Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90143

ENHANCING PIPELINE PROJECT MANAGEMENT WITH IMPROVED ROCK EXCAVATION FORECASTING

Jeffrey R. Keaton AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Los Angeles, California, USA Theodore H. Parks AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Kennesaw, Georgia, USA

Luther H. Boudra AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Birmingham, Alabama, USA

Lee D. Walker Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company Birmingham, Alabama, USA soil; 2 = weathered rock near ditch bottom; or 3 = nearby rock outcrop, weathered rock near top of ditch, or unweathered rock at any ditch depth). GIS polygons of rock factors were converted to a grid so that values could be extracted at points along the pipeline centerline. Ground-condition variability was considered subjectively for each rock factor by assigning length-based and area-based percentages where rock was considered likely to be encountered for both average and maximum rock conditions. Rock factor areas were used to select locations for 115 or 230-ft-(35 or 70-m-) long seismic refraction surveys. Seismic velocities > 4,000 to 4,500 ft/s (1,220 to 1,370 m/s) were considered blast rock in trench excavations. Locations where the 4,000-ft/s contour was shallower than ditch depth were used to refine subjective ground variability estimates. Additional construction records of actual blasting details are needed to further improve the rock excavation model. Unique aspects of geology may require model parameters to be modified for other settings. INTRODUCTION Managing pipeline projects has a number of challenges, ranging from economic feasibility to environmental compliance. Forecasting the extent of rock excavation areas is one of the geotechnical risk factors that can be addressed with technology and interpretation of available data. The primary technologies are images viewed with the Google Earth Pro platform, geographic information management software (GIS), and seismic refraction surveys. Available data include digital elevation models (DEM), digital geologic maps, and soil surveys; most data are available from national or local governmental agency sources, whereas some data are available from private or proprietary sources. The pipeline alignment

ABSTRACT Accurate rock-excavation forecasting is one of the geotechnical risk factors that challenge successful management of cross-country pipeline projects. Rock excavation requirements commonly are estimated by pipeline construction personnel with local experience. Construction bid and contract documents typically call for excavation of ditch rock to be paid per lineal foot, whereas area or right-of-way grading (ROWG) rock is paid per cubic yard. Rock excavation forecasting tends to be used for economic feasibility more than for selecting contractors or preparing contracts. Recent pipeline projects in Pennsylvania and New Jersey used geotechnical estimates of rock excavation to update detailed cost and schedule projections after construction was underway because ROWG rock excavation exceeded the expected volume. Geotechnical estimates of rock excavation were based on a rapid desktop study followed by field observations and measurements. The desktop study used available digital data manipulated with geographic information management software (GIS). Topographic data (digital elevation models) at 10-m resolution and the pipeline centerline in 10-m-long segments were used to plot alignment elevation profile and ground slope, as well as to calculate slope aspect and apparent ground slope across the ROW perpendicular to centerline. The centerline was plotted in Google Earth Pro for a virtual geologic field reconnaissance to identify areas where rock was likely or unlikely to be encountered within ditch depth. Digital geology was used to assess bedrock type along the alignment and digital soil survey data were classified to identify soil units with shallow cemented zones or bedrock. These complementary data types were combined into an overall rock excavation index factor (0 = uncemented soil; 1 = cemented

Copyright 2012 by ASME

centerline is converted to points spaced 10 m apart; 10 m is selected because it is the resolution of DEM data commonly available in North America. GIS tools are used to calculate the azimuth of each pipeline centerline segment starting at Milepost (MP) 0 and continuing to the end of the pipeline (Fig. 1).

