintenance and renewal efforts in urban settings are
difficult.
It is important that any construction project minimize the possibility of creating hazardous
conditions to the general public and to any personnel working on, in or around supporting structures. . In
addition to possible human injury and deaths, unsafe practices can impair the existing services and/or
delay the restoration of services. Utility construction can be briefly categorized into electricity, natural gas,
water, and sewage. Figure 1-1 shows a water main pipeline being constructed using traditional open cut
technology.
Figure 1-1 Open Cut Utility Construction (Frank, 2011).
3
1.3 Social Costs
Social costs are the types of costs associated with a utility construction project which might not
be obvious to the contracting parties. The main costs for construction projects include direct costs for
construction materials, equipment and labor, and indirect costs for overhead and profit (Najafi & Gokhale,
2005). These costs can be accurately estimated unless unknown conditions are encountered, but still
they can be estimated very closely to what will actually be paid to the contractor. Another type of cost is
the social cost which affects the general population, environment and businesses around the construction
site. Social costs, which are usually unaccounted for, are born by parties not directly involved in the
construction contract, but they greatly affect the society and its surroundings (Najafi & Gokhale, 2005).
Social costs for utility type projects are typically much less for trenchless technology type
methods than they are for the conventional open cut techniques (Najafi & Gokhale, 2005). Early in the
development of many trenchless technologies, the direct costs for typical installations were much higher
for trenchless methods due to the customized and specialized equipment which had to be used (Allouche
and Gilchrist, 2004) Over the years, many researchers have attempted to quantify the social costs using
various methods of calculation and estimation, yet some factors have remained too difficult to estimate.
This is partly due to the lack of available data for verification of the calculation methods.
1.4 Air Pollution
Air pollution is a form of social costs that causes harm or discomfort to humans or other living
organisms, or cause damage to the natural or built environment. Air pollutants and dust have a
physiological impact on human beings. The most common health problems associated with these impacts
are respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular diseases, allergies, anxiety and annoyance. Associated costs
include the consumption of health services (time of medical staff, diagnostic equipment and hospital
beds) and loss of productivity due to absence from the workplace (Allouche & Gilchrist, 2004). Figure 1-2
illustrates the effects of air pollution on the health of general population.
4
Figure 1-2 Health Impact of Air Pollution (Adopted from Bickerstaff & Walker, 1999).
Construction activities that contribute to air pollution include: land clearing, operation of
diesel engines, demolition, burning, and working with toxic materials. All construction sites generate high
levels of dust (typically from concrete, cement, wood, stone, silica) and this can carry for large distances
over a long period of time (EPA, 2006). Construction dust is classified as PM10 - particulate matter less
than 10 microns in diameter, invisible to the naked eye.
Research has shown that PM10 penetrate deeply into the lungs and cause a wide range of health
problems including respiratory illness, asthma, bronchitis and even cancer (Goldstein, 2009). Another
major source of PM10 on construction sites comes from the diesel engine exhausts of vehicles and heavy
equipment. This is known as diesel particulate matter (DPM) and consists of soot, sulphates and silicates,
all of which readily combine with other toxins in the atmosphere, increasing the health risks of particle
inhalation.
Diesel is also responsible for emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and
carbon dioxide. Noxious vapors from oils, glues, thinners, paints, treated woods, plastics, cleaners and
other hazardous chemicals that are widely used on construction sites, also contribute to air pollution.
Asthama46%
Other respiratory
ailments12%
Allergies13%
Headache and sickness
2%
Cough and chest
problems8%
Irritation impacts
7%
Sinus Problems9%
Others3%
5
1.5 Noise Pollution
The noise produced by construction activities is one of the main acoustic polluting elements in
society. However, there is no specific regulation for this activity, which shows its own emission features
that make it remarkably different from other activities (Ballesteros & Fernandez, 2009)
Noise pollution not only affects the production of people at work and the happiness of people at
home or leisure, it contributes to lower housing and property values. Heavy construction machinery,
vehicles and increased traffic noise all contribute to this cost. There are two primary ways to account for
social cost due to noise pollution. One involves public willingness to pay for the comfort. Some people
would gladly pay a fee to free them from construction noise and receive peace and quiet environment.
One study estimated that housing values decline by 0.17% for each additional decibel (dB) of noise
above normal (Matthews & Allouche, 2010). Study showed that an increase in noise can actually reduce
property values in a range from 0.2% to 1.0% per dBA (Matthews & Allouche, 2010). OSHA has a
regulation over the surrounding sound conditions to protect construction workers from hearing loss.
OSHA hearing conservation program requires employers to monitor noise exposure levels in a way that
accurately identifies employees exposed to noise at or above 85 decibels (dB) averaged over 8 working
hours (Maldikar, 2010). Figure 1-3 shows a construction worker using a concrete breaker to demolish a
structure. Use of such heavy equipment increases the noise pollution in the surrounding environment.
Noise health effects are both health and behavioral in nature. Continuously varying sound
conditions in the surrounding may lead to the temporary or permanent hearing losses, which in turn may
lead to compromise both the recognition of speech and of warning signals. This may reduce the quality
and quantity of the communication with co-workers, may lead to irritation, excessive fatigue, loss of
concentration which may lead to safety hazards (Maldikar, 2010). This unwanted sound can damage
physiological and psychological health. Noise pollution can cause annoyance and
aggression, hypertension, high stress levels, tinnitus, hearing loss, sleep disturbances, and other harmful
effects (Field, 1993). Furthermore, stress and hypertension are the leading causes to health problems,
6
whereas tinnitus can lead to forgetfulness, severe depression and at times panic attacks (Kryter, 1985).
The following corrective strategies can be considered to reduce noise impacts:
Schedule noise-intensive work for the least noise-sensitive time of the day
Increase the separation distance between noisy equipment and noise-sensitive locations
Install noise barriers around active areas to screen and protect noise sensitive areas
Close operable windows and install storm windows over acoustically weak windows
Relocate noise-sensitive building spaces to less-impacted locations
Review the construction plan to produce limits on noise emissions emitted by
construction equipment
Require all vehicle engines to have working mufflers (Ko, 2009).
Figure 1-3 Noise Pollution (Row J. R., 2010)
1.6 Traffic
The following are the various costs associated with traffic:
Loss of Parking Space: Loss of parking space can amount to a significant loss of incoming
business over time.
7
Fuel Consumption: Detours and work zone barriers result in additional fuel consumption due to
stop and go operations and frequent speed changes. For example, additional fuel consumption of
0.1 liters from speed reduction from 30kph to 15kph back to 30kph in a minor arterial road with an
annual average daily traffic (AADT) of 12,500 vehicles represents almost 0.5 million liters of
additional fuel consumption per year (Budhu & Iseley, 1994).
Accelerated Deterioration of Paved Surfaces: Road deterioration results from the interaction of
traffic with climate, materials and time. Detours resulting from construction activities may result in
the redirection of heavy traffic loads to secondary roads that are not designed to carry it in terms
of both maximum vehicle load (weight) and traffic volume. As a result, the useful life of these
paved surfaces can be shortened. In addition, a substantial increase in maintenance and repair
costs and a shorter useful life span can be expected for road surfaces subjected to utility cuts and
other forms of excavation (Allouche & Gilchrist, 2004).
Travel Delay: People spend more time crossing construction impacted areas due to reduced
travel speed and/or detours.
Traffic Accidents: Speed changes, visual disruptions, and frequent stops increase the probability
of accidents. Traffic accidents involving pedestrians and bicyclists are the most common due to
the disruption of their normal circulation space (Allouche & Gilchrist, 2004)
1.7 Trenchless Technology
Trenchless Technology has been described as the collection of technologies and methods that
can be used to install, rehabilitate and assess buried pipes with minimum surface disruption (Jung &
Sinha, 2004).
