comparison of dust generation from open cut and …

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

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_environment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Built_environment

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,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_health_effects

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertension

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinnitus

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunneling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtunneling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directional_drilling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directional_boring

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipe_ramming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipe_Jacking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipe_Jacking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boring

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_boring_machine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TBM

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drill-and-blast&action=edit&redlink=1

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadmium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isocyanates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welding

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silica

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicosis

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


9

Project length:

800 ft

10


6-man crew with 1 foreman and 1 operator

11


job:

Excavator: Komatsu PC 220LC 179hp

Komatsu PC55MR 39hp Backhoe: Komatsu WB 146 88hp

12


30 ft/hr

13


40 days

14

Humidity:

67%

15

Temperature:

54F

16

Precipitation:

None


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


4


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


5 -man crew with 1 foreman and 1 operator

11


job:

Excavator: Komatsu PC 220LC 179hp

Komatsu PC55MR 39hp Backhoe: Komatsu WB 146 88hp

12


20 ft/hr

13


40 days

14

Humidity:

60%

15

Temperature:

73F

16

Precipitation:

None

48


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


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



11


job:

Excavator: Deere Excavator: 200LC: 159 hp

Boring Machine: American Augers: DD 440T

12


45 ft/hr

49


13


120 days

14

Humidity:

74%

15

Temperature:

64F

16

Precipitation:

None


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


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


9

Project length:

5,500 ft

10



11


job:

Boring Machine: Ditch Witch: JT 100

12


40 ft/hr

13


130 days

14

Humidity:

64%

15

Temperature:

43F

16

Precipitation:

None


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


None

51


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



11


job:

Excavator: Deere 160DLC: 121hp Backhoe: Deere 315SJ: 93hp

12


18 ft/hr

13


50 days

14

Humidity:

57%

15

Temperature:

72F

16

Precipitation:

None

52


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


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



11


job:

Excavator: Deere 35D: 30hp Deere 120D: 89hp

53


12


30 ft/hr

13


42 days

14

Humidity:

68%

15

Temperature:

79F

16

Precipitation:

None


NO.

SITE INFORMATION

1

Project name:


2

Project location:

W Greenway Blvd, Dallas Texas 75209

3

Type of project:

Water

4


1 fire hydrant

5

Type of technology:

Open Cut

6

Pipe size:

10 inch

54


7

Pipe depth:

6 feet

8

Type of pipe:

PVC

9

Project length:

1,100 ft

10



11


job:

Excavator: CAT 314 CLCR: 90hp Deere 75D: 40hp

12


35 ft/hr

13


42 days

14

Humidity:

81%

15

Temperature:

79F

16

Precipitation:

None


NO.

SITE INFORMATION

1

Project name:


55


2

Project location:

Waneta Dr, Dallas 75217

3

Type of project:

Water

4


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



11


job:

Excavator: CAT 314 CLCR: 90hp Backhoe: Cat 410 EIT: 101hp

12


20 ft/hr

13


32 days

14

Humidity:

62%

15

Temperature:

75F

56


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).

comparison of dust generation from open cut and …

Documents