State-of-the-Art Reviews
Mar 9, 2020

Environmental Impacts of Conventional Open-Cut Pipeline Installation and Trenchless Technology Methods: State-of-the-Art Review

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

Abstract

With growing concerns about global warming and greenhouse gases (GHG), there is an urgent need to quantify and reduce the environmental impact (EI) of pipeline installation (PI). The most common and popular criterion used to describe sustainability efforts from the environmental perspective is the concept of carbon footprint (CF). A CF is the total set of GHG emissions caused by an organization, event, or product. It is expressed in terms of the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2), or its equivalent of other emitted GHGs. The open-cut pipeline installation (OCPI) method involves digging a trench along the length of the proposed pipeline, placing the pipe in the trench on suitable bedding materials and then embedding and backfilling. The trenchless method (TM) involves methods, materials, and equipment capable of the installation of new, replacing old, or renewing existing pipelines with minimal disruption to surface traffic, business, and subsurface. Choosing an appropriate low-carbon emission method to install or renew pipelines is an important task and may consider environmental concerns due to several energy-consuming activities, including material manufacturing, transportation, and installation. Because essentially, every PI and renewal project impacts the environment, it is of utmost importance for the pipeline project owner and the design engineer to evaluate this impact and take necessary actions to minimize any negative consequence. The objective of this paper is to present a literature review on progress acquired over the years in understanding GHG emissions from OCPI and TMs and to discuss a framework for CF estimation. Published papers were identified that reported GHG emissions and CF of the open-cut (OC) method and TM over a period from 1989 through 2019. This literature review suggests that for most of these PI and renewal projects, the material production phase consumes a large amount of energy and is a major contributor of GHG emissions. Higher GHG emissions in the OCPI method is a result of longer project durations and more equipment requirements compared with TMs where a smaller footprint or excavation area is used. Early phases of project planning should include appropriate ecological decisions consistent with the life cycle cost (LCC) and CF considerations. Pipe material and outside diameter should be considered during the installation phase by OC and TM to allow a detailed evaluation and comparison of their sustainability impacts. Incorporation of additional factors, such as cost and duration of the project, into the environmental analysis is recommended for the development of a comprehensive decision-making model to select the most environment-friendly PI method.

Get full access to this article

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

Data Availability Statement

No data, models, or code were generated or used during the study.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Center for Underground Infrastructure Research and Education (CUIRE), Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Arlington, for funding this study.