Trenchless construction refers to construction methods such as tunneling, micro tunneling (MTM),
horizontal directional drilling (HDD) which is also known as directional boring, pipe ramming (PR), pipe
Jacking (PJ), horizontal auger boring (HAB) and other methods for the installation of pipelines and cables
below the ground with minimal excavation (Najafi & Gokhale, 2005). Large diameter tunnels such as
8
those constructed by a tunnel boring machine (TBM), and drill-and-blast techniques are larger versions of
subsurface construction. The difference between trenchless and other subsurface construction
techniques depends upon the size of the passage under construction. Trenchless technology has the
following advantages:
Environmental effects: Less soil is disturbed so impacts on adjacent organisms and water bodies
can be reduced significantly.
Disruption: Traffic delays are reduced or eliminated as is heavy truck traffic associated with
culvert excavation deep below the roadway.
Speed of installation: Construction often takes less time regardless of the road fill depth.
Safety: Many safety concerns associated with steep-excavation slopes, work inside trench boxes,
and worker exposure to traffic may be eliminated or reduced.
Less engineering: Less surveying, fewer design calculations, and fewer drawings and
specifications may be required.
Fewer unknowns: Minimal ground disturbance results in fewer contingencies associated with
subsurface conditions with pipe lining options (Piehl, 2005). Figure 1-5 shows the use of
Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) in a residential area for the purpose of installing utilities.
Figure 1-4 HDD Rig, a Trenchless Method of Utility Construction
9
1.8 Motivation
The motivation for writing this thesis came from three major sources. They are 1) the academic or
need for a study defining the superiority of trenchless technology over traditional utility construction
methods from both a health standpoint and economics, 2) the need to show how trenchless methods as
compared with traditional methods can increase public safety and economic stability and 3) the need to
show how trenchless technology can meet industrial requirements. From the academic point of view, the
amount of dust generation and Respirable Suspended Particulate Matter (RSPM) has not been
extensively studied and compared.
The generation of dust from the utility construction is not in small amounts or fractions. Various
construction machines and a significant labor force are simultaneously working on site. Also the
construction site for utility construction is usually in a highly populated area or near it. This creates
problems like noise pollution, traffic congestion and air pollution for the general public. Many times
contractors are insensitive to the problems work conditions create. But with proper awareness especially
to the amount of dust generated, counter measures can be initiated to reduce air pollution whether noise
or traffic problems can be solved or not. Thus, public and environmental safety can be achieved.
From an industrial point of view, dust generation reduces the productivity of the people and
employees within and near the areas of construction. Air pollution subdues the working capacity of the
labors and also makes them susceptible to illness. This results in monetary losses combined with long
term health problems to the affected population. The determination of dust generation during utility
construction using traditional open cut technology and comparing it with trenchless technology will
determine the best method to use. Finally the research done in this thesis will also help the contractors
and government officials to enact and generate laws for the betterment of society.
10
1.9 Problem Statement
Over the years, open cut methods have been used for utility construction instead of trenchless
technology for various reasons. However, damage done by open cut methods are mostly irreparable.
Consider the following:
Soil disposal
Contaminated soil is often encountered during pipeline construction. The open-cut method is
often used to remove large volumes of soil during installation of pipeline. The disposal of this material
requires specialized equipment and personnel which drives up the cost especially if it is contaminated.
Air pollution
Fine soil particles may become airborne in form of dust due to the wind blowing them from the
soil stockpiles created during the process of open-cut method. Open-cut methods also create
traffic congestion causing more motor vehicle emissions Vehicle emissions and dust together
creates a very unhealthy air flow. Water pollution
Rain or water created during construction using open-cut methods can cause soil erosion as well
as contaminated solids runoff into streams, rivers, and sewers.
Noise pollution
Open-cut method requires the use of heavy equipment that produces levels of noise that can
cause a great deal of trouble to hospitals, schools, and businesses and residents.
The most damaging of these is the air pollution. Table 1-1 presents on the number of deaths due
to silicosis in the U.S. It was found that highest amount of deaths due to silicosis was in construction
industry.
11
Table 1-1 Silicosis Occurrences in Various Industries (Division of Respiratory Disease Studies, 2002)
1.10 Objectives and Scope Objectives:
The primary objective of this thesis is to compare the generation of Respirable Suspended
Particulate Matter: (RSPM) between an Open Cut and Trenchless technology method. This will help
solidify the need for replacing traditional open cut methodologies with trenchless methods.
Secondary objectives of this thesis are:
1. To conduct on-site tests and data collection using Personal Exposure Sampler.
2. Conduct research on most recent literature on this topic.
3. Identify the drawbacks of the current methods used.
4. Study the feasibility for further developments.
12
Scope:
The scope of this thesis is to research on the generation of RSPM in open cut and trenchless
technology methods using sample site conditions.
The major limitations are as follows:
1. Due to time constraint, not more than 9 site conditions are tested.
2. The direction and intensity of wind during testing is not taken into consideration.
3. Specialized pollutants are not taken into consideration.
4. Due to restricted sample space, social costs are not taken in details.
1.11 Methodology
For the objective of this thesis to be achieved, the author proposes following methodology for site
sampling of RSPM using a personal exposure sampler on five open cut sites and four trenchless methods
site. Using the sampled filter paper, the author will determine the amount of RSPM in each of the
sampled sites. Once the RSPM is determined, the author will analyze the results. The detailed results are
compared with the EPA allowed RSPM in the air. The author then proposes to research the effects of the
RSPM generated from utility construction. The author will then draw inferences as to whether open cut or
trenchless technology is preferred.
1.12 Expected Outcome
This thesis presents the following outcomes:
Sample the sites with personal exposure sampler and get different results.
To research the same and compare it with the globally accepted levels for RSPM.
To compare and find whether open cut or trenchless technology is the better working method for
environmental safety.
Finally research the US and OSHA guidelines and give inferences for betterment.
13
1.13 Chapter Summary
Dust is considered as a major hazard for construction workers. This research will evaluate
reasons for the generation of dust on a construction project. This awareness can make the contractors
more responsible while encountering this issue.
14
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE SEARCH
2.1 Introduction
Chapter 1 presented introduction, background, objectives, and methodology of this research. This
chapter provides a review of the findings from literature search which includes RSPM exposure to
construction workers in the U.S., and current safety methods and standards.
2.2 RSPM Exposure to Construction Workers in US
Dust is omnipresent at construction sites. Exposure to dust can occur during almost all activities
from excavation for the foundations up until the final sweeping before the building’s completion (Lumens
& Spee, 2001).
Although construction workers seem to consider exposure to dust natural and inevitable, the
number of complaints regarding health effects, is substantial. ―All Dutch construction workers can, on a
voluntary basis, take part in a regulatory health monitoring program. Results of the health monitoring are
regularly analyzed at a group level. The percentage of construction workers complaining about nuisance
by dust is 48%, while in other industries 34% of the workers make this complaint‖ (Lumens & Spee,
2001).
2.3 Major Reasons for Dust Generation
1. Design:
According to Grace and Ding (2007), construction and building operation have been accused of
causing environmental problems ranging from excessive consumption of global resources to the pollution
of the surrounding environment. This has forced mankind to research green building design and building
15
materials. Grace and Ding also state that relying on appropriate on-site management to minimize impacts
to the surrounding environment is not sufficient to handle the current problem. They contend that little
concern has been given to the importance of selecting more environmental friendly designs during the
project appraisal stage--the stage when environmental matters are best incorporated (Grace & Ding,
2007).
The design and planning of the construction project is the key to preventing the generation of
dust. If the design used addresses minimization of dust generation, then the issue of dust generation is
alleviated from the start of the project. Efficient design combined with proper use of on-site dust removal
methods gives a drastically low count of RSPM generated making the construction site a better and safer
place for the working crew.
