Technical Papers
Jan 27, 2020

Evaluation of Carbon Footprint of Pipeline Materials during Installation, Operation, and Disposal Phases

Publication: Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice
Volume 11, Issue 2

Abstract

Most of the pipelines in the US are rapidly reaching the end of their useful service life. Now they need replacing or rehabilitating. In general, selection of a pipeline installation method is solved by selecting the lowest cost method; however, with an increase in public concerns about reducing emissions to the environment generated by human activities, other factors should be considered while choosing the pipe material and the installation method for a new pipeline: direct cost, social cost, and environmental impact. This study focuses on the environmental impact during installation, operation, and disposal phases of the pipeline life cycle. The life cycle of a pipeline can be categorized into four phases: fabrication, installation, operation, and disposal. The fabrication stage, which is the first phase of the pipeline life cycle, was examined in a previous study, and the results showed that prestressed concrete cylinder pipes (PCCPs) are the most environmentally friendly compared with polyvinylchloride (PVC), high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipes, and cured-in-place pipes (CIPPs). This study includes the pipeline installation phase, operation phase, and disposal phase. The major construction activities in the installation stage are transporting pipes and equipment to the job site, excavation, loading, backfilling, compaction, and repaving. The energy consumed in the operation phase includes pumping energy and pipe cleaning. For the disposal phase, the study will consist of the energy consumed for disposal of the material of the pipes, which cannot be recycled. The objective of this study is to quantify the carbon footprint and to analyze the environmental sustainability of 30 m (100 ft) of pipeline during the installation, operation, and disposal phases. For the study, a pipeline installation analysis and consideration of CO2 emissions was conducted for three different installation methods: open cut, pipe bursting, and CIPP. The study focuses on a large-diameter 90 cm (36-in.) sewer pressure pipe operating at 690 kPa (100 psi) internal pressure for 100 years of operation. The pipeline materials included in this study are PCCP, PVC, HDPE, and CIPP. The results show that PVC pipe has a lower environmental impact than PCCP, HDPE, or CIPP.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

References

Alsadi, A., J. Matthews, and E. Matthews. 2018. “Evaluation of the environmental sustainability during fabrication of commonly used pipe materials.” In Pipelines 2018: Utility Engineering, Surveying, and Multidisciplinary Topics, 168–176. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Alsadi, A., J. Matthews, and E. Matthews. 2019. “Environmental impact assessment of the fabrication of pipe rehabilitation.” J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 11 (1): 05019004. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000395.
Ariaratnam, S. T., and S. S. Sihabuddin. 2009. “Comparison of emitted emissions between trenchless pipe replacement.” J. Green Build. 4 (2): 126–140. https://doi.org/10.3992/jgb.4.2.126.
Ashby, M. F. 2009. Materials and the environment. London: Elsevier.
Bueno, S. M. 2010. “Choosing your pipe.” In Trenchless technology pipe selection guide. Peninsula, OH: Bernard P. Krzys.
Chilana, L., A. H. Bhatt, M. Najafi, and M. Sattler. 2016. “Comparison of carbon footprints of steel versus concrete pipelines for water transmission.” J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 66 (5): 518–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2016.1154487.
EPA. 2013. Energy efficiency in water and wastewater facilities-A guide to developing and implementing greenhouse gas reduction programs. Washington, DC: EPA.
EPA. 2014. eGRID2014 US grid intensity. Washington, DC: EPA.
Gupta, R. S. 2008. Hydrology and hydraulic systems. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Hammond, G., and C. Jones. 2011. Inventory of carbon and energy (ICE), version 2.0. Bath, UK: Sustainable Energy Research Team, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Univ. of Bath.
ImpEE Project. 2005. Recycling of plastics. Cambridge, UK: Univ. of Cambridge.
Joshi, A. 2012. “A carbon dioxide comparison of open cut and pipe bursting.” M.S. thesis, College of Technology, Architecture and Applied Engineering, Bowling Green State Univ.
Khan, L. R., and K. F. Tee. 2015. “Quantification and comparison of carbon emissions for flexible underground pipelines.” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 42 (10): 728–736.
Matthews, J. 2014. Demonstration and evaluation of innovative wastewater main rehabilitation technologies. London: IWA Publishing.
Matthews, J., E. Allouche, and R. Sterling. 2015. “Social cost impact assessment of pipeline infrastructure projects.” Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 50 (1): 196–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.10.001.
McPherson, D. L. 2009. “Choice of pipeline material: PVC or Di using a life cycle cost analysis.” In Proc., Pipelines 2009 Conf., 36. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Morrison, R., and L. Wang. 2010. State of technology report for force main rehabilitation. Cincinnati: USEPA, National Risk Management Research Laboratory Water Supply and Water Resources Division.
Najafi, M. 2005. Trenchless technology: Pipeline and utility design, construction, and renewal. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Piratla, K., S. Ariaratnam, and A. Cohen. 2012. “Estimation of CO2 emissions from the life cycle of a potable water pipeline project.” J. Manage. Eng. 28 (1). https://doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ME.1943-5479.0000069.
Simicevic, J., and R. L. Sterling. 2001. Guidelines for pipe bursting. Vicksburg, MI: USACE.
Speight, V. L. 2014. “Impact of pipe roughness on pumping energy in complex distribution systems.” Proc. Eng. 70: 1575–1581.
SSC (Sustainable Solutions Corporation). 2017. Life cycle assessment of PVC water and sewer pipe and comparative sustainability analysis of pipe materials. Royersford, PA: Sustainable Solution.
Tavakoli, R., M. Najafi, A. Tabesh, and T. Ashoori. 2017. “Comparison of carbon footprint of trenchless and open-cut methods for underground freight transportation.” In Pipelines 2017, 45–55. Reston, VA: ASCE.
USEPA. 2005. Emission facts. Washington, DC: USEPA.
Williams, S. E., S. C. Davis, and R. G. Boundy. 2017. Transportation energy data book. 36 ed. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Lab.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice
Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice
Volume 11Issue 2May 2020

History

Received: Sep 21, 2018
Accepted: Apr 22, 2019
Published online: Jan 27, 2020
Published in print: May 1, 2020
Discussion open until: Jun 27, 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Alhossin A. Alsadi [email protected]
Ph.D. Student, Graduate Research and Teaching Assistant, Louisiana Tech Univ., Ruston, LA 71272. Email: [email protected]
Associate Professor, Director of Trenchless Technology Center, Louisiana Tech Univ., Ruston, LA 71272 (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1478-5182. Email: [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Download citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

Cited by

View Options

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share