Two rock excavation conditions exist along pipeline alignments: 1) ditch rock and 2) right-of-way grading (ROWG) rock. Ditch rock may be encountered in the linear trench excavated for the pipeline regardless of the slope of the ground surface along the alignment. ROWG is needed to prepare a level working pad for excavating the pipeline trench, stockpiling excavation spoil and topsoil, and stringing, welding, and laying the pipe. DESKTOP ANALYSIS PROCEDURES AND RESULTS Rock excavation requirements are based on interpretation of rock types from digital geologic maps, soil survey maps, topographic data, and images available on Google Earth Pro. Data layers were compiled in a GIS platform (ESRI ArcMAP V10.0 was the system used) and analyzed with the aid of geospatial tools to create thematic and calculated products. The geologic map data were obtained from websites maintained by the US Geological Survey, State of Pennsylvania or State of New Jersey at scales of 1:100,000 to 1:500,000; soil survey map data were obtained from the US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service website at countyscale; elevation data were obtained from the US Geological Survey website at pixel resolutions of 10-m and 30-m. The analytical approach is scalable for pipelines of different sizes; this paper is written for an NPS 30 pipe (30inch [762-mm] diameter). The expected trench depth is 6.5 ft (2 m) for an NPS 30 pipeline with a nominal 3-ft (0.9-m)-thick burial depth plus 1.0 ft (0.3 m) for bedding and padding. This depth is used regardless of the ROWG for the desktop evaluation even though the pipeline burial depth in the trench would be reduced because of the ROWG backfill thickness. Engineering geologic judgment was used to assign rock excavation factors to various rock types. The bedrock units along the example pipeline project are geologically relatively old and tend to be hard and resistant to erosion. Furthermore, the alignment is within the extent of the most recent continental-scale glaciation resulting in soil and weathered rock having been essentially scraped away from the ground surface. Glacial deposits present in some areas are identified in the soil survey map data and may include boulders larger than the width of the trench that could require blasting for excavation. Excavations into rock in most places where it is encountered along the example pipeline alignment are expected to be difficult and require blasting. Shallow excavation to typical pipeline depths may be made in many areas along the alignment without encountering bedrock; it also is possible that bedrock that is encountered may be weathered or softened sufficiently so that it may be excavated with conventional heavy equipment, such as track-mounted hydraulic excavators (e.g., CAT 390). ROWG is needed along pipeline alignments where sidehill conditions exist. Sidehill conditions occur on slopes where the pipeline alignment is oriented at non-90 angles to the topographic contours. Sidehill conditions are evaluated by calculating the aspect of the ground surface slope (sometimes

Figure 1. Pipeline geometrics in map view. Pi and Pi+1 are points along the centerline spaced 10 m apart. Azm is azimuth of centerline. Asp is aspect of slope from DEM. S is ground slope from DEM. S is apparent slope across the ROW. Pipeline project management can be enhanced by identifying sources of uncertainty and quantifying them with direct or indirect measurement, correlation to similar conditions on other pipeline projects, or expert opinion. In most pipeline projects, the expert opinion for forecasting locations where rock excavation is likely to be required comes from a group of experienced pipeline construction managers and contractors. On some projects, local areas may have subsurface geotechnical information in the form of test pits or borings; in many cases, geotechnical data are needed for design of jackand-bore crossings or facilities such as compressor or pump stations and valves, and its use for rock excavation is secondary or an afterthought. Management of a few recent pipeline projects has been enhanced by phased geotechnical investigations focused on forecasting rock excavation areas. The phases of focused geotechnical investigations are: 1. Desktop analysis of available digital data, 2. Identification of likely rock excavation areas, 3. Selection of representative locations for field verification, 4. Engineering geophysical surveys at selected locations, 5. Refinement of likely rock excavation areas, and 6. Comparison of forecast to actual rock excavation.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