International Society for Trenchless Technology (ISTT, 2007) states that open cut construction
has four stages:
Excavation of the trench, removal of spoil and temporary support of other services;
Laying and jointing the product pipe or service; (Infiltration was unmeasured.)
Refilling the trench and compacting the selected spoil or filling material;
Restoring above ground infrastructure.
The ISTT study also states that almost 50 times the amount of product pipe is the spoil removed
and refilled.
This results in drastic increase in the surrounding RSPM levels (ISTT, 2007).
While in case of a trenchless technology, there is minimum amount of soil excavation. Also the
site is usually isolated from the main pipe laying area. In case of a bigger project, the machines used for
the actual work do not move at all from the installation area. These factors help to create an
environmentally friendly construction site. The utility pipelines dug for the replacement are dug for only a
fixed amount of time. Figure 2-1 shows an open cut construction site where the road has been excavated
16
for installation of pipe. In this case the spoil is left on the side of the excavated portion but in many cases
it is transported out of the construction site.
Figure 2-1 Soil Excavated from an Open Cut Method
2. Type of weather.
The weather conditions on site also make a huge difference in the amount of suspended particles
around the construction site. The four major factors that affect ambient air are:
Sunshine - makes some pollutants undergo chemical reactions, producing smog.
Rain - washes out water-soluble pollutants and particulate matter.
Higher air temperatures - speed up chemical reactions in the air.
17
Wind speed, atmospheric turbulence/stability, and mixing depth - affect the dispersal and dilution
of pollutants.
The atmospheric conditions that pollution is directly emitted into influences how that pollution
responds and reacts to the environment. During winter, high pressure systems lead to cold temperatures,
stagnant air, and a buildup of pollutants in the air. Low pressure systems bring winds and/or precipitation,
which disperse air pollutants. Wind, rain and snow storms are sometimes called scrubbers because they
help clear out the air pollution (EPA, 2006)
3. Type of Soil.
Table 2-1 shows various types of soil classified by ASTM (Multiquip, 2010):
Table 2-1: ASTM Classification of Soil and its Susceptibility to Dust Generation
SR
NO
TYPE OF SOIL DEFINITION SUSCEPTABILTY
1. Cemented soil Soil in which the particles are held together
by a chemical agent, such as calcium
carbonate, such that a hand-size sample
cannot be crushed into powder or
individual soil particles by finger pressure.
High
2. Cohesive soil Clay (fine grained soil), or soil with a high
clay content, which has cohesive strength.
Medium
3. Dry soil Soil that does not exhibit visible signs of
moisture content.
High
4. Fissured soil Soil material that has a tendency to break
along definite planes of fracture with little
resistance.
High
18
Table 2.1 – Continued
5. Granular soil Gravel, sand, or silt (coarse grained soil)
with little or no clay content.
High
6. Layered system Two or more distinctly different soil or rock
types arranged in layers.
Medium
7. Moist soil Soil that has moisture and is damp. Low
8. Saturated soil Soil in which the voids are filled with water. Low
The most susceptible soil types to RSPM generation are Cemented Soil, Dry Soil, Layered Soil and
Granular Soil and the soil types less susceptible to RSPM generation are Moist Soil, Plastic Soil and
Saturated Soil.
4. Lack of dust control awareness
There are various methods to reduce dust on site but the contractors usually overlook them because of
monetary issues and non awareness about dust control measures. Following are the major types of
control measures (EPA, 2006).
Physical Barriers.
Site Traffic Control
Water sprays. Figure 2-2 shows a water tanker with spray heads at the back. It is used as a site
control measure against dust.
Earth Moving Management
Limiting Cleared Areas
Physical Stabilization
Vegetative Stabilization
Soil Compaction
Chemical Stabilization (EPA, 2006).
Failure to maintain these control measures adds to the generation of dust.
19
Figure 2-2 Dust Control Measure on Site (Water 2 go, 2005)
2.4 Relationship between the RSPM Generation and Production Rate
The production rate in most cases is directly proportional to the amount of dust generated on site.
Rate of RSPM generation is directly proportional to the rate of pipe installation. Therefore, the contractor
must make sure that appropriate dust control techniques are used according to the production rate. In
many cases, the dust control methods are not adequate for the production rate of the site. Thus a balance
must be maintained between the various preventive measures implemented and actual RSPM generated
due to actual production rate. .
2.5 Effects of Dust
Numerous epidemiological studies have shown that respiratory morbidity, mortality, and decline in
lung function are associated with the current levels of particulate pollution in urban air. Many researchers
have shown that the particulate matter (PM) of air pollution could affect the pulmonary functions,
especially for susceptible groups, where PM might decrease the lung function to different extents
(Rothenbacher & Arndt, 1997). To assess the effects of PM on health, most studies use data from
ambient air monitoring sites to represent personal exposure levels (Dement & Welch, 2003). The major
types of lung diseases are as follows:
20
Asthma
The research by Universiti Teknologi Petronas (2008) states that asthma is a very common
disease that can become lethal if untreated. An asthma patient must always be conscious of his/her
respiratory condition, and their surroundings as they relate to their allergies (Universiti Teknologi
Petronas, 2008).
Dust, debris and fumes from demolition and construction can wreak havoc on the lungs and
cardiovascular system. Construction dust poses health risks because it often contains harmful
substances like asbestos, man-made mineral fibers, silica, cement residue, and wood dust. According to
Dr. Manjula Jegasothy, a dermatologist at the Miami Skin Institute "Dust from all over the building may
well cause more varied and severe allergies than dust generated from natural sources, such as animal
hair and plant pollen,". "This is because construction dust is often composed of particles from many
different sources present at the building site. Coupled together, they irritate the skin and nasal
membranes." (Achoo Allergy, 2008). The combination of construction dust with a weak pulmonary
function can result in sever attacks of asthma in construction workers.
COPD
According to Bergdahl, Toren and Erikkson (2004), intense and prolonged exposure to workplace
dusts found in construction industry and chemicals such as cadmium, isocyanides, and fumes from
welding have been implicated in the development of airflow obstruction, even in nonsmokers. They state
that construction workers who are directly exposed to these particles and gases are even more likely to
develop COPD. Intense silica dust exposure causes silicosis, a restrictive lung disease distinct from
COPD; however, less intense silica dust exposures have been linked to a COPD-like condition (Bergdahl,
Toren, & Erikkson, 2004).
Exposure to inorganic dust during construction especially on a construction site is now being
researched as a major cause of COPD for the workers and the people living in the surrounding area.
21
Silicosis
Crystalline silica is the basic component of sand, quartz and granite rock. Airborne crystalline
silica occurs commonly both in and around construction work. Activities such as a sand blasting, rock
drilling, roof bolting, foundry work, stonecutting, drilling, quarrying, brick/block/concrete cutting, asphalt
paving, cement products manufacturing, demolition operations, hammering, chipping and sweeping
concrete or masonry, and tunneling operations can create a heavy airborne silica exposure hazard
(OSHA, 2009). Occupational exposure and inhalation of airborne crystalline silica can produce silicosis, a
disabling, dust-related disease of the lungs. Even materials containing small amounts of crystalline silica
may be hazardous if they are used in ways that produce high dust concentrations. Depending on the
length of exposure, silicosis is a progressive and many times a fatal disease that accounts for
approximately three hundred deaths annually in the construction industry, or 15% of all silicosis-related
deaths annually (OSHA, 2009). Inhaling silica dust has also been associated with other diseases, such as
tuberculosis and lung cancer. There is no cure for silicosis, but it is a 100% preventable occupational
disease.
Few other major effects of RSPM on site are:
Loss of Productivity.
Mortality
Skin sensitivity
Stress (Rothenbacher & Arndt, 1997).
