Dig Once Best Practices

April 22, 2020

Essentially, the Dig Once legislation provides for digging one time for two or more projects and means efficient use of resources. The Dig Once legislation has the potential to eliminate up to 90 percent of fiber deployment costs. 

Download White Paper

SECTION 1: GOALS OF THE LEGISLATION 

Economic Viability Exists in a Digital Connection

No one can predict the demand for data in the next 10 to 20 years, but we know our lives are going to be even more connected. By consolidating the installation of broadband infrastructure at the time of road construction, communities are positioned to participate in the digital economy in the most cost-effective way for the taxpayers.

Saving Tax-Payers Dollars

The U.S. DOT’s Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office estimates the average cost of deploying fiber-optic cable is about $27,000 per mile. According to the Federal Highway Administration, the Dig Once legislation has the potential to eliminate up to 90 percent of the cost of deployment.

Dig Once U.S. Federal Legislation

In an effort to make high speed broadband more affordable and accessible, the U.S. Federal Government passed “Dig Once” legislation. After a decade of various versions of the concept, the bill received overwhelming bi-partisan support with more than 30 co-sponsors.

Eliminating Duplicate Expenses

Essentially, the legislation provides for the notification of federally funded road construction projects where conduit or fiber could be included at the same time. Digging one time for two or more projects and enabling future upgrades without additional expense brings tremendous added value and efficient use of resources.

Digging Deeper into Saving Taxpayer’s Money

The law allows for some flexibility: installation of fiber, conduit, or both fiber and conduit. If fiber is direct buried alone, it will still be a leap forward in streamlining and investing in broadband infrastructure. However, when an upgrade is needed, it eventually means more digging to replace the fiber cable.

The Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, recommended State policies should require contractors to install spare fiber and empty conduit to accommodate “reasonably anticipated” future demand. The use of a conduit network system provides the flexibility of upgrading (adding additional fiber) without the cost of digging. Fiber can be placed by air-jetting into the conduit quickly and easily without the expense and disruption of construction. Burying empty conduits in the ground at the time of road construction allows the potential for expansion when it is necessary and can be immediately revenue-generating by leasing or renting.

 

SECTION 2: BEST PRACTICES OF DIG ONCE POLICIES

The law allows for some flexibility: installation of fiber, conduit, or both fiber and conduit. The Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, recommended State policies should require contractors to install spare fiber and empty conduit to accommodate “reasonably anticipated” future demand.

Best Practice #1: Education

  • The extra effort spent on educating the stakeholders will result in on-going cooperation
  • Explain the cost-savings benefits
  • Demonstrate the high-speed broadband connectivity economic impact
  • Clarify the definition of “reasonably anticipated” future demand in conjunction with the installation of fiber, conduit, or both fiber and conduit
  • Describe the ability to upgrade for the future (if conduit is used)

Best Practice #2: Ordinances

  • Use existing laws and practices and integrate ideas into statutes and processes
  • Explain expectations for compliance and how to cope with expectations
  • Underscore who is responsible in the text of ordinance
  • Encourage or require companies to use your conduit
  • Maintain public ownership of conduit as much as possible

Best Practice #3: Coordination

  • Establish relationships and expectations by keeping track of private projects and streamlining bureaucratic systems
  • Create effective coordination committees
  • Provide clear explanation of costs
  • Line up departments’ budgets for potential large projects

Best Practice #4: Installation of Conduit Network Systems 

  • Create a master plan
  • Publish clear and consistent guidelines (with engineering standards)
  • Choose the type of conduit that makes sense for your community — plan for the future
  • Do not underestimate the added value of MicroTechnology and MicroTrenching (Note: MicroTrenching is different than NanoTrenching, which puts the conduit only a few inches below the surface and is unproven. MicroTrenching has been around 10+ years and is a proven installation method with the correct reinstatement material.)
  • Document and verify your conduit

NOTE: Incremental funding required to pass 90 percent of U.S. households with high-speed fiber broadband by 2025 is estimated at a cost of $70 billion.* Dig Once has the potential to reduce that expense significantly.  (*Source: Cartesian, FCC Form 477, US Census, American Community Survey, Company Presentations)

 