called the fall line) at the array of points along the centerline of the pipeline alignment (Fig. 1). The slope angle of the ground was calculated from the DEM with conventional GIS tools. The azimuth of the centerline alignment sub-segments defined by the centerline points was calculated with GIS tools and assigned to the going away point of each sub-segment. The difference between the azimuth of the pipeline centerline and the aspect of the ground surface slope (Azm-Asp in Fig. 1) was used to calculate the apparent ground slope across the ROW at each point using equation (1): S = ABS(ATAN(TAN(S)*SIN(Azm-Asp))) (1) where S is the apparent ground surface slope across the ROWG, S is the true ground slope, Azm is the azimuth of the pipeline centerline sub-segment, Asp is the aspect of the ground surface slope, ABS is the operator for absolute value, ATAN is the arc tangent function, TAN is the tangent function, and SIN is the sine function. Right-of-Way grading (ROWG) to form a relatively level working pad is needed within the overall ROW on sloping ground. The cross section area perpendicular to the pipeline centerline is calculated with geometric and trigonometric relations of triangles (Fig. 2). Excavation volume was based on a ROWG width of 75 ft (23 m) as an essentially uniform working pad with a nearly vertical slope on the uphill side of the ROWG. The working pad slopes with the pipeline centerline, but is level across the ROWG. The ROWG excavation is offset along the pipeline centerline to allow about 50 ft (15 m) between the pipe trench and the edge of the excavation on the working side of the pad. Although this offset has no appreciable impact on the ROWG total or rock excavation volumes, it does tend to increase the estimated ditch rock length compared to a pipe trench in the center of the ROWG. Cross section areas were calculated in square feet and converted to square yards; distances between centerline points were converted to yards so that the resulting volumes were in cubic yards because ROWG rock excavation was paid per cubic yard. The length values assigned to each point on the centerline sub-segments represent half of the distance to the previous point and half of the distance to the subsequent point. A four-level rock excavation factor system (Tab. 1) was based on descriptive and tabulated soil survey data which identify cemented or indurated soil horizons and bedrock within the typical 60-inch (1.5-m) soil survey depth. Soil survey data provide greater detail for estimating rock excavation than geologic formation data alone, but locations of pits used by the soil scientists to develop the descriptions are not documented in available information. Cementation and bedrock were the key properties in the soil descriptions used for interpreting the probable need for rock excavation. Soil map units with no mention of cementation or induration to the conventional soil-survey depth were assigned a Rock Excavation Factor of 0. Soil map units that mentioned duripan, cemented, or indurated soil horizons were given a Rock Excavation Factor of 1; most soil descriptions in this category

extended to the full 60-inch (1.5-m) depth, but a few were terminated at a shallower depth presumably because the cementation prevented excavation with the equipment being used (typically hand dug pits, but occasionally light-duty backhoes). Soil map units that terminated in weathered bedrock near the bottom of the typical 60-inch (1.5-m) depth of the soil pit were given Rock Excavation Factors of 2. Rock Excavation Factors of 3 were assigned to soil map units that terminated in weathered bedrock at shallow depth and those that mentioned unweathered bedrock at any depth in the soil pit.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figure 2. Pipeline geometrics in cross section view. A1 is area of Triangle 1; A2 is area of Triangle 2; b1 is base of Triangle 1; b2 is base of Triangle 2; h1 is height of Triangles 1 and 2; S is apparent slope across ROW. Effective depth to rock is taken as the 4,000-ft/s contour of seismic velocity from seismic refraction surveys

Table 1. Key soil properties used to guide selection of Rock Excavation Factors. Rock Excavation Factor Key Soil Description Property Uncemented soil extends to full 0 depth (60 inches or 1.5 m) Duripan soil; cemented or 1 indurated soil; or glacial deposits with large boulders in a soil matrix Weathered rock near bottom of the 2 soil profile Rock outcrop; shallow weathered 3 rock or unweathered rock at any depth within the soil profile GIS tools were used to extract values of elevation, ground slope, and rock excavation factors at each point along the pipeline centerline (Fig. 3) for subsequent analysis using spreadsheet calculations. Ranges of percentages of alignment length requiring rock excavation were selected for each rock excavation category on the basis of engineering and geologic judgment. Ranges are appropriate for the rock excavation categories for reasons such as 1) the soil survey map units represent ranges of soil conditions, including depths of soil horizons across a map unit and associations of two or three soil series within a single map unit, and 2) variability of the underlying geology that is concealed by soil that has formed on the rock (residual soil) or been deposited on the rock (alluvial, colluvial, eolian, or glacial deposits). Table 2 provides percentages of pipeline alignment lengths in each rock excavation category for which ditch rock typically would be expected (i.e., average rock conditions). Percentages of pipeline alignment lengths that represent a likely maximum amount of ditch rock excavation within each rock excavation category also are listed in Table 2. Approximate percentages of ROW cross section areas where rock excavation typically would be expected in each rock excavation category are shown in Table 3 and Figure 3, along with area-based percentages of maximum ROWG rock. Table 2. Expected length-based percentages of ditch rock Rock Excavation Average Rock Maximum Factor Conditions Rock Conditions 0 5% 10% 1 20% 25% 2 40% 60% 3 75% 90% Table 3. Expected area-based percentages of ROWG rock Rock Excavation Average Rock Maximum Factor Conditions Rock Conditions 0 2.5% 5% 1 10% 15% 2 20% 30% 3 40 75%