22
2.6 Current Safety Methods and Standards
According to Environmental Protection Agency (2006), a number of benefits associated with
effective dust control on your construction site are as follows:
To the Builder:
Enhanced business reputation
Better working conditions for staff
Better working relationships with clients and the community
Improvements in relations with regulatory authorities, e.g. Local Government
To the Owner:
Reduced risk of damage to property
Improved relationships with future neighbors
Knowledge of contribution to environment protection
More attractive environment
To the Neighbors and Community:
Fewer disruptions to everyday living
Reduction of health risks resulting from air pollution
Reduced risk of damage to property and belongings
Less cleaning.
To the Environment:
Reduction in air pollution
Reduction in water pollution
Fewer disturbances to existing flora and fauna habitats (EPA, 2006)
23
Following are the current safety methods that can be executed on site to create a better work
environment:
Wetting down areas around soil improvement operations, visibly dry disturbed soil
surface areas, and visibly dry disturbed unpaved driveways at least three times per shift
per day.
Analysis of the wind direction,
Placement of upwind and downwind particulate dust monitors,
Record keeping for particulate monitoring results
Hiring of an independent third party to conduct inspections for visible dust and keeping
records of those inspections
Requirements for when dust generating operations have to be shut down due to dust
crossing the property boundary or if dust is contained within the property boundary but
not controlled after a specified number of minutes,
Establishing a hotline for surrounding community members to call and report visible dust
problems so that the Applicant can promptly fix those problem; posting signs around the
site with the hotline number and making sure that the number is given to adjacent
residents, schools and businesses.
Limiting the area subject to excavation, grading, and other demolition or construction
activities at any one time
Minimizing the amount of excavated material or waste materials stored at the site
Installing dust curtains, plastic tarps or windbreaks, or planting tree windbreaks on the
property line on windward and down windward sides of construction areas, as necessary
Paving, applying water three times daily, or applying non-toxic soil stabilizers on all
unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the construction site
24
Loading haul trucks carrying excavated material and other non-excavated material so
that the material does not extend above the walls or back of the truck bed. Tightly cover
with tarpaulins or other effective covers all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose
materials before the trucks leave the loading area. Wet prior to covering if needed.
Establishing speed limits so that vehicles entering or exiting construction areas shall
travel at a speed that minimizes dust emissions. This speed shall be no more than 15
miles per hour
Sweeping streets with water sweepers at the end of each day if visible soil material is
carried onto adjacent paved roads.
Installing wheel washers to clean all trucks and equipment leaving the construction site. If
wheel washers cannot be installed, tires or tracks and spoil trucks shall be brushed off
before they reenter City streets to minimize deposition of dust-causing materials.
Hydro seeding inactive construction areas, including previously graded areas inactive for
at least 10 calendar days, or applying non-toxic soil stabilizers.
Sweeping of surrounding streets during demolition, excavation and construction at least
once per day to reduce particulate emissions (City of San Francisco, California,
2009).Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4 depict a typical construction site before and after dust
control methods are in place
Figure 2-3 Construction Site Before Cleaning (EPA, 2006).
25
Figure 2-4 Construction Site After Cleaning (EPA, 2006).
2.7 Chapter Summary
Various researches have shown that dust and RSPM on site have adverse physiological and
psychological effects on workers. It is called the slow killer because the effects start showing in the
intermediate or advanced stages of illness (Lumens & Spee, 2001). Workers exposed to RSPM for a
longer span have been shown to have multiple health problems in the long run. Thus dust on site is a
potential health hazard to the workers as well as the people surrounding the site (Rothenbacher & Arndt,
1997). Also it is better to curb the generation of dust at the design phase of project than to put in
corrective measures after construction has started.
26
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the methodology adopted to obtain the results of this research. The
overview of the methodology was presented in Chapter 1.
3.2 Personal Exposure Sampler
One of the objectives of this thesis was to compare the air pollution generated on sites which
were using trenchless technology and open cut methods. This can be done by using a High Volume
Sampler or the Personal Exposure Sampler. In this thesis, Personal Exposure Sampler has been used for
sampling the amount of RSPM generated on the sites.
The basic design criteria for personal exposure sampler according to National Bureau of
Standards (NBS) are summarized below:
1. The sample should be well defined and as lightweight as possible.
2. The samples should be collected on filters for weighing and chemical analysis.
3. The sampler should have as high a sampling flow rate as possible since ambient particle
concentrations are typically low.
4. X- Ray fluorescence, a widely used method for elemental analysis of filter samples, requires the
sample to be in an even, homogeneous layer on the filter (Howes & Vijayakumar, 1986).
5. To be acceptable to volunteers participating in exposure studies, the sampler must be light, quiet
and inconspicuous.
6. To be able to sample at high flow rates for longer time periods and still be small and lightweight,
the sampler must have energy efficient components. (Howes & Vijayakumar, 1986).
27
The Personal Exposure Sampler used for the purpose of this research was designed to collect
PM10 using a cut impactor with a circular set of holes 1.9 mm in diameter. Particles were collected at a
flow rate of 2.75 liters per minute on a 37 mm Teflon filter mounted below the impactor plate. Fifty percent
of the particles collected were 4 micrograms in diameter. The sampler included the pump and the battery
pack that could be worn on stomach, hip, shoulder or over the back. The sampling head was movable
and could be worn near the collarbone using a pin or Velcro. When worn on the body, the pump/ battery
pack slides freely on a belt allowing it to be shifted to the most comfortable position depending on the
individual’s activities or change of posture.
3.3 Data Collection
Data Collection during this research was done on nine different sites. Out of nine sites three were
trenchless technology sites while six were open cut method sites. Also none of the sites tested were
using dust control measures.
Dallas Water Utilities (DWU) and DFW Midstreams provided trenchless technology and open cut
method sites with pipeline diameter ranging from 8 inches to 12 inches. Four sites had pipe depth of five
feet below ground level while three sites had pipe depth of six feet below ground level. Also two
trenchless sites had pipe depth of 55 feet below ground level. Data collection procedure is explained
below in brief:
1. For the purpose of sampling, the personal exposure sampler was first calibrated to the
required flow rate using a flow meter.
2. The filter to be used was weighed as accurately as possible in micrograms.
3. The filter used for sampling was handled using a forceps and was placed inside the filter
compartment and spread evenly.
4. The personal exposure sampler was then attached to the waist belt while the sampling head
was attached to the collar of the safety vest used near the collarbone.
28
5. Site reading were taken where excavation or backfilling work was being conducted.
6. Machine readings were taken as close as possible to the operator cabin of the machine.
7. The sampling was conducted for 6 hours.
8. After completion of sampling, the filter was removed using the forceps and placed in a clean
airtight container specially designed for the filter.
9. The filter was again weighed as accurately as possible in micrograms.
10. The difference between the initial weight and final weight was recorded as the particulate
matter generated in micrograms.
11. The determined weight of the particulate matter is then converted in micrograms/m3
of the
RSPM generated using the following formula.
3Final weight micrograms - Initial weight micrograms X 1000 liters / m3RSPM micrograms / m =
Airflow liters / minute X Sampling time minutes
12. Thus if the initial weight = 698 micrograms.
Final weight = 761 micrograms.
Airflow = 2.75 liters/minute.
Sampling time = 360 minutes
Then the amount of RSPM generated in micrograms/m3
RSPM (micrograms/m3) =
761 - 698 X 1000
275 X 360= 63.64 64 micrograms/m
3.
For better results, the sampling was done as near to the equipment on the construction site as
possible. Because humidity and temperature play an important role in generation of dust they were
recorded for each reading. The production rate was also noted for the sites because speedy construction
can have its effect on dust generation. The power and make of the machine was also noted so that a
detailed comparison study can be created. The dust generation calculated in micrograms/m3 was primarily
29
a combination of wind blown dust and dust suspended by the action of equipment, with some possible
contribution from equipment exhaust.