SECTION 3: STATE LEGISLATION EXAMPLES 

 
NORTH CAROLINA
  • Law(s)Executive Order 91 forming the Task Force on Connecting North Carolina
  • Date enacted: 2019
  • Description: The Governor of North Carolina formed the Task Force on Connecting North Carolina in March 2019, aimed at increasing Internet access to North Carolina residents and aligning state agencies policies in order to remove barriers to broadband deployment. It’s comprised of officials representing an array of state departments, including the department of transportation (DOT) and the department of information technology (DIT). The governor asked representatives from the DOT and DIT to jointly develop and implement a statewide “Dig Once” policy promoting the installation of broadband conduit or cables during road construction projects by July 1st, 2019.
UTAH
ARIZONA
  • Law(s)Arizona REV. STAT. ANN. § 28-7381
  • Date enacted: 2012
  • Description: Arizona’s Dig Once policies are targeted specifically at expanding broadband access to rural communities. The policy states that during road construction projects along rural highways, the DOT can coordinate with telecom companies to install conduit and it enables the agency to lease the conduit to telecom providers at a cost-based rate. 
MINNESOTA 
  • Law(s): 116J.39-116J.40: Coordination of Broadband Infrastructure Development 
  • Date enacted: 2013
  • Description: Minnesota’s state laws encourage the state’s Office of Broadband Development to coordinate with the state’s DOT for “Dig Once” measures in planning, relocation, installation, or improving broadband conduit within a right-of-way. It enables the Office of Broadband Development to evaluate procedures and criteria for contracts or lease agreements with telecom companies, as well as pricing requirements. It also allows for co-location of fiber and conduit with other utilities in the same trench. 
NEVADA
  • Law(s)SB 53, creating the Nevada Telecommunications Advisory Council
  • Date enacted: 2017 
  • Description: Nevada state legislature formed the Telecommunications Advisory Council within the state’s DOT in 2017, outlining parameters and regulations for the DOT in coordinating with telecom companies for access to rights-of-way for installing telecommunications equipment. The law charges the council with seeking input from telecommunications providers and the public relating to broadband access, providing recommendations to the state DOT on offering access to rights-of-way to telecommunications providers, as well as approving or denying proposed fiber trade agreements between the DOT and a telecom provider. The DOT is also authorized to enter into agreements with telecom companies and charge fees to access to public rights-of-way or receive in-kind compensation. 
MARYLAND
  • Law(s): SB 717 –Connecting Rural Maryland Act of 2017, creating the Task Force on Rural Internet, Broadband, Wireless, and Cellular Service; HB 961-Rural Broadband Communication Services 
  • Date enacted: 2017-present
  • Description: Maryland’s DOT coordinates with telecom providers and local utilities for installing conduit. The Connecting Rural Maryland Act created the Task Force on Rural Internet, Broadband, Wireless and Cellular Service, which was charged with facilitating cooperation between telecom providers to reduce redundancy, save money, and ensure that the all fiber assets are being used efficiently. The task force focused on facilitating cooperation between electric cooperatives and telecom companies. The task force’s last report recommended the state include fiber optic cable as part of the state’s definition of telecommunications equipment, and that it allow utilities to lease excess fiber and/or pole attachment rights for telecommunications, including broadband, without obtaining a separate easement, in order to promote broadband access in rural parts of the state. It has requested that the state’s legislature draft authority for electric cooperatives to coordinate with telecom providers in laying fiber. That bill was expected to be introduced in 2019. HB 961, meanwhile, specifies that nonprofit telecommunications services providers in rural and underserved areas of the State must be allowed to use the right-of-way or easement of specified State agencies for the installation of broadband communication infrastructure without being charged to do so.
GEORGIA
  • Law(s): SB 402 — Achieving Connectivity Everywhere (ACE) Act
  • Date enacted: 2018
  • Description: Georgia state legislature passed the ACE bill in 2018, which enables the state DOT to develop and implement a long-term policy allowing public rights-of-way to be used for the deployment of broadband services and other “emerging communication technologies” either by the state or private providers. It also requires local governments’ comprehensive plans to include elements to facilitate the deployment of broadband services, and it amends the OneGeorgia Authority Act to include broadband services. Finally, the bill authorizes the Georgia Technology Authority to establish policies and programs necessary to coordinate statewide efforts to promote broadband deployments between state agencies, local governments and industry representatives. 
WEST VIRGINIA
  • Law(s)HB 4447, creating new codes §17 – 2 E- 1-E-9
  • Date enacted: 2018
  • Description: West Virginia’s state government has developed a uniform system for conduit installation for telecom companies that are applying to install telecom infrastructure. Telecom companies must enter into an agreement with the state’s Division of Highways for installing conduit in public rights-of-way; companies must also notify the West Virginia Broadband Enhancement Council and all other carriers on record within the state of their installation permit. Other telecom companies that are interested in installing their own fiber have 30 days to notify the applicant of interest in sharing the trench. The telecom company is also required to run an advertisement in the relevant media for two weeks advertising the project to allow other carriers the opportunity to respond. The law also allows the Division of Highways to charge fees for access to public rights-of-way, or accept in-kind compensation from sources such as conduit, dark fiber, access points, other telecom equipment or services, or even bandwidth. 
MAINE
  • Law(s)Chapter 344, Sec. 1. 35-A MRSA §2503, sub-§2
  • Date enacted: 2018
  • Description: Maine’s law requires any public entity involved in a construction project to install broadband conduit and authorizes that entity to lease the conduit to telecom companies for installing broadband and/or wireless facilities for the purpose of providing service. The law states that telecom companies proposing broadband deployments must notify the ConnectME Authority with the location and description of the proposed facility and that the Authority must then disseminate that information to all other telecom companies or other entities that may be interested in installing broadband at the same time. The Authority is also tasked with maintaining a map of broadband conduit installations through the state. 
ILLINOIS
  • Law(s)605 ILCS 5/9-131) Sec. 9-131. 
  • Date enacted: 2009
  • Description: Illinois state law requires the state DOT and the Department of Central Management Services (DCMS) to collaborate in installing fiber network conduit, where it does not already exist, in every new state-funded construction project that opens trenches along state-owned roadways. Either department is authorized to allow a third-party company to manage the leasing of the conduit to telecom companies, as long as the state can receive market-based pricing for the lease. The state’s DOT also coordinates with the Illinois Broadband Deployment Council to compile Dig Once best practices and draft ordinances for county and city agencies within the state. 
CALIFORNIA
  • Law(s)Section 14051 of the Government Code
  • Date enacted: 2016
  • Description: California requires the state DOT to notify telecom companies of state-led highway construction projects through its website to enable companies to collaborate with the state on installing conduit in public rights-of-way during each project. 