Figure 3. Example graph of elevation (black line), slope (teal line), rock factor (dark red bars), apparent slope (upper magenta line), ROWG total volume (green line), average rock volume (magenta line), and maximum rock volume (blue line). Red line is a target location for a seismic survey.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Table 4. Example summary of estimated ditch rock length and ROWG rock volume.

Average ROWG Rock Volume (yd3)

An example of a map showing pipeline centerline, rock excavation factor, and rock type is presented in Figure 4. The percentages of rock excavation in Rock Excavation Factor 3 can be adjusted to reflect local knowledge or experience with past pipeline projects in the same or similar rock types as exist along the proposed project. Milepost (MP) designations for the example pipeline project used in Figure 3 are calculated from the horizontal distance along the alignment starting at the beginning of the project. The centerline alignment essentially is from point-of-intersection (PI) to PI and neglects shortening related to the curvature of bends; it also neglects lengthening related to slope distance. Comparison of pipeline company length determinations and the simplified MP calculation based on points on the centerline spaced 10 m apart suggests that the error is in the range of 1 to 1.5 percent. The profiles of elevation and slope allow other inferences to be made, such as locations of long, relatively steep slopes and areas where the slope is steeper than 1.5:1 (H:V).

calculated by multiplying the appropriate length-based factor in Table 2 by the distance between points and multiplying the appropriate area-based factor in Table 3 by the cross section area for each point before multiplying the two products together. Maximum ROWG Rock Volume (yd3)

124,875 64,081 131.448 7.31 5.48 7.31 3

Total ROWG Volume (yd3)

Average Maximum Rock Pipeline Ditch Rock Ditch Rock Excavation Length Length Length Category (mi) (mi) (mi)

0.03

0.02

0.03

0.02

0.21

0.09

Table 4 contains a summary of the estimated rock excavation requirements for the example pipeline. The first column is the rock excavation category. The second column is the cumulative length of the pipeline alignment in each rock excavation category. The third and fourth columns are the cumulative lengths of average and maximum estimated lengths of ditch rock excavation, respectively. The last three columns in Table 4 contain estimated volumes of total ROWG, average volume of ROWG rock excavation, and maximum volume of ROWG rock excavation, respectively, for each rock excavation category. The total ROWG volume was calculated by multiplying the cross section area at each centerline point by the distance between points (10.936 yards for each line segment). The estimated rock excavation volumes were

An alternative approach for calculating ROWG rock excavation volumes assumes that the top of bedrock is parallel to the ground surface projected across the pipeline ROW (Fig. 2). This approach is based on the experience gained from the seismic refraction surveys conducted on pipeline projects in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. It could be applied with depths to the top of blast rock based on judgment, or a range of depths could be used in a sensitivity analysis. Field measurement of seismic velocity provides higher confidence in the depth and the variability of the depth across the lengths of the surveys.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Total =

Figure 4. Example map showing pipeline centerline, rock excavation factor, and rock type on hillshade-enhanced aerial photograph. Example is in New Jersey.

