To uniformly regulate fiber optic deployment in shallow-depth installation, i.e., installation above the standard depth or above the subgrade, DIN 18220 “Trenching, Milling, and Plowing Methods for Laying Conduit Infrastructures and Fiber Optic Cables for Telecommunication Networks” was published on July 28, 2023. Dipl.-Ing. Meinolf Rameil, Technical Managing Director at Tracto-Technik, explains the advantages and disadvantages of the new standard in an expert interview with Dr.-Ing. Thorsten Späth, Head of egeplast Product Management.
While the new DIN 18220 Standard is generally welcomed by the industry, it is also viewed critically by some. Because even though a standard for the included special forms of open trench construction is certainly sensible and important, the question of trenchless methods remains open. Dipl.-Ing. Meinolf Rameil, Technical Managing Director at Tracto-Technik, took a clear stance on the issue in a discussion with Dr.-Ing. Thorsten Späth, Head of egeplast Product Management.
Thorsten Späth: Generally speaking: How do you assess DIN 18220?
Meinolf Rameil: Fundamentally, it is right and important to standardize the special open trench construction methods mentioned in DIN 18220. This is the basic prerequisite for these alternatives to classic open trench construction to become state of the art. However, the major shortcoming of the standard is that the entire area of trenchless methods is not considered. This misses an important opportunity to use these modern methods, which are very well suited for fiber optic deployment, more frequently than today.
Do you think that the non-mention of trenchless methods will negatively impact their role in fiber optic deployment?
Yes, I think the standard could be interpreted to mean that only the methods listed therein may be used as an alternative to open trenching.
Trenching methods offer advantages over traditional open trench construction with excavators and should therefore be included in such a standard. But why do trenchless methods remain unregulated? Often, they are preferable not only from an economic but also, and above all, from an ecological perspective. A standard that excludes these modern methods does a disservice to the goal of rapid, cost-effective, and, most importantly, sustainable fiber optic deployment.
How significant do you consider the influence or importance of this standard within this complex topic?
I do not assume that the non-inclusion of trenchless methods in DIN 18220 will have a direct impact on the use of these methods. However, what I do consider realistic is a certain degree of market distortion – I am, of course, not implying any intent here.
However, the standard will quickly become a strong focus for politics and associations. For municipalities and telecommunications companies, there will – rightly so – be training courses and extensive information opportunities. As a result, the methods standardized in DIN 18220 will automatically be tendered and used more frequently. Conversely, this means a disadvantage for trenchless methods.
In your opinion, should the opposite development be pursued?
No question. Trenchless construction methods, such as horizontal directional drilling or pipe ramming, should be used much more frequently for laying fiber optic networks. We need solutions in this area where the impact on the surface above the cable route is minimal. Nature, people, residential areas, road traffic, shops, and businesses – trenchless methods minimize disruptions and stand for short construction times, low space requirements, and cost-effective execution.
What should the standard have looked like in your opinion?
In my opinion, the necessity of a comprehensive family of standards is obvious. This way, all alternative laying methods could be covered – even at standard depth.
You mention the standard depth. Do you see disadvantages in shallow-depth installation?
Despite its advantages, shallow-depth installation is also a massive intervention in a formerly intact infrastructure. Sometimes only a few months pass after the completion of construction work before the negative effects become apparent. In addition to frost damage, changes in level or soil shifts in the road body are among the known problems.
For the laid fiber optic cables, the shallow depth then means a constant risk of damage. Subsequent construction tasks require increased effort, and sometimes even re-laying may be necessary. Furthermore, a comprehensive cable registry for documenting the exact location of fiber optic lines is missing, which increases the risk of damage or network outages.
Source: Sustainability
