Evaluation of Carbon Footprint of Pipeline Materials during

Installation, Operation, and Disposal Phases

Alhossin A. Alsadi 1 and John C. Matthews, M.ASCE 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
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Cambridge University on 02/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

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 environ-
mentally 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. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000422. © 2020 American Society of Civil
Engineers.
Author keywords: Life cycle analysis; Carbon footprint; Embodied energy; Open cut; Pipe bursting; Cured-in-place pipe; Trenchless
technology; Installation stage; Operation stage; Disposal stage.

Introduction pipe industry [Sustainable Solution Corporation (SSC)] compared

Owing to the growing attention being paid to climate change and
the impact of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, carbon footprint
analysis is becoming more and more popular in every industry.
The construction industry is the primary producer of GHG emis-
sions, and the industry needs to identify the potential benefits of
carbon footprint analysis for every project. Currently, most pipeline
construction companies do not evaluate their carbon emissions.
Several pipeline materials and methods are used to install new pipe-
line or rehabilitate existing pipelines. The problem is that most
companies consider only direct costs before choosing the installa-
tion method, and they completely ignore the social costs and envi-
ronmental impact because to quantify them is challenging for many
companies and utilities in practical terms considering that many
factors are unknown or not available. Most studies done looked
at the direct costs to compare installation methods (Alsadi 2018).
One study, which was supported by the polyvinylchloride (PVC)
1
Ph.D. Student, Graduate Research and Teaching Assistant, Louisiana
Tech Univ., Ruston, LA 71272. Email: aaa022@latech.edu
2
Associate Professor, Director of Trenchless Technology Center,
Louisiana Tech Univ., Ruston, LA 71272 (corresponding author). ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1478-5182. Email: matthews@latech.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 21, 2018; approved
on April 22, 2019; published online on January 27, 2020. Discussion period
open until June 27, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Pipeline Systems
Engineering and Practice, © ASCE, ISSN 1949-1190.
and evaluated the environmental impact of PVC pipe with other
pipe materials [i.e., high-density polyethylene (HDPE), Ductile
iron pipe (DI), and prestressed concrete cylinder pipe (PCCP)] over
a 100-year life cycle. Their results found that PVC pipe had the
lowest carbon footprint compared to most other pipe materials
for pressure and gravity applications during the life cycle of the
pipeline phases: fabrication, installation, operation, and end of life
(SSC 2017). In terms of social costs, several categories should be
considered while comparing installation methods: travel delay,
vehicle operation costs, decreased road surface value, lost business
revenue, cost of dust control, noise pollution cost, and safety
(Matthews et al. 2015). The objective of this study is to evaluate
environmental impact during the installation, operation, and dis-
posal phases of the life cycle of a pipeline by quantifying carbon
dioxide emissions. Fig. 1 shows the life cycle phase of pipeline and
the energy consumption; the energy consumed in the fabrication
phase was determined in a previous study, and the results showed
that PCCP, which will be used in the open cut method in this study,
is more environmentally friendly than PVC, HDPE, and CIPPs
have the highest CO2 emissions in the fabrication phase (Alsadi
et al. 2019). This study continues its analysis of energy consumed
in the installation, use, and disposal phases. In the installation
phase, the study focuses on three different pipeline installation con-
struction methods: open cut, pipe bursting, and cured-in-place pipe,
used for large-diameter 90 cm (36-in.) pressure sewer pipe. The
study included all activities during pipeline installation: transport-
ing pipe and equipment to job site, pipeline installation, backfill,

© ASCE 04020005-1 J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.