7.61

-0-

5.54

-0-

7.37

-0-

136,863

3,875

1,541

-0-

64,301

128

-0-

92

125,165

155

135

-0-

SEISMIC REFRACTION SURVEY AND RESULTS The results of the desktop evaluation can be used to identify candidate locations for validating or refining Rock Excavation Category 3 locations, or even checking all Rock Excavation Categories. Seismic refraction surveys consist of measuring the travel time of energy introduced into the ground by striking a metal plate with a sledgehammer to a linear array of geophones in contact with the ground. The distance between the hammer point and each geophone is measured so the travel times can be converted to seismic velocities. Most modern seismographs can monitor 24 geophones. The effective depth of investigation is approximately 1/3 of the length of the linear geophone array; therefore, an array of 24 geophones spaced 5 ft (1.5 m) apart is 115-ft (35-m) long, resulting in an effective depth of about 35 ft (10 m), which is deeper than pipeline trenches on level ground and probably deeper than most ROWG depths. An array of 24 geophones spaced 10 ft (3 m) apart would be 230-ft (70-m) long, and the depth of investigation would be about 70 ft (20 m), which is deeper than all trenches and ROWG depths. The longer spacing between geophones produces lower resolution in the results. Field locations of each seismic refraction line were determined with a hand-held GPS receiver. The locations of the seismic survey lines need to be accurate to allow comparison with predicted rock excavation values from the desktop study. Reduction of the seismic refraction data results in twodimensional depictions of seismic velocities (Figure 5). The seismic refraction results can be interpreted for rock excavation requirements based on available references [1, 2]. The seismic velocity of rock that is marginally excavatable with heavy track-mounted excavators is approximately 4,000 to 4,500 ft/s (1,220 to 1,370 m/s). Excavators typically are used for trench excavations, and no distinction was made between trench and ROWG rock where bulldozers could be used.

Figure 5. Seismic refraction survey with interpreted results. Small black triangles are geophone locations. Maximum ROW denotes the depth of grading required to prepare a level working pad. ROW + Trench Depth denotes the maximum depth of trench below the maximum ROW. Cross hatched pattern denotes rock with seismic velocities greater than 4,000 to 4,500 ft/s which is interpreted as rock requiring blasting for excavation.

It can be seen in Fig. 5 that more than half of the seismic survey shows excavatable velocities to depth greater than the combined ROWG plus pipeline trench. Based on the assessment of the seismic survey results, the length of the survey line where the maximum excavation depth was below the 4,000 to 4,500 ft/s contour was compared to the total length of the survey line (115 ft in Fig. 5). Twenty seismic refraction surveys located in Rock Excavation Factor 3 areas were used to develop average and maximum estimated rock excavation lengths. The average value of the averages and maxima were found to be 75% and 100% of the seismic survey line lengths. These values were used to refine the percentages of lengthbased ditch rock used in the desktop evaluation (refinements reflected in Tab. 2). ROWG rock excavation was assessed on the basis of the approximate area along the seismic refraction survey lines where seismic velocities exceeding 4,000 to 4,500 ft/s were shallower than the maximum trench-plus-ROW excavation depth (about 276 ft2 [25.6 m2] in Fig. 5). The resulting area may not be representative of the actual ROWG because the seismic survey lines were oriented parallel to the pipeline alignment, whereas the ROWG area estimates are perpendicular to the pipeline alignment. The geometry presented in Figure 2 and the seismic refraction survey results were used to estimate the effective depth to rock. Multiple seismic refraction survey lines in the same Rock Excavation Factor were evaluated so that an average and standard deviation could be calculated. Average ditch rock was evaluated based on the mean depth to rock defined as the 4,000 to 4,500 ft/s contour, whereas maximum ditch rock was evaluated based on the mean-minus-one standard deviation depth to the 4,000 to 4,500 ft/s contour. Similarly, ROWG rock was evaluated with the geometry in Figure 2 and the effective depth being average or maximum based on the depth to the 4,000 to 4,500 ft/s contour of seismic velocity. In general, the ditch rock estimates increased and the ROWG rock estimates decreased. The pipeline project used in this paper as an example was constructed in four non-contiguous spreads, and as-built rock excavation quantities were collected and analyzed. The project was approximately 127 miles long and the reported as-built rock excavation quantities were aggregated by construction spread. For the overall project, the linear ditch rock quantities for average conditions were overestimated by approximately 28%, whereas the ROWG rock excavation quantities for average conditions were overestimated by approximately 40%. These actual rock excavation quantities were used to modify the percentages in Tables 2 and 3 for future projects (note that refinements from the as-built rock quantities are reflected in Tab. 2 and 3). A review of forecast and as-built rock excavation quantities suggests the following: 1. In general, rock excavation quantities forecast with the methodology outlined herein on a spread-by-spread basis correlated reasonably well with as-built rock excavation

