Abstract
The Pipeline Assessment and Certification Program (PACP) was developed by the National Association of Sewer Service Companies, the industry-accepted protocol for condition rating sewer pipes in the US. The PACP method relies exclusively on visual inspections performed using closed-circuit television (CCTV), where certified operators observe existing structural and operation and maintenance (O&M) defects limitation of the PACP method is that it does not use pipe characteristics, depth, soil type, surface conditions, pipe criticality, and capacity, nor the distribution of structural defects or history of preventative maintenance to determine the condition rating of the sewer pipe segment. Therefore, this research addresses the limitations of the PACP with the development of a new wastewater pipe rating system known as the comprehensive rating (CR) system. The CR evaluation system is based on a commonly used decision-making approach known as the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to analyze problems and issues. The new CR model incorporates pipe characteristics (age, corrosion, diameter, and shape), external characteristics (depth, soil type, traffic loading, waste type, seismic zone), and hydraulic characteristics (structural score, O&M score, and repair history). The results showed a below-average validity percentage because linear regression assumes a linear relationship between the input and output variables but the relationship between the response and the predictor is not linear.The CR methodology can be improved by increasing the number and variability of experts who evaluate the condition of existing sewer pipes, enhancing geospatial data for locational accuracy, and establishing evaluation standards for inspectors to minimize human error. More research is needed to determine a suitable nonlinear relation that can be used to model data from this new comprehensive rating system.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or codes that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Anderson, S., and C. Hyer. 2014. Innovative methods to assess sewer pipe risk and improve replacement planning decisions. Bath, MI: Michigan Water Environment Association.
Angkasuwansiri, T., and S. Sinha. 2015. “Development of a robust wastewater pipe performance index.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 29 (1): 04014042. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000499.
ASCE. 2021. “2021 infrastructure report card.” Accessed Novermber 11, 2021. https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org.
Atalah, A., and E. Ampadu. 2006. “Gravity sewer installations using the arrowbore method: Case history.” In Pipelines 2006: Service to the owner, 1–8. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Balmer, R., and K. Meers. 1981. “Money down the drain 1. The sewer renewals project of the severn-trent water authority.” Publ. Health Eng. 9 (1): 7–10.
Betgeri, S. N., and D. B. S. JCM. 2021. “Comparison of sewer conditions ratings with repair recommendation reports.” In Proc., North American Society for Trenchless Technology (NASTT) 2021. Bothell, WA: NASTT.
Betgeri, S. N., S. R. Vadyala, D. Mattews, C. John, and D. Lu. 2022a. “Wastewater pipe rating model using natural language processing.” Preprint, submitted Feburary 22, 2022. http://arxiv.org/abs/2202.13871.
Betgeri, S. N., S. R. Vadyala, J. C. Matthews, M. Madadi, and G. Vladeanu. 2022b. “Wastewater pipe condition rating model using K-nearest neighbors.” Preprint, submitted Feburary 22, 2022. http://arxiv.org/abs/2202.11049.
Chughtai, F., and T. Zayed. 2007. “Structural condition models for sewer pipeline.” In Pipelines 2007: Advances and experiences with trenchless pipeline projects, 1–11. Reston, VA: ASCE.
DeBoda, T., and J. Bayer. 2015. “Benefits of PACP® version 7.0 update NASSCO.” In Pipelines 2015, 878–886. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Ennaouri, I., and M. Fuamba. 2013. “New integrated condition-assessment model for combined storm-sewer systems.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 139 (1): 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000217.
Hawari, A., F. Alkadour, M. Elmasry, and T. Zayed. 2017. “Simulation-based condition assessment model for sewer pipelines.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 31 (1): 04016066. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000914.
Kumar, S. S., M. Wang, D. M. Abraham, M. R. Jahanshahi, T. Iseley, and J. C. Cheng. 2020. “Deep learning–based automated detection of sewer defects in CCTV videos.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 34 (1): 04019047. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000866.
Municipal Sewer and Water. 2021a. “Infrastructure report.” Accessed December 7, 2021. https://infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/drinking-water/.
Municipal Sewer and Water. 2021b. “PACP version.” Accessed Novermber 14, 2021. https://www.mswmag.com/editorial/2020/12/updating-inspection-standards.
Opila, M. C. 2011. “Structural condition scoring of buried sewer pipes for risk-based decision making.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Delaware.
Opila, M. C., and N. Attoh-Okine. 2011. “Novel approach in pipe condition scoring.” J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 2 (3): 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000081.
PACP (Pipeline Assessment Certificate Program). 2021. “PACP condition grades.” Accessed October 12, 2021. https://nassco.org/resource/pacp-condition-grades-and-their-proper-application/.
Saaty, T. L. 1980. “The analytic hierarchy process (AHP).” J. Oper. Res. Soc. 41 (11): 1073–1076.
Tabesh, M., and S. Madani. 2006. “A performance indicator for wastewater collection systems.” Water Pract. Technol. 1 (4): wpt2006079. https://doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2006.079.
Thornhill, R. 2008. “Know your limitations with PACP condition grading.” NASSCO Times, December 21, 2008.
USEPA. 2004. Report to congress: Impacts and control of combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows. Washington, DC: USEPA.
Vadyala, S. R., S. N. Betgeri, D. Matthews, and C. John. 2021. “A review of physics-based machine learning in civil engineering.” Preprint, submitted October 9, 2021. http://arxiv.org/abs/2110.04600.
Velayutham Kandasamy, V. P., and S. K. Sinha. 2018. “Stormwater pipe performance index using fuzzy inference method.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 144 (10): 04018062. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000967.
Vladeanu, G., and J. Matthews. 2019. “Wastewater pipe condition rating model using multicriteria decision analysis.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 145 (12): 04019058. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0001134.
Vladeanu, G., and J. Matthews. 2019a. “Wastewater pipe condition rating model using multicriteria decision analysis.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 145 (12): 04019058. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0001134.
Vladeanu, G. J., and J. C. Matthews. 2019b. “Consequence-of-failure model for risk-based asset management of wastewater pipes using AHP.” J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 10 (2): 04019005. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000370.
Yan, J., and K. Vairavamoorthy. 2003. “Fuzzy approach for pipe condition assessment.” In New pipeline technologies, security, and safety, 466–476. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Yugandhar, V., and B. S. Nethra. 2014. “Statistical software packages for research in social sciences.” In Proc., Recent Research Advancements in Information Technology. Berlin: Springer.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice
Volume 14 • Issue 2 • May 2023
Copyright
© 2023 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jul 20, 2021
Accepted: Oct 27, 2022
Published online: Jan 4, 2023
Published in print: May 1, 2023
Discussion open until: Jun 4, 2023
Authors
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.