The issue of elevation when the duct tunnel needs to change direction

This post was last edited by ylb913 on 2015-12-7 at 13:51. This is not necessarily the case; turns at the same elevation are quite common. It’s a pure 90-degree turn; there’s no issue at the same elevation. For T-junctions and cross intersections, the elevation should be adjusted to prevent obstruction of the straight path for the pipelines.

Lao Yu, talk about the pipe galleries that make a 90-degree turn – what are the reasons for the change in elevation?

Does the elevation change when the direction of the pipe gallery needs to be altered? Answer: (1) If it is a single-layer pipe gallery and there is no risk of pipeline collisions, it is not necessary to change the height of the gallery； (2) In the case of long-distance transportation through multi-layered pipe tunnels without any intersecting tunnels, there is no risk of pipeline collisions, so it is not necessary to change the height of the tunnels ； (3) In the case of multi-layer pipe galleries, within the factory where the pipe galleries intersect, in order to facilitate the connection of branch pipes in the branch galleries to the main pipes in the main gallery, there needs to be a height difference between the intersecting galleries. The book \"National Pressure Pipeline Design and Examples\" written by Zhang Dejiang and Song Keké provides a detailed explanation

That’s the idea; try not to make any changes, otherwise there will be extra bag-shaped pipelines

Changing direction necessarily results in a layer shift, mainly to avoid conflicts between intersecting pipes. When considering, the main focus is on which aspects will be affected

Do I also need to change the elevation at 90°? I guess it’s designed this way on purpose to increase the flexibility of the pipeline? Or does it need to turn 90° and go through a passage or something? Generally, when I design something, I try not to change the height if possible, as this makes the civil engineering work easier

I’m not optimistic about this idea; too many of them will definitely cause chaos. My view is: any change in direction requires a change in altitude. Because it might not take up space now, but it will in the future. If it’s not done in phase one, it must be done in phase two. And it’s also a great practice for piping work; in the future, when there will be many pipes to handle, such as in a project where 600 ISO pipes need to be produced over an 8-month period during the detailed design phase, this approach proves very useful. It especially helps to achieve good results in projects involving changes in the fixed base elevation. And such brackets are also easy to make. PS: This combination is also beneficial for stress. Of course, this is not within the main scope of discussion in this post.

Imagine how much space that elbow takes up when a large-diameter pipe needs to change direction; by using a staggered layout of 500–750 mm, it is possible to achieve this while also adjusting the order of the pipes

There are usually many pipes on the pipe rack; handling them by changing direction and in separate layers makes planning easier

It’s not just utility tunnels; there are others as well. For example, the structural frame commonly used in TOS2.5m is the type designed with a 2.2-meter height reserve. ), sometimes there are a few more pipes, but I still use TOS3m for layering, and everything remains clear along the way. For another example, under the structural platform, once again the components on the platform I arranged are in order, but those below are in a messy state. After following someone else’s advice, I changed all the pipes under 4 inches on the lower platform to two different elevations, which made things much clearer.