References

Ajdari, E. 2016. “Volatile organic compound (VOC) emission during cured-in-place-pipe (CIPP) sewer pipe rehabilitation.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of New Orleans.
Alsadi, A. 2019. “Evaluation of carbon footprint during the life-cycle of four different pipe materials.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Louisiana Tech.
Ariaratnam, S. T. 2011. “Sustainable development through innovative underground infrastructure construction practices.” In Proc., Int. Conf. on Structural Engineering Construction and Management. Moratuwa, Sri Lanka: Univ. of Moratuwa.
Ariaratnam, S. T., S. J. Lueke, and K. J. Michael. 2014. “Current trends in pipe bursting for renewal of underground infrastructure systems in North America.” Tunnelling Underground Space Technol. 39 (Jan): 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2012.04.003.
Ariaratnam, S. T., K. Piratla, A. Cohen, and M. Olson. 2013. “Quantification of sustainability index for underground utility infrastructure projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 139 (12): A4013002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000763.
Ariaratnam, S. T., and S. S. Sihabuddin. 2009. “Comparison of emitted emissions between trenchless pipe replacement and open cut utility construction.” J. Green Build. 4 (2): 126–140. https://doi.org/10.3992/jgb.4.2.126.
ASCE. 2019. Guidelines for the sustainable design of pipelines. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Bennett, R. D., T. S. Ariaratnam, and K. Wallin. 2011. Pipe bursting good practice. 2nd ed. Liverpool, NY: North American Society for Trenchless Technology.
Berg, W., R. Brunsch, H. J. Hellebrand, and J. Kern. 2006. “Methodology for measuring gaseous emissions from agricultural buildings, manure, and soil surfaces.” In Proc., Workshop on Agricultural Air Quality. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State Univ.
Bottero, M., and D. Peila. 2005. “The use of the analytic hierarchy process for the comparison between microtunneling and trench excavation.” Tunnelling Underground Space Technol. 20 (6): 501–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2005.03.004.
Brown, M. A., F. Southworth, and A. Sarzynski. 2009. “The geography of metropolitan carbon footprints.” Policy and Society 27 (4): 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2009.01.001.
BSI (British Standards Institute). 2008. Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. PAS-2050. London: BSI.
Carbon Trust. 2007a. Carbon footprint measurement methodology version 1.1. London: Carbon Trust.
Carbon Trust. 2007b. Carbon footprinting: An introduction for organizations. London: Carbon Trust.
CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project). 2008. “Carbon disclosure project report 2008: Global 500, on behalf of 385 investors with assets of $57 trillion.” Accessed August 30, 2019. http://www.cdproject.net/reports.asp.
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.
Chirulli, R. 2011. Manuale di Tecnologie No-dig Standard Edition. Milan, Italy: Nodig.it.
Clune, J. S., and S. Lockrey. 2014. “Developing environmental sustainability strategies, the double diamond method of LCA and design thinking: A case study from aged care.” J. Cleaner Prod. 85 (Dec): 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.003.
Craeynest, L., and D. Streatfeild. 2008. The World Bank and its carbon footprint: Why the World Bank is still far from being an environment bank. Godalming, UK: World Wildlife Fund.
Dada, A., T. Staake, and E. Fleisch. 2008. “The potential of UBICOMP technologies to determine the carbon footprints of products.” In Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Pervasive Computing. Zürich, Switzerland: ETH Zürich.
Dimaranan, B. V. 2006. Globaltrade, assistance, and production: The GTA P6 database. West Lafayette, IN: Center for Global Trade Analysis.
Du, F., G. J. Woods, D. Kang, K. E. Lansey, and R. G. Arnold. 2013. “Life cycle analysis for water and wastewater pipe materials.” J. Environ. Eng. 139 (5): 703–711. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000638.
Filion, Y. R., H. L. MacLean, and B. W. Karney. 2004. “Life-cycle energy analysis of a water distribution system.” J. Infrastruct. Syst. 10 (3): 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2004)10:3(119).
Fröling, M., and M. Svanström. 2005. “Life cycle assessment of the district heat distribution system, part 2: Network construction.” Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 10 (6): 425–435. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2004.12.195.
González, M. J., and J. G. Navarro. 2006. “Assessment of the decrease of CO2 emissions in the construction field through the selection of materials: Practical case study of three houses of low environmental impact.” Build. Environ. 41 (7): 902–909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.04.006.
Gurney, K. R., D. L. Mendoza, Y. Zhou, M. L. Fischcer, C. C. Miller, and S. Geethkumar. 2009. “High resolution fossil fuel combustion CO2 emission fluxes for the United States.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (14): 5535–5541. https://doi.org/10.1021/es900806c.
Haag, A. 2007. “The crucial measurement.” Nature 450 (7171): 785. https://doi.org/10.1038/450785a.