Copyright 2012 by ASME

quantities. However, considerable variability was noted in the trend of forecast and actual rock excavation quantities. 2. Seismic refraction results are particularly useful in estimating the depth to blast rock (Vp 4,000 to 4,500 fps) for the different Rock Excavation Factors. The excavations, for the most part, are restricted to the upper 10 to 15 ft (3 to 4.5 m) of the soil and rock profile; therefore, a difference of only a few feet one way or the other can make a substantial difference in both the forecast and actual rock excavation quantities. 3. Certain aspects of the soil/rock profile and geologic history of the alignment also must be accounted for in the forecasting model. For the example pipeline project, whether or not the area had been glaciated such that there is not likely to be a significant partially weathered rock zone. In addition, excavatability depends on the presence of rock defects (bedding, joints, fractures, foliation, shears, and faults); thus, it is important to know if the bedrock is likely to be massive or thinly bedded or closely jointed. 4. The forecasting model could be further improved if as-built rock quantities were recorded for smaller reaches of pipeline alignment. The forecast quantities are calculated on the basis of 10-m lengths and based on estimates of the distribution of Rock Excavation Factor areas. Rock quantity estimates are controlled by Rock Excavation Factors (i.e., Tab. 2 and 3); therefore, as-built data suitable for validating or refining the assignment of Rock Excavation Factors would be as useful as the actual quantities of rock excavation. For a given pipeline construction spread, it would be useful to obtain as-built rock excavation data on a station-by-station basis, but as a minimum on a mile by mile or Rock-Excavation-Factor basis to allow the percentages to be validated or refined for each Rock Excavation Factor Category shown in Table 1. The general cost of the desktop rock excavation forecasting as described in this paper has been on the order of US$15,000 for pipeline projects in the United States up to about 125 miles long. Continuous alignments are easier to manage with the GIS resources, but the cost differential for discontinuous segments is not large. The general cost of the seismic refraction survey, data reduction, analysis, and refinement of the rock excavation forecast has been about US$65,000. Factors that affect the cost of the seismic refraction survey include access to the alignment, difficulties in determining locations along the alignment, terrain steepness, distance between seismic refraction survey locations, and weather. The costs would be considerably higher for field work on projects that have not progressed to the stage of having the centerline staked. ENHANCED PIPELINE PROJECT MANAGEMENT The improved ability to forecast rock excavation requirements enhances pipeline project management in three ways: 1) early information for assessing economic feasibility of pipeline projects, 2) a basis for contract documents and possibly contractor selection, and 3) a basis for quantitative assessment of financial risk associated with construction.