3.4 Chapter Summary
Using the data collected, the open cut and trenchless technology sites were compared. Theresults of
analysis show the total amount of RSPM generated on site according to the number of machines used,
type of machines used, power of the machines used, production rate of the construction site, temperature
recorded on construction site, humidity recorded on construction site and the type of technology used.
Result and analysis of this data is presented in the next chapter.
30
CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH RESULTS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the results and analysis of the research undertaken for this thesis as
explained in Chapter 3. The results have been categorized into two areas 1) the results obtained from the
sites where trenchless technology was used and 2) the results obtained from the sites where open cut
methodology was used.
4.2 Comparison between Trenchless Technology Sites and Open Cut Sites
The four major criteria selected for comparing trenchless technology sites and open cut sites are:
Site readings.
Temperature.
Moisture.
Production rate.
Four site reading were taken on trenchless technology while six reading were taken on open cut
sites. Figure 4-1 illustrates the results for the trenchless technology sites while Figure 4-2 illustrates the
results for open cut sites.
31
Figure 4-1 Result Graph From Trenchless Technology Sites
Figure 4-2 Result Graph for Open Cut Sites
1 2 3 4
RSPM 31 32 33 30
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
RSPM (micrograms/m3)
Trenchless Technology Sites
1 2 3 4 5 6
RSPM 66 59 54 67 70 60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
RSPM in (micrograms/m3)
Open Cut Sites
32
Thus, comparing the results from various sites it can be stated that trenchless technology has
produced lesser amount of RSPM in micrograms/m3 as compared to sites where open cut methods have
been used. One of the major factors for dust reduction on trenchless sites was likely due to less
equipment operating on trenchless sites as compared to open cut sites. Figure 4-3 shows the actual
comparison between the sites.
Figure 4-3 Trenchless Technology Vs. Open Cut Sites
Figure 4-4 shows all the readings taken on the sites which were using trenchless technology
while Figure 4-5 shows all the readings taken on sites which were using open cut methodology. The data
included in these graphs have the readings collected from actual construction sites and readings
collected for each individual machine used on the corresponding site.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Trenchless technology 31 32 33 30
Open cut 66 59 54 67 70 60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
RSPM in (micrograms/m3)
33
Figure 4-4 All Readings on Trenchless Technology Sites
Figure 4-5 All Readings on Open Cut Sites
The average RSPM generated for a trenchless technology site was 34.28~35 micrograms/m3
while the average RSPM generated for an open cut site was 59.45~60 micrograms/m3. The standard
deviation for the all the trenchless technology sites is 3.9~4 micrograms/m3.
The standard deviation for all
the open cut site readings was calculated to be 9.6~10 micrograms/m3.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
RSPM 31 32 33 40 39 30 35
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
RSPM (micrograms/m3)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
RSPM 66 69 70 70 59 65 63 61 54 49 57 67 55 68 70 43 39 60 43 61
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
RSPM (micrograms/m3)
34
Two samples pooled T-test was done to find the range of difference between trenchless and open
cut site readings. The level of significance was taken as 5 percent while level of confidence was taken as
95 percent.
The values are denoted as follows:
n1 = 20 for Open cut sites.
n2 = 7 for Trenchless sites.
n1 + n2 – 2 = 25 i.e. degree of freedom.
α = 0.05 i.e. level of significance.
1-α = 0.95 i.e. level of confidence.
s1 = 10 i.e. standard deviation for open cut sites.
s2 = 4 i.e. standard deviation for trenchless sites.
Using student’s t- distribution graph it can be found that tα/2 = 2.06.
Thus using two samples pooled T- test the range for difference between open cut and trenchless
sites is from 16.37 17 micrograms/m3 to 33.45 34 micrograms/m
3. Two samples pooled T-test is used
for testing a hypothesis on the basis of difference between the sample means. The sample mean for
trenchless technology site is 35 micrograms/m3 while for open cut, the sample mean is 60
micrograms/m3. Thus the difference between the two sample means is 25 micrograms/m
3. Even though
this proves that trenchless technology has produced less RSPM than open cut sites by 25
micrograms/m3, it doesn’t prove the same for all the non sampled sites. Therefore, using two samples
pooled T-test with 95 percent level of confidence; it can be proved that trenchless technology reduces the
RSPM by a minimum of 17 micrograms/m3 and a maximum of 34 micrograms/m
3 with respect to open cut
sites.
According to temperature variation, the graph in Figure 4-6 shows the corresponding RSPM in
micrograms/m3 recorded on sites using trenchless technology while Figure 4-7 shows the RSPM in
micrograms/m3 recorded on an open cut site.
35
Figure 4-6 Temperature on Trenchless Technology Sites and Corresponding RSPM Generated
Figure 4-7 Temperature on an Open Cut Site and Corresponding RSPM Generated
Comparing the results, it can be stated that although there is an increase in the amount of RSPM
generated on a site using trenchless technology with increase in temperature, the amount of RSPM is not
more than that generated on an open cut site. The increase in RSPM with an increase in temperature is
y = 0.1959x + 22.144R² = 0.9129
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RSPM (micrograms/m3)
Temperature (F)
RSPM
Linear (RSPM)
y = 1.6291x - 60.249R² = 0.9284
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RSPM (micrograms/m3)
Temperature (F)
RSPM
Linear (RSPM)
36
likely due to drying of soil, making it more susceptible to become airborne. Thus even when the
temperature is higher, trenchless technology sites generated lesser amounts of RSPM.
According to humidity variation, the graph in Figure 4-8 shows the corresponding RSPM in
micrograms/m3 recorded on sites using trenchless technology while Figure 4-9 shows the RSPM in
micrograms/m3 recorded on an open cut site.
Figure 4-8 Humidity on Trenchless Technology Sites and Corresponding RSPM Generated
Figure 4-9 Humidity on Open Cut Sites and Corresponding RSPM Generated
y = 0.6728x - 14.442R² = 0.8105
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
RSPM (micrograms/m3)
Humidity (%)
RSPM
Linear (RSPM)
y = 0.9663x - 1.7161R² = 0.8743
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
RSPM (micrograms/m3)
Humidity (%)
RSPM
Linear (RSPM)
37
Thus, when comparing the results, it can be stated that though there is an increase in the amount
of RSPM generated on a site using trenchless technology with increase in humidity, the amount of RSPM
is not more than that generated on an open cut site. The RSPM concentration is likely to increase with
increase in relative humidity due to absorption of moisture by the RSPM particles. Therefore, even when
the humidity is high, trenchless technology sites generated lesser amounts of RSPM.
According to production rate, i.e., rate at which pipe is installed; the graph in Figure 4-10 shows
the corresponding RSPM in micrograms/m3 recorded on sites using trenchless technology while Figure 4-
11 shows the RSPM in micrograms/m3 recorded on open cut sites.