 

SECTION 4: CITY AND COUNTY LEGISLATIONS EXAMPLES

 

LOMA LINDA, CA
  • LawOrd. 629 §1
  • Date enacted: 2004
  • Description: The city of Loma Linda requires all new construction to connect to the city’s existing fiber network through ordinances laid out in their Loma Linda Connected Community Program. Residential and commercial builders in Loma Linda are required to include broadband-capable internal wiring and fiber-optic interfaces in new structures. Loma Linda was one of the first communities in the US to adopt a comprehensive future-facing dig once construction policy, and one of the only ones to extend the ordinance to building wiring specifications. 
BRENTWOOD, CA
  • LawOrdinance No. 609
  • Date enacted: 1999
  • Description: Brentwood began implementing Dig Once policies 20 years ago. The city requires developers to design and install two advanced technology system conduits dedicated to the city within public rights-of-way during new construction and to each lot line within the development. It goes on to require developers to install a fiber optic system in one of the two conduits designed to serve the development by either the city itself or a licensed franchisee. The second conduit must remain empty and is reserved for future use by other franchisees. Over the last 20 years, the city now has 150 miles of conduit passing over 8,000 homes. ISP Sonic.net has relied heavily on the conduit to provide broadband service to residents. 
SANDY, OR
  • LawDevelopment code 17.84.60
  • Description: The city of Sandy requires private developers to install conduit when disturbing existing roads or building new ones and offers maps of existing installations so that developers can be strategic in how they install conduit. The city has added broadband fiber to the list of municipal infrastructures (such as water, sewer, power lines and mailboxes) that all new developments must include. 
BOSTON, MA
  • Date enacted: 1998; expansion in 1994
  • Description: Boston is possibly the very first city to implement a Dig Once policy, back in 1988. Initially, the city required all construction projects that involved excavators in a public right-of-way to install conduit and the city then leased that conduit to telecom companies through a one-time fee plus a $5 per foot annual charge. However, the city found its offering wasn’t attractive enough to telecom companies, who had begun building their own conduit along parallel streets. The city has since revised its laws to require telecom companies to lease space from the installed conduit before being allowed to install their own conduit, thereby encouraging companies to make use of what’s already been installed. In 1994, Boston implemented a policy that required all telecom companies to install conduits in the same trench at the same time, on a shared-cost basis. This policy requires a lead company to coordinate with other telecom entities in drafting engineering plans and estimating costs for the trenching and conduit installation. 
BERKELEY, CA 
  • Law: Ord. 7083-NS § 4 (part) Excavations for video and telecommunications systems 
  • Date enacted: 2009
  • Description: Berkeley has implemented a suite of policies and procedures outlining best practices for telecom companies in order to minimize the inconveniences of installation, maintenance, and removal of telecom facilities in public rights-of-way. The city requires existing facilities be moved underground alongside new facilities when feasible, and that telecom companies coordinate construction projects with utilities installing infrastructure in public rights-of-way. Telecom companies must also alert the city to any excess or surplus conduit to be installed, and that new facilities be installed within existing facilities where there is sufficient excess capacity. 
BELLEVUE, WA
  • Description: The city of Bellevue doesn’t have a formal Dig Once policy in place, but the city has set Dig Once conditions within some of its development projects in the past. The city asks excavator projects include installing conduit along roads when feasible, as well as during street lighting and traffic signal upgrades. It also requires transportation projects that interrupt public sidewalks to include installed conduit. 
GONZALES, CA
  • Law: “Dig Once” Policy for Public Works Projects in Gonzales
  • Date enacted: 2016
  • Description: Gonzales city government has implemented a Dig Once policy for public works projects that requires the city to install conduit during projects such as construction and maintenance of utility infrastructure or public roadways, or during excavations for installing communications, in public rights-of-way. The conduit is owned by the city. 
ARLINGTON COUNTY, VA
  • Description: Arlington County does not have a specific Dig Once policy, but the county has reached “Dig Once” agreements with utility providers in the past. The county entered into one such agreement with electric utility Dominion Virginia Power. The utility needed to install underground conduit along a congested urban public right-of-way. The county required the utility to install fiber in parallel conduit for the county’s use. The county is in the midst of installing a fiber network and is building extra capacity for use at a later date. 
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
  • LawOrdinance 220-14 
  • Date enacted: 2014