The economic analyses of pipeline project feasibility are based on many rules of thumb, standard practices for flatland and mountain construction, and experience with permitting estimates for wetlands and high-consequence areas, as well as construction conditions. Rock excavation requirements traditionally have been assessed by experienced pipeline construction personnel performing visual assessments of the alignment. The desktop rock excavation forecasting approach described in this paper provides quantitative estimates that can be included at low cost in financial risk assessments of project success in early phases of project consideration. The blast rock forecast data could be used in project management for deciding whether to bid the project as classified excavation (either soil or rock) if abundant blast rock is anticipated, or as unclassified excavation if little or no blast rock is anticipated. The uniformity of the working area of the ROW becomes more important for pipeline projects on which automatic welding systems will be used because of the required tolerances for aligning the pipe joints and the area needed for welding system operations, as well as the potential for rough ROW to cause problems with the sensitive electronics. Extra cost can be incurred if secondary blasting is required or if a hoe ram attachment to an excavator is needed to trim rock pinnacles for a sufficiently smooth ROW. Sources of geotechnical risk were described by Baynes [3], who defined a geotechnical risk as something associated with the ground that might happen and that would have adverse consequences for the project. This definition includes both conditions and processes that may be deemed to be hazardous. Movement of a landslide is easy to visualize as a geotechnical hazard that could have adverse consequences to a project. Blast rock, per se, is not hazardous in the conventional sense of the word, but it is a geotechnical condition that poses potential financial risk to pipeline projects. Geotechnical risk may be quantified by multiplying the likelihood that the geotechnical condition will occur or exist by the consequences to the project if it did occur or exist. For blast rock, the condition would be rock that required blasting on a project where no blast rock was anticipated, or unanticipated extent of blast rock on a project where blasting was expected. Baynes [3] view of sources of geotechnical risk is relevant for pipeline projects. One source of geotechnical risk is an inadequate understanding of the importance of ground conditions by the project manager or by those preparing contract documents. Baynes suggests that poor management can lead to an inadequate site [alignment] investigation or to poor acquisition, understanding, and/or communication of site [alignment] investigation data and information. Unforeseen ground conditions encountered during construction often are attributable to inadequate site [alignment] investigations arising from poor project management practices.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

CONCLUSIONS Significant underestimation of rock excavation costs on some recent pipeline projects has caused financial challenges for pipeline companies and project managers. The two-phase rock excavation forecasting approach described in this paper provides an improved ability to forecast rock excavation and blasting requirements, which enhances pipeline project management by improving project estimating and scheduling, forecasting of expenditures, and possibly improved contractor pricing. Results from desktop studies and field techniques need to be confirmed by excavation documentation on more pipeline projects. The techniques will also help reduce excavation costs and schedule risks on future pipeline projects by providing a means for reduced excavation change orders for unanticipated rock conditions. Implementation of a desktop study utilizing existing spatial data in a GIS platform certainly facilitates routine calculations. It also optimizes selection of target locations for subsequent field observations, and aids in visualization of grading needed for pipeline projects. Documentation of rock excavation on future pipeline projects is needed to further refine the estimates of rock quantities. The documentation would provide the greatest information if it were compiled for relatively short reaches of pipeline alignment, instead of being aggregated for the entire project or relatively long construction spreads. Since the rock excavation calculations are based on 10-m-long segments of pipeline alignment, as-built documentation of rock excavation would have the greatest benefit if it were at the same or similar scale. The next best scale would be the length of rock excavation factor zones. The type of rock and its degree of fracturing and other rock mass properties probably can be documented adequately by pipeline construction supervisory personnel without the need for geotechnical consultants to make special-purpose

visits to the alignment. Photographs, particularly overlapping photographs that can be used to make stereoscopic (3D), should be suitable to allow geotechnical professionals to make general inferences about rock mass properties. Software such as Stereo Photo Maker (freeware available online at no cost from http://stereo.jpn.org/eng/stphmkr/) can be used to make color anaglyphs suitable for viewing with conventional redcyan viewing glasses. Stereoscopic images would be enhanced further if a distinctive feature for scale were visible in both images. Stereoscopic images of excavated blast rock in the spoil pile also can be informative. The objective of the rock excavation forecasting model described in this paper is to support improved management of pipeline design and construction projects. The results of the model are expressed as a range of values calculated with factors that are based on geologic judgment. Refinement of the factors can be accomplished by documentation of actual rock excavation on pipeline construction projects where rock excavation forecasting was used, and reassessment of sources of uncertainty to improve the model. REFERENCES [1] Caterpillar Tractor Company, (Cat), 1993, Caterpillar Performance Handbook, Edition 24, Peoria, IL. [2] Rucker, M.L., and Fergason, K.C., 2006, Characterizing unsaturated cemented soil profiles for strength, excavatability and erodability using surface seismic methods, in Miller, G.A., Zapata, C.E., Houston, S.L., and Fredlund, D.G., eds., Unsaturated Soils 2006: American Society of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Special Publication No. 147, p. 589600. [3] Baynes, F.J., 2010, Sources of geotechnical risk, Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology: v. 43; p. 321-331.

Copyright 2012 by ASME