Hunt, D. V. L., D. Nash, and C. D. F. Rogers. 2014. “Sustainable utility placement via multi-utility tunnels.” Tunneling Underground Space Technol. 39 (Jan): 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2012.02.001.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006. National greenhouse gas inventories: Land use, land use change and forestry. Hayama, Japan: Institute of Global Environmental Strategies.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate change 2007: Synthesis report: Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report. Geneva: IPCC.
ISO. 2006a. Environmental management, life cycle assessment—Principle and framework. ISO 14040. Geneva: ISO.
ISO. 2006b. Environmental management, life cycle assessment—Requirements and guidelines. ISO 14044. Geneva: ISO.
ISTT (International Society for Trenchless Technology). 2011. Trenchless technology guidelines. London: ISTT.
Joshi, A. 2012. “A carbon dioxide comparison of open cut and pipe bursting.” Master thesis, College of Technology, Architecture, and Applied Engineering, Bowling Green State Univ.
Jung, Y. J., and S. K. Sinha. 2007. “Evaluation of trenchless technology methods for municipal infrastructure system.” J. Infrastruct. Syst. 13 (2): 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2007)13:2(144).
Kamat, S. M. 2011. “Comparison of dust generation from open cut and trenchless technology methods for utility construction.” M.S. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Texas at Arlington.
Kaushal, V. 2019. “Comparison of environmental and social costs of trenchless cured-in-place pipe renewal method with open-cut pipeline replacement for sanitary sewers.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Texas at Arlington.
Kaushal, V., M. Najafi, J. Love, and S. R. Qasim. 2020. “Microbiologically induced deterioration and protection of concrete in municipal sewerage system: Technical review.” J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 11 (1): 03119002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000424.
Kaushal, V., M. Najafi, M. Sattler, and K. Schug. 2019. “Review of literature on chemical emissions and worker exposures associated with cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) installation.” In Proc., ASCE Pipelines 2019. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Kelly, L. M., P. B. Shepson, B. P. Strim, A. Karion, C. Sweeney, and K. R. Gurney. 2009. “Aircraft-based measurements of the carbon footprint of Indianapolis.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (20): 7816–7823. https://doi.org/10.1021/es901326b.
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. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2015-0156.
Kyung, D., D. Kim, S. Yi, W. Choi, and W. Lee. 2017. “Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from sewer pipeline system.” Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22 (12): 1901–1911. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1288-9.
Latake, P. T., P. Pawar, and A. C. Ranveer. 2015. “The greenhouse effect and its impacts on environment.” Int. J. Innovative Res. Creative Technol. 1 (3): 333–337.
Lenzen, M. 2000. “Errors in conventional and input-output based life-cycle inventories.” J. Ind. Ecol. 4 (4): 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1162/10881980052541981.
Loss, A., S. Toniolo, A. Mazzi, A. Manzardo, and A. Scipioni. 2018. “LCA comparison of traditional open cut and pipe bursting systems for relining water pipelines.” Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 128 (Jan): 458–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.08.001.
Lueke, S. J., and T. S. Ariaratnam. 2001. “Rehabilitation of underground infrastructure utilizing trenchless pipe replacement.” Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 6 (1): 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0680(2001)6:1(25).
Lynas, M. 2007. Carbon counter. Glasgow, UK: Harper Collins.
Maldikar, S. 2010. “An investigation of productivity loss due to outdoor noise conditions.” M.S. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Texas at Arlington.
Matthews, S. C., C. T. Hendrickson, and C. L. Weber. 2008. “The importance of carbon footprint estimation boundaries.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 (16): 5839–5842. https://doi.org/10.1021/es703112w.
Mohit, S., M. A. N. Monfared, C. Kang, and A. Bayat. 2017. “Comparative study of greenhouse gas emissions from hand tunneling and pilot tube method underground construction methods.” J. Green Building 12 (4): 54–69. https://doi.org/10.3992/1943-4618.12.4.54.
Monfared, M. A. N. 2018. “Comparison of trenchless technologies and open cut methods in new residential land development.” Master’s thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Alberta.
Najafi, M. 2005. Trenchless technology: Pipeline and utility design, construction, and renewal. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Najafi, M. 2011. Pipeline rehabilitation systems for service life extension-chapter 10. Arlington, TX: Univ. of Texas at Arlington.
Najafi, M., M. Sattler, K. Schug, V. Kaushal, and G. Iyer. 2018. “Evaluation of potential release of organic chemicals in the steam exhaust and other release points during pipe rehabilitation using the trenchless cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) method.” Accessed August 2, 2019. https://www.uta.edu/ce/cuire/NASSCO%20CUIRE%20Final%20Report%2004-30-2018%20LEO%20MN.pdf.