Figure 4-10 Production Rate on Trenchless Technology Sites and Corresponding RSPM Generated
y = 0.5882x + 6.6471R² = 0.9412
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
10 20 30 40 50
RSPM (micrograms/m3)
Production rate (ft/hr)
RSPM
Linear (RSPM)
38
Figure 4-11 Production Rate on Open Cut Sites and Corresponding RSPM Generated
Thus, comparing the results it can be stated that though there is an increase in the amount of
RSPM generated on a site using trenchless technology with increase in the production rate, the amount
of RSPM is not more than that generated on an open cut site. Thus even when the production rate is
high, trenchless technology sites generated lesser amounts of RSPM. The RSPM is likely to increase with
increase in production rate because speedy construction causes more vehicular traffic on the construction
site. Figure 4-12 illustrates RSPM produced on open cut sites with corresponding power of machines
used on site while Figure 4-13 illustrates RSPM produced on trenchless sites with corresponding power
of machines.
y = 0.8242x + 41.648R² = 0.9376
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
10 20 30 40
RSPM (micrograms/m3)
Production rate (ft/hr)
RSPM
Linear (RSPM)
39
Figure 4-12 Relationship between Machine Power and RSPM generated for Open Cut Sites
Figure 4-13 Relationship between Machine Power and RSPM Generated for Trenchless Technology Sites
y = 0.0184x + 55.147R² = 0.008
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 50 100 150 200
RSPM (micrograms/m3)
Machine Power (hp)
RSPM
Linear (RSPM)
y = 0.0128x + 34.849R² = 0.7116
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 100 200 300 400 500
RSPM (micrograms/m3)
Machine power (T)
RSPM
Linear (RSPM)
40
From Figure 4-12 and Figure 4-13, it can be stated that machine power has varied impact on
RSPM generated from open cut and trenchless technology sites. The main reason for varied impact on
RSPM is likely due to the condition and age of the machines used.
4.3 Chapter Summary
In this chapter, RSPM generated from sites using trenchless technology and open cut methods
were compared. The comparison was based on the tests performed on site, corresponding temperature,
humidity and production rate of the site. After analyzing these reading, an average of all the readings
taken on a trenchless technology site and sites using open cut methods were calculated. It was found that
trenchless technology produced lesser amount of RSPM on the sampled sites as compared to open cut
methods. Also, trenchless technology sites did not generate more RSPM than open cut sites with
increase in humidity, temperature and production rate.
41
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
5.1 Introduction
This chapter includes the conclusions drawn from the results and findings obtained in this
research. It also includes the recommendations that can be incorporated into further study.
5.2 Conclusions
1. Comparing the results from sites using trenchless technology with results from sites using
open cut method, it was found that the trenchless technology sites are more environmentally
safe.
2. The increase in temperature does not has drastic effect on RSPM generation on trenchless
technology sites but the RSPM on sites using open cut methodology shows substantial
increase.
3. The increase in humidity does not have a drastic effect on RSPM generation on trenchless
technology sites but the RSPM on sites using open cut methodology shows substantial
increase.
4. The increase in production rate does not have a drastic effect on RSPM generation on
trenchless technology sites but the RSPM on sites using open cut methodology shows
substantial increase.
5. Comparing all the readings taken on sites using trenchless technology with all the readings
taken on sites using open cut methods, it was found that trenchless technology has better
chances of reducing RSPM generation.
42
5.3 Recommendations for Future Research
This research can be further expanded to:
1. Study the effects of RSPM in different soil type conditions on various sites.
2. Study dispersion of the generated RSPM with respect to the methods used.
3. Include the economics behind loss of productivity due to increase in RSPM
4. Include costs of safety precautions needed to be taken for corresponding surrounding
sound conditions.
5. Analyze the safety hazards due to different trenchless technology methods.
6. Investigate methods to minimize RSPM.
43
APPENDIX A
SITE DATA
44
Table A-1 Data for Site 1
NO.
SITE INFORMATION
1
Project name:
Irving, TX Water Main Replacement Project
2
Project location:
1401 Milner Road Irving, TX 75061
3
Type of project:
Water
4
Pipe layout and special features
1 fire hydrant, 9 services in 5000ft
5
Type of technology:
Trenchless Technology (pipe bursting)
6
Pipe size:
8 inch
7
Pipe depth:
5 feet
8
Type of pipe:
HDPE
9
Project length:
5,000 ft
10
Number of crew working:
5-mancrew with 1 foreman and 1 operator
11
Number and type of equipment at the
job:
1. Excavator: Yanmar SV100: 74hp 2. Boring machine: Hydroburst HB125: 125
ton pull ing force
12
Productivity rate (ft/hr)
42 ft/hr
45
Table A.1 – Continued
13
Project duration (days)
23 days
14
Humidity:
70%
15
Temperature:
44F
16
Precipitation:
None
Table A-2 Data for Site 2
NO.
SITE INFORMATION
1
Project name:
Dallas, TX Water Pipeline Replacement Project
2
Project location:
Cross section of Gaylord Dr and Seydel Street,
Dallas 75217
3
Type of project:
Water
4
Pipe layout and special features
2 fire hydrants
5
Type of technology:
Open Cut
6
Pipe size:
8 inch
7
Pipe depth:
5 feet
8
Type of pipe:
PVC
46
Table A.2 – Continued
9
Project length:
800 ft
10
Number of crew working:
6-man crew with 1 foreman and 1 operator
11
Number and type of equipment at the
job:
Excavator: Komatsu PC 220LC 179hp
Komatsu PC55MR 39hp Backhoe: Komatsu WB 146 88hp
12
Productivity rate (ft/hr)
30 ft/hr
13
Project duration (days)
40 days
14
Humidity:
67%
15
Temperature:
54F
16
Precipitation:
None
Table A-3 Data for Site 3
NO.
SITE INFORMATION
1
Project name:
Dallas, TX Water Pipeline Replacement Project
2
Project location:
Cross section of Gaylord Dr and Colebrook Street,
Dallas 75217
3
Type of project:
Water
47
Table A.3 – Continued
4
Pipe layout and special features
1 fire hydrants
5
Type of technology:
Open Cut
6
Pipe size:
8 inch
7
Pipe depth:
5 feet
8
Type of pipe:
PVC
9
Project length:
1,200 ft
10
Number of crew working:
5 -man crew with 1 foreman and 1 operator
11
Number and type of equipment at the
job:
Excavator: Komatsu PC 220LC 179hp
Komatsu PC55MR 39hp Backhoe: Komatsu WB 146 88hp
12
Productivity rate (ft/hr)
20 ft/hr
13
Project duration (days)
40 days
14
Humidity:
60%
15
Temperature:
73F
16
Precipitation:
None
48
Table A-4 Data for Site 4
NO.
SITE INFORMATION
1
Project name:
Arlington, TX DFW Midstream Services, LLC Gas
Pipeline Project
2
Project location:
Near 8100 Matlock Road, Arlington TX 76001
3
Type of project:
Gas
4
Pipe layout and special features
Gas pressure pipe
5
Type of technology:
Trenchless Technology
6
Pipe size:
12 inch
7
Pipe depth:
45 feet
8
Type of pipe:
Cast iron
9
Project length:
5,500 ft
10
Number of crew working:
6-man crew with 1 foreman and 2 operator
11
Number and type of equipment at the
job:
Excavator: Deere Excavator: 200LC: 159 hp
Boring Machine: American Augers: DD 440T
12
Productivity rate (ft/hr)
45 ft/hr
49
Table A.4 – Continued
13
Project duration (days)
120 days
14
Humidity:
74%
15
Temperature:
64F
16
Precipitation:
None
Table A-5 Data for Site 5
NO.
SITE INFORMATION
1
Project name:
Arlington, TX DFW Midstream Services, LLC Gas
Pipeline Project
2
Project location:
Near 30, Matlock Road, Arlington TX 76001
3
Type of project:
Gas
4
Pipe layout and special features
Pressure pipe
5
Type of technology:
Trenchless Technology
6
Pipe size:
12 inch
7
Pipe depth:
45 feet
8
Type of pipe:
Cast iron
50
Table A.5 – Continued
9
Project length:
5,500 ft
10
Number of crew working:
4-man crew with 1 foreman and 1 operator
11
Number and type of equipment at the
job:
Boring Machine: Ditch Witch: JT 100
12
Productivity rate (ft/hr)
40 ft/hr
13
Project duration (days)
130 days
14
Humidity:
64%
15
Temperature:
43F
16
Precipitation:
None
Table A-6 Data for Site 6
NO.