  • Description: San Francisco laws requires any government-led construction project involving a public right-of-way to include improvements to communications infrastructure when feasible. It also requires a telecom company applying to install communications infrastructure to notify the city’s Department of Technology so the department can participate in installing conduit at the same time. The law encourages the department to participate to create a more efficient delivery of broadband services to the public and for the city’s needs. 
MONTEREY, CA
  • Law: MBEP/CCBC Shadow Conduit Specifications version 1.0
  • Date enacted: 2016
  • Description: The city of Monterey and the Central Coast Broadband Consortium (CCBC) have developed a set of conduit specifications and guidelines for reducing redundancy in installation. Its recommendations range from the conduit size and number of conduits to install, whether future conduit installation would be problematic or impossible, and whether any partners or customers will make immediate use of it. However, the specifications leave out guidance on when conduit installation is required and who should be required to install it. 
SANTA CRUZ, CA
  • Law: Telecommunications Improvement Ordinance
  • Date enacted: 2014
  • Description: The city of Santa Cruz, also part of the Central Coast Broadband Consortium (CCBC), adopted the Santa Cruz county’s ordinance in 2014, which in turn, was based on the city of San Francisco’s Dig One policy. It requires that any entity proposing construction projects in public rights-of-way for utility improvements also install conduit or other telecommunications equipment when practical and feasible. City staff will work with contractors to identify the most cost-effective approach to installing conduit to meet the city requirements and will notify and coordinate with other telecom companies to join the project. 
SAN BENITO COUNTY, CA
  • LawMulti-use streets policy
  • Date enacted: 2015
  • Description: San Benito County, part of the CCBC, implemented a Dig Once practice as part of its multi-use streets policy. It requires county roadway construction projects to include installation of underground utility conduit. The county, which is part of a municipal broadband network, can then use the conduit to expand the network. The county may also utilize the CCBC’s shadow conduit policy, which recommends trenching digging projects include a 60-day window so other telecom or utility providers who may be interested in installing conduit at the same time may be notified. The county encourages local jurisdictions to adopt similar policies. 
CHICAGO, IL
  • Description: The City of Chicago has created a specific office that handles coordinating construction projects across agencies and companies to minimize disruptions to the public. The Project Coordination Office, within the city’s DOT, was formed in 2012 at the direction of Mayor Rahm Emanuel to coordinate projects within public rights-of-way between different service providers and utilities. In 2013, the mayor expanded the scope of the office to include telecommunications. The office has helped the city save an estimated $150 million in construction costs since 2012.
CELINA, TX
  • LawSubdivision Ordinance; Division 4. Design Standards; Section 10.03.126: Improvements; Subsection 10.03.126(i)
  • Date enacted: 2017
  • Description: The city of Celina has adopted a conduit ordinance that requires any city-led or developer-led construction project that includes underground excavation to install conduit and fiber-optic cable at the same time to accommodate future telecommunications uses. Private developers must pay for the conduit installation, which then becomes the property of the city. The city also requires that telecom companies looking to install fiber make use of the city’s fiber assets when available first and pay fees to the city for access to the infrastructure. 
MOUNT VERNON, WA
EL DORADO COUNTY, CA
  • Law: Broadband Infrastructure Installation Policy
  • Date enacted: 2018
  • Description: El Dorado County adopted a conduit installation requirement for capital improvement projects. The policy requires construction projects from the county’s Department of Transportation, the Facilities Division and the Parks, Trails and Rivers Division to include installing conduit when digging trenches or excavating underground as part of the construction. 
HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CA
  • LawGeneral Plan 
  • Date enacted: 2017
  • Description: Humboldt county’s 2017 updated general plan includes provisions to expand broadband access that include implementing Dig Once policies. The plan recommends that new residential and commercial development projects include requiring developers to install conduit within joint utility trenches for future telecommunications use. It also recommends flexibility in conduit placement requirements in order to allow for retrofitting of communications systems. 
POULSBO, WA
  • Law: 12.02.010 Construction and development standards
  • Date enacted: 2003 
  • Description: Poulsbo requires any new public street construction, by either the city or a private developer, to include the installation of conduit that can accommodate two telecom companies’ fiber infrastructures. The law requires that the conduit be dedicated to the city upon completion and any telecom company looking to deploy infrastructure must first lease conduit space from the city if available.

