To uniformly regulate fiber optic deployment using shallow-depth laying, i.e., laying above the standard depth or above the subgrade, DIN Standard 18220 “Trenching, Milling, and Ploughing Procedures 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 Standard 18220 is generally welcomed by the industry, it is also critically assessed by some. Because even though a standard for the included special forms of open-cut construction is certainly sensible and important, the question of trenchless methods remains open. Dipl.-Ing. Meinolf Rameil, Technical Managing Director at Tracto-Technik, clearly stated his position on the matter 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-cut construction methods mentioned in DIN 18220. This is the basic prerequisite for these alternatives to classic open-cut construction to become state-of-the-art. However, the major shortcoming of the standard is that the entire field of trenchless methods is not considered. This misses an important opportunity to implement these modern methods, which are very well suited for fiber optic deployment, more frequently than they are 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 are permitted as alternatives to open trenching.
Trenching methods offer advantages over traditional open-cut construction with excavator use and thus belong in such a standard. But why do trenchless methods remain unregulated? Often, they are preferable not only from an economic but also, and especially, from an ecological perspective. A standard that excludes these modern methods does a disservice to the goal of rapid, cost-effective, and above all 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 politicians and associations. For municipalities and telecommunications companies, there will – rightly so – be training opportunities and extensive information resources. 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?
Undoubtedly, trenchless construction methods, such as horizontal directional drilling (HDD) or ground-piercing tools, should be utilized far more often for the installation of fiber optic networks. In this regard, we require solutions that ensure minimal surface disruption above the cable route. For nature, people, residential areas, road traffic, shops, and businesses, trenchless methods minimize disturbances and offer short construction times, minimal space requirements, and cost-effective implementation.
In your opinion, what should the standard have looked like?
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 laying?
Despite its advantages, shallow-depth laying also represents 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 of the road body are among the known problems.
For the laid fiber optic cables, the shallow depth then poses a constant risk of damage. Subsequent construction tasks require increased effort, and in some cases, re-laying may even become necessary. Furthermore, a comprehensive utility cadastre for documenting the exact location of fiber optic lines is missing, which increases the risk of damage or network outages.