SITE INFORMATION
1
Project name:
Dallas, TX Sewer Construction Project
2
Project location:
Near 3326 Webb Chapel Road, Dallas Texas 75220
3
Type of project:
Sewer
4
Pipe layout and special features
None
51
Table A.6 – Continued
5
Type of technology:
Open Cut
6
Pipe size:
12 inch
7
Pipe depth:
6 feet
8
Type of pipe:
PVC
9
Project length:
1,500 ft
10
Number of crew working:
8-man crew with 1 foreman and 2 operator
11
Number and type of equipment at the
job:
Excavator: Deere 160DLC: 121hp Backhoe: Deere 315SJ: 93hp
12
Productivity rate (ft/hr)
18 ft/hr
13
Project duration (days)
50 days
14
Humidity:
57%
15
Temperature:
72F
16
Precipitation:
None
52
Table A-7 Data for Site 7
NO.
SITE INFORMATION
1
Project name:
Dallas, TX Water Pipeline Construction Project
2
Project location:
Nakoma Dr, Dallas Texas 75209
3
Type of project:
Water
4
Pipe layout and special features
1 fire hydrant
5
Type of technology:
Open Cut
6
Pipe size:
10 inch
7
Pipe depth:
6 feet
8
Type of pipe:
PVC
9
Project length:
1,300 ft
10
Number of crew working:
5-man crew with 1 foreman and 1 operator
11
Number and type of equipment at the
job:
Excavator: Deere 35D: 30hp Deere 120D: 89hp
53
Table A.7 – Continued
12
Productivity rate (ft/hr)
30 ft/hr
13
Project duration (days)
42 days
14
Humidity:
68%
15
Temperature:
79F
16
Precipitation:
None
Table A-8 Data for Site 8
NO.
SITE INFORMATION
1
Project name:
Dallas, TX Water Pipeline Construction Project
2
Project location:
W Greenway Blvd, Dallas Texas 75209
3
Type of project:
Water
4
Pipe layout and special features
1 fire hydrant
5
Type of technology:
Open Cut
6
Pipe size:
10 inch
54
Table A.8 – Continued
7
Pipe depth:
6 feet
8
Type of pipe:
PVC
9
Project length:
1,100 ft
10
Number of crew working:
6-man crew with 1 foreman and 1 operator
11
Number and type of equipment at the
job:
Excavator: CAT 314 CLCR: 90hp Deere 75D: 40hp
12
Productivity rate (ft/hr)
35 ft/hr
13
Project duration (days)
42 days
14
Humidity:
81%
15
Temperature:
79F
16
Precipitation:
None
Table A-9 Data for Site 9
NO.
SITE INFORMATION
1
Project name:
Dallas, TX Water Pipeline Construction Project
55
Table A.9 – Continued
2
Project location:
Waneta Dr, Dallas 75217
3
Type of project:
Water
4
Pipe layout and special features
2 fire hydrants
5
Type of technology:
Open Cut
6
Pipe size:
10 inch
7
Pipe depth:
5 feet
8
Type of pipe:
PVC
9
Project length:
800 ft
10
Number of crew working:
5-man crew with 1 foreman and 1 operator
11
Number and type of equipment at the
job:
Excavator: CAT 314 CLCR: 90hp Backhoe: Cat 410 EIT: 101hp
12
Productivity rate (ft/hr)
20 ft/hr
13
Project duration (days)
32 days
14
Humidity:
62%
15
Temperature:
75F
56
Table A.9 – Continued
16
Precipitation:
none
57
APPENDIX B
SAMPLING DATA
58
Table B-1 Sampling Data from Various Sites around Dallas
NO. TYPE ADDRESS SAMPLING
RESULTS
RSPM
GENERATED
( micrograms/m3)
1 Trenchless 1401, Milner Road,
Irving, Texas 75061
30 micrograms 31 micrograms
31 32
2 Open Cut Seydel Street, Dallas
75217
65 micrograms 66
3 Open Cut Gaylord Dr, Dallas
75217
58 micrograms 59
4 Trenchless Near 8100 Matlock
Road, Arlington TX
76001
32 micrograms 33
5 Trenchless Near 3000 Matlock
Road, Arlington TX
76001
29 micrograms 30
6 Open Cut Near 3326 Webb
Chapel Road, Dallas
Texas 75220
53 micrograms 54
7 Open Cut Nakoma Dr, Dallas
Texas 75209
66 micrograms 67
8 Open Cut W Greenway Blvd,
Dallas Texas 75209
69 micrograms 70
9 Open Cut Waneta Dr, Dallas
75217
59 micrograms 60
59
Table B-2 Sampling Data for Various Sites According to their Production Rate
Table B-3 Sampling Data of Sites According to Temperature
SITE NO. PRODUCTION RATE
(FT/HR)
SAMPLING
RESULTS
RSPM
GENERATED
( micrograms/m3)
Site 1 42 31 32
Site 2 30 65 66
Site 3 20 58 59
Site 4 45 32 33
Site 5 40 29 30
Site 6 18 53 54
Site 7 30 66 67
Site 8 35 69 70
Site 9 20 59 60
SITE
NO.
TEMPERATURE
(F)
MACHINE SAMPLING
RESULTS
RSPM
GENERATED
( micrograms/m3)
Site 1
44 Yanmar SV100 30 31
44 Hydroburst HB125 31 32
Site 2
54 65 66
79 Komatsu WB 146 68 69
80 Komatsu PC 220LC 69 70
79 Komatsu PC55MR 69 70
Site 3
73 58 59
77 Komatsu WB 146 64 65
75 Komatsu PC 220LC 62 63
75 Komatsu PC55MR 60 61
60
Table B.3 – Continued
Site 4
64 Deere 120D 32 33
84 American Augers: DD
440T
39 40
83 Deere Excavator:
200LC
38 39
Site 5
43 29 30
80 Ditch Witch: JT 100 34 35
Site 6
72 53 54
70 Deere 310SJ 48 49
73 Deere 160DLC 56 57
Site 7
73 66 67
72 Deere 35D 54 55
79 Deere 120D 67 68
Site 8
79 69 70
63 CAT 314 CLCR 42 43
60 Deere: 75D 38 39
Site 9
75 59 60
63 Cat 410 EIT 42 43
75 CAT 314 CLCR 60 61
61
Table B-4 Sampling Data of Sites According to Moisture
SITE NO. MOISTURE (%) SAMPLING RESULT RSPM GENERATED
( micrograms/m3)
Site 1
68 30 31
70 31 32
Site 2
67 65 66
72 68 69
72 69 70
81 69 70
Site 3
60 58 59
67 64 65
65 62 63
65 60 61
Site 4 74 32 33
78 39 40
77 38 39
Site 5
64 29 30
76 34 35
Site 6
57 53 54
54 48 49
58 56 57
Site 7
68 66 67
57 54 55
68 67 68
Site 8
81 69 70
48 42 43
48 38 39
Site 9
62 59 60
52 42 43
64 60 61
62
Table B-5 Sampling Data for Various Boring Machines Used
Table B-6 Sampling Data for Various Excavators Used
SITE EXCAVATOR POWER
(hp)
SAMPLING RESULT RSPM GENERATED
( micrograms/m3)
SITE 2 Komatsu PC 220LC: 179hp 69 70
Komatsu PC55MR: 39 hp 69 70
SITE 3 Komatsu PC 220LC: 179 hp 62 63
Komatsu PC55MR: 39 hp 60 61
SITE 4 Deere Excavator: 200LC: 159
hp
38 39
SITE 6 Deere 160DLC: 121 hp 56 57
SITE 7 Deere 35D: 30 hp 54 55
Deere 120D: 89 hp 67 68
SITE 8 CAT 314 CLCR: 90 hp 42 43
Deere 75D: 40 hp 38 39
SITE 9 CAT 314 CLCR: 90 hp 60 61
SITE
NO.