 

SECTION 5: CONDUIT NETWORK SYSTEMS

A well-engineered plan will ensure the application can achieve benefits well in excess of the costs of the plan and the conduit network system deployment. Generally, the actual cost of the conduit network systems is only approximately three percent of the overall project costs. Conduit is widely used in most industries, accommodating simpler initial installations and providing a Dig Once permanent pathway.

It is common for cables to be buried in ducts to provide further protection, allowing for simple repair, and potentially providing upgrade paths. In some circumstances, ducts are only used for sections of deployment (e.g. under roads or rivers) where excavation would pose a difficulty, but increasingly ducts are being used for the entire route. This is possible because conduits can provide several benefits without a significant project cost impact.

Brief History of Conduit Network Systems

In the early to mid-1980s, tremendous growth occurred in the deployment of fiber optic cables, linking major metropolitan areas. Fiber optic cables were quickly becoming the technology of choice for streaming huge amounts of voice, video, and data. These cables were installed in very long lengths, up to 30,000 feet, with the goal of using as few splice points as possible to minimize signal attenuation. Because of the more fragile qualities of these long, thin strings of glass, individually no thicker than a strand of human hair, they needed more protection and different handling procedures than traditional jacketed metallic cables. There was an immediate need for a conduit system that offers improved installation efficiencies and cable protection.

Existing conduit network systems typically were 3.5 inches to 6 inches in diameter to accommodate the very large diameter of copper cables that filled the duct banks. As copper cables were being replaced with fiber optic cables, which are much smaller in diameter, smaller high-density polyethylene (HDPE) conduits ranging from 1 inch to 1.25 inches were pulled into the vacated conduit creating multiple pathways to be used for initial and future fiber optic cable placement and for redundancies if a cable got damaged.

This new method of deployment using MicroDucts in existing pathways was called “innerducts” and is still used today. Additionally, now conduit suppliers offer bundled MicroDucts under one oversheath for ease of placement and to maximize fiber count in limited underground and aerial spaces. Multiple variations of standard HDPE conduit and bundled HDPE MicroDucts are available. The installation methods and tools are the same for both.

