FAQ - Moles
The mole work recorder is a device mounted on special customer request in the oiler, which is also the mole work control station. Its task is to record the working time of the pressing machines: the number of hours worked and the time frame of work with the machine. As standard in the oiler no work recorder is installed. The illustration below shows a possible mounting location.
The customer may request its installation when ordering the machine and at a later time. Then, a special electronic system will be installed inside the oiler, which, using a pressure transducer, registers and records when the machine was used and how long the individual periods of use lasted. This information can then be read on any PC and analyzed. The data obtained can be helpful in determining on which days the machine was working, how long individual jobs lasted, whether there were downtimes on a given day, whether it was used in accordance with the operating instructions. Here we would like to point out that we do not use this data in connection with the machine's visit to the service. We have NEVER argued the validity of a complaint based on data from the recorder, because we simply do not perform such readings.
The device is not very popular at the moment. Apart from circulating rumors, as if the register was used as a tool to provide us with information that works to the detriment of the Client, few people see its advantages. And that's a pity, because there are quite a few of them. It is worth considering whether it is really a visionary, useless invention, or perhaps an underestimated tool. I will skip the issues of espionage in relation to the Client, because it is a waste of your time to read further such nonsense.
The recorder can provide its OWNER with a full picture of the mole's operation, which will result in it serving longer and optimizing operating and service costs.
Imagine what the life of our cars would be like if there was no ordinary mileage counter in their dashboards? It's hard to imagine. We would have to manually count when the next service, timing belt replacement or ordinary air filter is due. In case of a mistake in calculations, either way, we would record a loss.
In mole, the register gives us exactly the same: full optimization of the costs of maintaining, operating and servicing the machine. We will pay less for service work, because we will only do it when the required time has come.
Any comparison of several trenchless technologies is pointless. Individual methods differ in their area of application, costs and implementation time. A good example of this is an attempt to compare horizontal drilling and mole technologies. It is impossible to say which of them is better or more advantageous. This is because each of them has a different purpose and application. A mole will not allow us to perform an installation hundreds of meters long in one section, while having to overcome terrain obstacles (e.g. a river). To perform such an installation, we will reach for an HDD drill. However, if we have to perform a simple section of the installation 20 meters long, running under a local road, we will not hire an HDD drill for this purpose, due to the much higher (unprofitable in the end) costs and greater complexity of working with such a device, and we will use a cheaper option - a pneumatic mole.
However, such a comparison can be made by comparing two types of devices, both of which have almost identical applications and purposes. We are talking about a comparison of a simple hydraulic rammer, without a location and control function, with another simple machine, a pneumatic mole. Both of these devices are dedicated to the same types of trenchless installations: at a distance of 5-20 meters, a casing pipe must be installed under the existing surface, without disturbing it.
Which of these two devices to choose? Which is more effective? Which is more versatile? Let's try to answer this question by objectively comparing their individual parameters. We base our opinions on the opinions we receive from our clients who have used both techniques. We also base them on opinions that can be found on the web, on industry forums and social media.
- Equipment
A mole needs compressed air. Almost every construction company has a mobile compressor and powering the mole should not be a problem here. However, let's look at the comparison with a hydraulic rammer. Regardless of the machine we are installing, for both cases we need to make the starting and final excavations. For this purpose we need an excavator or at least a mini-excavator. This excavator can in turn be the power source for the hydraulic rammer. So when installing with a mole, we need to have three machines on the construction site: an excavator, a compressor and a mole. When working with a hydraulic rammer, we only need an excavator and a rammer.
The total costs of the equipment needed to perform the pressing are much lower in the case of a hydraulic pressing machine if we look at it in such a way that we are starting a business on the construction market and have to equip ourselves from scratch.
Advantages of HYDRAULIC JUMPER
- Installing the device before starting work
Both devices have similar weight. Both require a dozen or so minutes (depending on the terrain) to set up on the construction site, connect the individual elements. Before the mole can be released into the ground with full power, it must sink to at least half of its length. Only then will the cylinder catch the ground and the machine will move forward with all the force of the ram hitting the anvil. Before this happens, it is necessary to help the mole achieve this grip, among other things by reducing the amount of air supplied and pressing it to the ground.
The hydraulic rammer must be properly seated and anchored in the starting trench. Often, it is not enough to support its rear part against the rear wall of the starting trench and during the first centimetres of ramming, the machine will change its position under the influence of its own head pressure force. Both technologies can be described as relatively easy and quick to install, compared to other, more advanced technologies.
Both technologies have no special requirements. We have a DRAW.
- Speed of installation.
Here, at first glance, it is difficult to find a unanimous, clear favorite. In order to obtain binding data, individual pressings using both types of machines should be performed in exactly the same ground conditions. The speed of pressing in the ground, on a global scale, in both cases can be assumed as comparable. However, in the case of a hydraulic press, the pressing process is interrupted due to the need to add/remove subsequent rod segments. Moreover, in the case of a hydraulic press, the pipe is pulled in during the retraction (return pulling) of the pressing head. In the case of moles, we very rarely deal with the pipe being pulled in during the mole's return to the starting trench. With a mole, we usually pull the pipe in already in the first operation, pulling it directly behind the device. Remember, however, that in the final calculation of the installation, time does not play such a significant role. Unless the time difference was 100% or more. In our case, this is not the case, whether the installation takes 20 or 30 minutes, it does not matter much. Nevertheless, the mole has an advantage here, mainly because there is no need to interrupt the work, as is the case when working with a hydraulic press, and to add/remove subsequent rod segments.
Advantages of the PNEUMATIC MOLE
- Support during installation
In this area, the mole definitely wins. All you have to do is direct it appropriately, start it, check whether it has not changed its trajectory while driving into the vertical wall of the starting trench, correct it if necessary, and let it go. And all that is left is to wait until it reaches the target trench, checking only from time to time whether the pneumatic hose is sinking behind the mole, which indicates the progress of the pressing. You can stand on the ground surface and try to locate where the mole is hitting the ground at a given moment. In the case of a hydraulic press, unfortunately, you have to stand by/on the machine all the time and, depending on the stage of installation, add/remove subsequent rods, and stop/start the press itself.
Advantages of the PNEUMATIC MOLE
- Accuracy
This is undoubtedly the most important parameter. The success of our work depends on accuracy. In this case, the mole has an undoubted advantage, which is the impact. This impact allows it to overcome hard obstacles, on which a hydraulic rammer would fail. In such a case, the rod of the hydraulic rammer will bend and the entire rammer will change direction, coming out inaccurate. On the other hand, the mole, equipped with a stepped head, will cope more easily with a hard obstacle. Of course, there are occasional situations when the mole, having encountered loose and muddy ground, will not cope with such an installation, and in such a case it is left with driving in a steel pipe. In the vast majority of works, however, the ability to overcome hard obstacles is more important, which the mole will cope with perfectly while maintaining high accuracy. On the other hand, the rammer will not be able to overcome a hard obstacle or will succumb to it at the cost of a significant drop in accuracy.
A significant advantage of the PNEUMATIC MOLE
- Versatility
Due to the impact nature of their work, moles are excellent in most cases and types of soil. In rocky soils and very hard soils, impact allows for the installation to be carried out with the intended accuracy. A hydraulic rammer will not cope in such situations, we will not be able to carry out the installation with it in such cases, we will have to reach for an alternative solution. In wet, clay soils, a hydraulic rammer will be better, but on the other hand, a mole provides an effective alternative in the form of the possibility of driving in a steel pipe. In most typical soils, both devices will cope perfectly with the installation.
Advantages of the PNEUMATIC MOLE