BORING MACHINE EXCAVATOR SAMPLING RESULT RSPM
GENERATED
( micrograms/m3)
SITE 4
American Augers: DD
440T
39 40
Deere Excavator:
200LC
38 39
SITE 5 Ditch Witch: JT 100 34 35
63
Table B-7 Sampling Data with Various Backhoes Used
SITE NO. BACKHOES
(hp)
SAMPLING
RESULT
RSPM
GENERATED
( micrograms/m3)
SITE 2 Komatsu WB 146: 88hp 68 69
SITE 3 Komatsu WB 146: 88hp 64 65
SITE 6 Deere 310SJ: 93 hp 48 49
SITE 9 Cat 410 EIT: 101 hp 42 43
64
REFERENCES
Achoo Allergy. (2008). Achoo Allergy. Retrieved 3 2, 2011, from www.achooallergy.com:
http://www.achooallergy.com/blog/five-facts-construction-dust/
Allouche, E. N., & Gilchrist, A. (2004). Quantifying Construction Related Social Costs. North American
Society for Trenchless Technology (NASTT) , 4.
Ballesteros, M. J., & Fernandez, M. (2009). Noise emission evolution on construction sites. Measurement
for controlling and assessing its impact on the people and on the environment. Building and Environment
, 2.
Bergdahl, I. A., Toren, K., & Erikkson, K. (2004). Increased mortality in COPD among construction
workers exposed to inorganic dust. ERS Journal .
Bickerstaff, K., & Walker, G. (1999). Public understandings of air pollution: the localisation of
environmental risks. Global Environmental Change , 140.
Budhu, G., & Iseley, D. T. (1994). The Economics of Trenchless vs. the Traditional Cut and Fill in High-
Density-Activity Urban Corridors. No-Dig ’94 .
City of San Francisco, California. (2009). Construction Control Requirements. Retrieved 3 17, 2011, from
www.municode.com: http://library.municode.com/HTML/14136/level1/ART22BCODUCORE.html
Dement, J., & Welch, L. (2003). Surveillance of respiratory disease among construction and trade
workers. American journal of industrial medicine .
Directional Constructions. (2007). Directional Constructions. Retrieved 12 30, 2010, from
www.directionalconstruction.com: http://www.directionalconstruction.com/About_Us.php
Division of Respiratory Disease Studies. (2002). Work-Related Lung Disease Surveillance Report.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health , 53.
Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA). (2010). Habitat Restoration . Retrieved July 22, 2010, from
www.mass.gov:
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eoeeaterminal&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Air%2C+Water+%26+Climate+Chang
e&L2=Preserving+Water+Resources&L3=Water+Habitat+Restoration&sid=Eoeea&b=terminalcontent&f=
eea_water_habitat_restoration&csid=Eoeea
EPA. (2006). No Dust. Guidelines for controlling dust from construction sites .
Erez, A. N., & Gilchrist, A. (2004). Quantifying Construction Related Social Costs. North American Society
for Trenchless Technology (NASTT) NO-DIG , 2.
65
Field. (1993). Effect of personal and situational variables upon noise annoyance in residential areas.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America .
Frank, M. (2011). The communication centered utility. Water, Environment and Technology .
Goldstein, A. (2009). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. .
Grace, K. C., & Ding. (2007). Sustainable construction—The role of environmental assessment tools.
Journal of Environmental Management .
Harbuck, R. (2000). Economic Evaluation of Trenchless Technology.
Hoodcorp. (2004). Pipeline laying. Retrieved January 2, 2011, from Hoodcorp:
http://www.hoodcorp.com/pipe.htm
Howes, J. E., & Vijayakumar, R. (1986). Preliminary evaluation of modified NBS PM10 Sampler for indoor
particulate measurements. EPA , 3.
Huxted Tunneling Co. (n.d.). Microtunneling. Retrieved July 28th, 2010, from www.huxtedtunneling.com:
http://www.huxtedtunneling.com/serv01-Photo%20Album.htm
ISTT. (2007). Trenchless technology Systems. IETC Urban Environment Series .
Jung, Y. J., & Sinha, S. K. (2004). Trenchless Technology: An Efficient And Environmentally Sound
Approach For Underground Municipal Pipeline Infrastructure Systems. North American Society for
Trenchless Technology (NASTT) .
Ko, D. (2009). Reducing Environmental Impacts Due to Construction.
Kryter, K. (1985). The Effects of Noise on Man. Academic Press .
Lumens, M.,
Multiquip. (2010). Soil Compaction Handbook. Retrieved 4 2011, 2, from Structural Desigh Solutions:
http://www.structural-design-solutions.com/images/Soil_compaction_manual.pdf
& Spee, T. (2001). Pergamon. Determinants of Exposure to Respirable Quartz Dust in the Construction
Industry , 585.
Maldikar, S. (2010). An Investigation Of Productivity Loss Due To Outdoor Noise Conditions, Unpublished
Thesis, The University of Texas at Arlington.
Matthews, J., & Allouche, E. (2010). A Social Cost Calculator For Utility Construction Projects. North
American Society for Trenchless Technology (NASTT) .
Najafi, M., & Gokhale, S. (2005). Trenchless Technology.
NASTT. (2009). Trenchless technology. Retrieved july 22, 2010, from www.nastt.org:
http://www.nastt.org/glossary.php?index=T
Oregon Department of Transportation. (2006). Oregon Department Of Transportation, Hydraulic Manual
Navigator Part II. Retrieved July 21, 2010, from ftp://ftp.odot.state.or.us/techserv/Geo-
Environmental/Hydraulics/Hydraulics%20Manual/HydraulicManual_Nav_2.pdf
OSHA. (2009). OSHA. Retrieved 3 3, 2011, from www.osha.gov:
66
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/silicacrystalline/mineoja/demolition.html
OSHA. (2008). US Department of Labor. Retrieved 3 2, 2011, from osha.gov:
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=10931
Piehl, R. (2005). Summary of Trenchless Technology for Use With USDA Forest Service Culverts. USDA
Forest Service Technology Advancement Program , 8.
Rothenbacher, R., & Arndt, V. (1997). Chronic respiratory disease morbidity in construction workers. ERS
Row, J. R. (2010). Civil Engineer Group. Retrieved 1 15, 2011, from
http://www.civilengineergroup.com/measuring-urban-noise-pollution-decibel-scale.html
SSC Boring Co. (2007). Pipe Ramming. Retrieved July 28th, 2010, from www.sscboring.com:
http://www.sscboring.com/pipe-ramming.html
Universiti Teknologi Petronas. (2008). The Developement of Rule based Asthma System. Computer
Information Systems , 2.
Water 2 go. (2005). Water2go. Retrieved 3 3, 2011, from www.water2go.com: http://www.water-
2go.com.au/Melbourne%20Commercial%20or%20industrial%20water%20supplier.html
WSDOT. (2009). Retrieved 1 8, 2011, from www.wsdot.wa.gov:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/News/2008/07/29_i5changesattheborder.htm
67
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
At the time of presentation of this paper, Sahajanand M. Kamat has completed his Bachelor’s
Degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Mumbai. He has continued to maintain a strong
academic standing while pursuing a Masters in the area of Construction Management and Engineering at
the University of Texas at Arlington. Mr. Kamat worked as a Site Engineer on Asia’s largest underground
natural gas reservoir for three years before starting his Master’s program at University of Texas at
Arlington.. He has also functioned as Secretary for the North American Society for Trenchless
Technology (NASTT) for Spring 2010. He is the recipient of Graduate Stimulus Scholarship for Fall 2009,
Spring 2010 and Summer 2010. Mr Kamat has been a member of various prestigious organizations
including the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), North American Society of Trenchless
Technology (NASTT) and the United Kingdom Society of Trenchless Technology (UKSTT).