Pandey, D., M. Agrawal, and J. S. Pandey. 2011. “Carbon footprint: Current methods of estimation.” Environ. Monit. Assess. 178 (1–4): 135–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-010-1678-y.
Parvez, J. 2018. “Life cycle assessment of PVC water and sewer pipe and comparative sustainability analysis of pipe materials.” Proc. Water Environ. Fed. 2018 (7): 5493–5518.
Patel, J. 2006. “Green sky thinking.” Environ. Bus. 122 (6): 32.
Perzon, M., K. Johansson, and M. Fröling. 2007. “Life cycle assessment of district heat distribution in suburban areas using PEX pipes insulated with expanded polystyrene.” Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12 (5): 317–327. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.08.264.
Piratla, R. K., T. 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): 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000069.
Rameil, M. 2007. Handbook of pipe bursting practice. Essen, Germany: Vulkan Verlag.
Rehan, R., and M. Knight. 2007. Do trenchless pipeline construction methods reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Waterloo, Canada: Centre for the Advancement of Trenchless Technologies, Waterloo Univ.
Rudolph, L., and C. Harrison. 2016. A physician’s guide to climate change, health and equity. Oakland, CA: Public Health Institute.
Russo, D., and C. Rizzi. 2014. “Structural optimization strategies to design green products.” Comput. Ind. 65 (3): 470–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2013.12.009.
Serajiantehrani, R., S. Janbaz, M. Najafi, S. Korky, and M. Malek Mohammadi. 2019. “Impact of tunnel boring machine advance rate for pipeline construction projects.” In Proc., UESI Pipelines Conf. 2019. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Sihabuddin, S., and S. T. Ariaratnam. 2009a. “Quantification of carbon footprint on underground utility projects.” In Proc., Construction Research Congress 2009: Building a Sustainable Future, 618–627. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Sihabuddin, S. S., and S. T. Ariaratnam. 2009b. “Methodology for estimating emissions in underground utility construction operations.” J. Eng. Des. Technol. 7 (1): 37–64. https://doi.org/10.1108/17260530910947259.
Simicevic, J., and R. L. Sterling. 2001. Guidelines for pipe bursting. Ruston, LA: Engineering Research and Development Center, USACE.
Strutt, J., S. Wilson, H. L. Darby, A. Shaw, and A. Byers. 2008. “Assessing the carbon footprint of water production.” J. Am. Water Works Assn. 100 (6): 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1551-8833.2008.tb09654.x.
USCCTP (US Climate Change Technology Program). 2005. Technology options for near and long-term future. Washington, DC: USCCTP.
USEPA. 2010a. Exhaust and crankcase emission factors for nonroad engine modeling compression ignition. EPA-420-R-10-018. Washington, DC: USEPA.
USEPA. 2010b. Median life, annual activity, and load factor values for nonroad engine emissions modeling. EPA-420-R-10-016. Washington, DC: USEPA.
VanBriesen, J. M., D. A. Dzombak, and L. Zhang. 2014. “Sustainable urban water supply infrastructure.” In Comprehensive water quality and purification, edited by S. Ahuja, 427–449. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Venkatesh, G., and H. Brattebo. 2011. “Energy consumption, costs and environmental impacts for urban water cycle services: Case study of Oslo (Norway).” Energy 36 (2): 792–800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.12.040.
Wiedmann, T., and J. Minx. 2007. A definition of carbon footprint. Durham, UK: ISAUK Research & Consulting.
Windsperger, A., S. Steinlechner, and F. Schneider. 1999. Investigation of European life cycle assessment studies of pipes cycle assessment studies of pipes made of different materials for water supply and sewer systems—A critical comparison. St. Polten, Austria: European Plastic Pipe and Fitting Association, Institute for Industrial Ecology.
WRI/WBCSD (World Resource Institute/World Business Council for Sustainable Development). 2004. The greenhouse gas protocol: A corporate accounting and reporting standard. Geneva: WRI/WBCSD.
Zaneldin, K. E. 2007. “Trenchless construction: An emerging technology in United Arab Emirates.” Tunnelling Underground Space Technol. 22 (1): 96–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2006.04.001.

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

Published online: Mar 9, 2020
Published in print: May 1, 2020
Discussion open until: Aug 9, 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Adjunct Professor and Postdoctoral Research Associate and Fellow, Center for Underground Infrastructure Research and Education, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Texas at Arlington, P.O. Box 19308, Arlington, TX 76019 (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7922-2746. Email: [email protected]
Mohammad Najafi, Ph.D., F.ASCE [email protected]
P.E.
Professor and Director, Center for Underground Infrastructure Research and Education, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Texas at Arlington, P.O. Box 19308, Arlington, TX 76019. Email: [email protected]
Ramtin Serajiantehrani, S.M.ASCE [email protected]
Ph.D. Candidate and Graduate Research and Teaching Assistant, Center for Underground Infrastructure Research and Education, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Texas at Arlington, P.O. Box 19308, Arlington, TX 76019. 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