In addition to traditional trenching, over the years newer installation methods also evolved to minimize the above and below ground surface damage, restoration requirements, and disruption to traffic: plowing, horizontal directional drilling (HDD), and MicroTrenching.

In 1999, new technology was introduced to help solve the issue of overcrowded right-of-ways. Using the same installation methods and tools as traditional HDPE standard conduit, bundled MicroDucts under one oversheath maximized the fiber count in the same space. As technology advances, fiber optic cables are higher capacity in a smaller size, called MicroCables, and conduits are following in size, called MicroDucts. Multiple configurations allow for easy connection to existing networks and efficient transition to current technology.

All conduit is not created equal, and the type of conduit can determine which type of fiber cable you need. Conduit has an inner diameter (ID) and an outer diameter (OD); the standard is to refer to the outer diameter when describing the conduit. A common engineering practice is to not fill each conduit subduct more than about 65 percent full of fiber cables. This space is necessary to air-jet, or pull, the fiber through the conduit without damaging the fiber.

As fiber technology continues to evolve, the fiber cable diameter will continue to get smaller. Microfiber cables can fit many strands of fiber in small diameter conduit. MicroTechnology continues to improve. For decades, conduit has been the preferred manner of installing fiber cable underground and now even in aerial applications.

Installation Advantages

It is easier to install, as it can be put in section-by-section between access points, with the fiber cable later air-assisted and pushed or pulled in as a continuous run.

It is also easier to handle unexpected changes in the route, such as having to go around an obstacle, as compared to directly placing fiber cable.

The continuous run of fiber cable can help reduce the cost of splice points and improve the fiber loss budget and performance for the total system.

The conduit itself can be locatable, which allows the fiber cable to be constructed with only non-conductive dielectric materials which can allow easier access to the fibers.

Protection of the Fiber

The conduit provides mechanical protection of the fiber cable, both during installation of the fiber cable and over the entire life of the fiber cable.

Typically, direct buried fiber cables require additional design enhancements to withstand environmental conditions, whereas the conduit can provide that environmental, tensile and crush protection itself. This enables the fiber density to increase significantly for a given outer diameter cable.

Permanent Pathways

Conduit provides for an always-present pathway for upgrades and changes whenever needed. For example:

  1. Remove and change out a fiber cable that is damaged
  2. Swap out with improved technology
  3. Use the additional empty conduits for increasing capacity
  4. Re-route the conduit pathway if there is a change in route

The Dig Once legislation stresses the importance of burying conduit once, with the possibility to add new cables, upgrade existing ones, and increasing capacity. By planning for the future by installing extra permanent pathways, the networks are able to adapt to changes more quickly.

Communication Needs

Communication needs could be for telecommunications, cameras, data transfer, security and many others.

Revenue Opportunity

There is a financial opportunity that network and right-of-way owners are realizing and planning whereby empty pathways can be used, to grant access to difficult right-of-ways or be leased to carriers. 

By installing multiple MicroDucts, take full advantage of the new high-density MicroCables that fiber cable providers are shrinking and improving year over year.

It is important to realize that there are different types of conduits suited for different purposes:

  • In a more traditional system, 1, 2, or 3 standard conduits could be installed together. However, the outside diameter of these conventional ducts is often quite large compared to the smaller outer diameter of MicroDucts now available. While these large dimensions, perhaps 1.5 inches or 2 inches in diameter, are still used in the industry, they were developed at a time when fiber cables were of much larger diameter with lower fiber density. Since typically only one cable is placed per duct, they actually limit the number of fiber cables that can be placed in a right-of-way.
  • Smaller diameter MicroDucts are designed to take advantage of the advances the higher fiber density MicroCables that have much smaller outer diameter. Amazingly, there are 288 and 432 fiber cable diameters on the market on the order of 8 to 10mm, so by sizing the MicroDucts for better space utilization, you can achieve much greater overall fiber density in any right-of-way space.

About Dura-Line

At Dura-Line we aspire to a more connected world, because we believe every company, every community, every person deserves the chance to advance their lives through better access to high-speed broadband. Strengthening our fiber optic network and conduit system infrastructure is critical to supporting the next wave of digitization. And, Dura-Line is at the forefront of the industry creating strategic solutions that solve the issue of the unpredictable needs of tomorrow’s fiber cable requirements.

As a TL 9000 and ISO 9001 rated manufacturer, Dura-Line takes pride in our state-of-the-art quality products and being recognized a key partner with all of the major telecommunications companies across the world. In one year, Dura-Line produced over 1.4 billion feet of digital network infrastructure. Through our innovative product solutions and unparalleled customer insight, we are the ones who enable the physical build-out of this new technology realm that impacts education, healthcare, agriculture, energy, transportation, industry, and more.

SILICORE™

Several advanced manufacturing techniques set Dura-line apart as an industry-leader, including low friction SILICORE™ permanently lubricated lining. SILICORE™ is proven to reduce installation time, thus reducing installation costs.

Advantages of Dura-Line’s FuturePath (multi-bundled MicroDuct conduit)

Dura-Line manufactures FuturePath, which are smaller MicroDucts are packaged together under one sheath. There are combinations of FuturePath all the way from 2-MicroDucts, under a single sheath to 24-MicroDucts under a single sheath. Other configurations have mixed sizes of MicroDucts and standard conduit to accommodate both smaller and larger diameter cables.

Dura-Line’s FuturePath HDPE Product Line is Sustainable

  • Supports Dig Once initiatives
  • Saves space in overcrowded right-of-ways
  • Requires fewer and smaller handholes
  • Reduces manpower and machine power for installation
  • Reduces fuel consumption, gas emissions, and lower material handling requirements
  • Lessens soil displacement Environmental Benefits of HDPE
  • Non-leaching
  • Flexible, non-rusting materials minimizes leaks common in corroded steel pathways
  • Resin and pipe have a superior resistance to failure, corrosion, tuberculation, deposits, and rapid crack propagation (RCP)
  • Modern manufacturing methods allow for hundreds, or even thousands, of feet of continuous extrusion, which results in fewer joints
  • High performance in extreme temperatures, which greatly reduces compromised pathways Reduced transportation, handling, and installation due to quick installation with less heavy machinery which reduces fuel and labor usage as well as ground disturbance when compared with installation of steel counterparts
  • Joints typically use a mechanical coupler, rather than a glue-based solvent which gives off noxious fumes
  • Fewer and smaller handholes required
  • Low lifecycle costs
  • Useful life of HDPE is estimated at 50+ years
  • Studies have shown that HDPE can withstand scratching and gouging up to 10-20 percent with no detrimental effects to the long-term performance of the pipe
  • Versatility of design allows for multiple applications in several industries

 

SECTION 6: ADDED VALUE OF FIBER OPTIC SENSING OPPORTUNITIES

Distributed Acoustic Sensing in Conduit

Optical fiber sensing (FOS) interrogator companies have been installing commercial sensing system in conduit of many years. Information from several market leading companies has indicated that as approximately 50 percent of sensing systems are comprised of fiber cables installed within conduit pathways. The reasons for doing this included conduit pathways provide tremendous added protection, easier installation, flexibility for changes, repairs, and technology upgrades, as well as added capacity for additional use and monetization. When it comes to distributed acoustic sensing, however, an additional reason is that commercially sensitive systems work extremely well in conduit. FOS use is increasing in many vertical markets, with new applications and use cases growing with experience. The following presents an overview of common applications and finding relative to sensing using the advantages of conduit.

Predominant Vertical Markets

  • The Security and Asset Integrity Market
  • The Pipeline Market
  • Emerging Smart City applications

Monitor Assets

  • Manual excavation (perimeter security)
  • People walking
  • Traffic flow
  • Leak prevention (oil and gas line)

Research Shows

  • Standard telecom-grade fiber is well suited for DAS installations
  • Cable design specifically engineered for FOS purposes does impact DAS performance
  • For current commercial quality Fiber Optic Sensing systems, there is a negligible difference between performance of a cable in a duct and a cable not in a duct. The protection and advantage the conduit offers far outweighs any difference in signal sensitivity in most all commercial cases.
  • The cable to conduit fill-ratio should be considered when selecting a conduit and cable mix, in that an overly large conduit with too much air gap may impact performance. The conduit can be sized for both easily installation through jetting or pulling into the conduit, with sensing consideration also accommodated.
  • Typical cable Installed in conduit: Gel-filled, loose tube, unarmored