J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., 2020, 11(2): 04020005

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Cambridge University on 02/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Life cycle phases for pipeline material.
and repaving. The operation phase includes pumping energy and
pipeline cleaning. The disposal phase includes energy during pipe-
line material recycling and material disposal.
Emission Calculator Tools Used in Study
In this study, three methods are used to quantify and analyze
carbon: emission calculator (e-calc) software, the Inventory of
Carbon and Energy (ICE) database, and carbon dioxide emis-
sions resulting from diesel and gasoline fuel. The e-calc was
published by the University of Arizona in 2009. The software is
used to determine emissions from construction activities. The
user is required to input equipment and project data to calculate
the emissions for a specific project. The data for the project can
be obtained from the daily project progress reports or productiv-
ity estimates, while equipment-specific information should be
acquired from company records (Ariaratnam and Sihabuddin
2009). The ICE database was published by the University of
Bath in the UK in 2011. The ICE database provides an embodied
energy (EE) value for each material. The EE can be defined as
the total primary energy consumed during direct and indirect
processes associated with a material within the cradle-to-gate
boundaries (Hammond and Jones 2011). The data used for carbon
dioxide emissions resulting from diesel and gasoline fuel were
based on data from the USEPA Office of Transportation and Air
Quality (USEPA 2005).
Methodology
It is necessary to have similar project specifications in order to com-
pare four pipeline materials; however, the objective of this study
is to estimate CO2 emissions for four types of pipeline materials
© ASCE
J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., 2020, 11(2): 04020005
(PCCP, PVC, HDPE, and CIPP) with three different types of pipeline
installation method (open cut, pipe bursting, and CIPP) during in-
stallation, operation, and disposal. This paper focuses on a large-
diameter 90 cm (36-in.) sewer pressure pipe at 690 kpa (100 psi)
internal pressure, and the pipeline section is 30 m (100 ft) long. The
study is divided into three phases for greater accuracy and
ease of understanding. First is the pipeline installation phase, which
includes CO2 emissions from transporting pipe and equipment to
the job site, CO2 emissions from construction equipment during
installation and repaving activities, and CO2 emissions from back-
fill material production. Second is the operation phase and includes
the energy for pumping wastewater and pipeline cleaning. The third
is the disposal phase, which includes the energy consumed for
material disposal. Finally, by adding all the phases together to get
the total CO2 emissions, one can see which pipe material and
installation method are more environmentally friendly than the
others.
Installation Phase
The second phase of the pipeline life cycle is installation. The en-
ergy consumed in this phase varies from one method to another
depending on several factors, for example, the amount of equip-
ment, the time required to finish the project, and the location of the
project. In this study, three installation methods are used: open cut,
pipe bursting, and cured-in-place pipe.
Open cut is the most common method used for underground
utility construction because of the basic approach of excavating soil
and laying the pipeline, as shown in Fig. 2(a). The open cut method
consists of excavating a trench for manual pipeline installation.
The open cut method requires more equipment and time to remove
the large volume of soil during pipeline installation compared to
trenchless technology. Tavakoli and Najafi did a study to compare
04020005-2 J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Cambridge University on 02/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. (a) Open cut; and (b) CIPP installation methods. (Images by John C. Matthews.)
open cut and tunneling methods with respect to carbon emissions
during installation for a 40.2 km (25-mi) pipeline. The results
showed that the total CO2 produced using the open cut method is
approximately six times more than the CO2 produced using the
tunneling method (Tavakoli et al. 2017).
Cured-in-place pipe is a common technology used to repair
existing pipeline. It is an economical trenchless technology method
compared to the open cut method. CIPP has been in use since the
1970s in London (Najafi 2005). A CIPP liner typically consists of a
lining tube saturated with resin, which is installed in the existing
pipeline. Also, the tube should be fabricated to fit and take the
shape of the existing pipeline. CIPP can be installed by pulling the
liner into the existing pipe. CIPP can be cured with hot water,
steam, or ultraviolet light (Matthews 2014). Fig. 2(b) shows a sche-
matic for CIPP installation.
Pipe bursting is a trenchless technology method that is widely
used for the rehabilitation of deteriorated pipelines when the new
pipeline is the same size or larger and in the same location (Simicevic
and Sterling 2001). Pipe bursting is an economical method compared
to open cut because it uses less equipment and time and reduces
disturbance to nearby residents. Fig. 3 shows the pipe bursting
operation layout. Pipe bursting was first developed in the UK
in the late 1970s by D. J. Ryan and Sons. The method was patented
in the UK in 1981 and in the US in 1986. There are three methods
of pipe bursting: hydraulic, pneumatic, and static pull. The dif-
ference between the three pipe bursting methods is the way in
which the old pipe is broken, the source of energy, and operation.
Selection of the pipe bursting method is dependent on the soil
condition, upsizing required, type of new pipeline, depth of the
existing pipeline, and the availability of experienced contractors
Fig. 3. Pipe bursting operation layout. (Reprinted with permission
from Simicevic and Sterling 2001.)
© ASCE
J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., 2020, 11(2): 04020005
(Simicevic and Sterling 2001). Ariaratnam and Sihabuddin com-
pared open cut and pipe bursting and found that emissions gener-
ated from the open cut construction method were about 77% higher
in GHGs and approximately 80% greater in criteria pollutant
emissions compared to the pipe bursting construction method
(Ariaratnam and Sihabuddin 2009). Joshi compared open cut and
pipe bursting in terms of CO2 emissions. A gravity sewer pipeline
with a 1,554-m-long, 20.3 cm (5,100-ft-long, 8-in.) diameter was
considered at a depth of 3.04 m (10 ft). The outcome of the study
indicated that pipe bursting resulted in approximately 73.4% less
CO2 emissions in connection with construction machinery (Joshi
2012).
Transporting Pipe and Equipment to Job Site
The first step of a pipeline installation project is to transport equip-
ment and pipes to the job site. The transport is based on the distance
from the manufacturing site or company to the job site. In this
study, 32.1 km (20-mi) is the distance between job site and manu-
facturing. To quantify the carbon emissions for the transport stage,
it is required to count the trucks and the number of trips for each
truck. By knowing the truck fuel consumption rate per kilometer
(mile) and CO2 emission rate from each liter (gallon), the total
CO2 emissions can be calculated, as shown in Table 1.
The following considerations are used at this stage:
• Flat-bed trucks from the year 2010 are used to transport pipe and
equipment to the job site.
• The distance between the job site and pipe and equipment
storage is 32 km (20 mi).
• Diesel fuel consumption is 5.9 mi=gal. for each truck (Williams
et al. 2017).
• CO2 emissions from 1 gal. diesel fuel is 22.2 lb=gal. (USEPA
2005).
Carbon Emissions during Pipeline Installation
This stage requires more energy and time compared to other stages
in the installation phase. The energy consumed at this stage varies
depending on different aspects of the chosen installation method:
pipes, equipment, and job site. The energy consumption rate depends
on the pipe weight, pipe size, and pipe length, as well as factors re-
lated to the equipment: equipment age, power, capacity, cycle time,
04020005-3 J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.
 Table 1. CO2 emissions from transportation pipe and equipment to job site
Type Description Unit For pipe For equipment Total
Open cut Number of trips required to transport pipe and equipment to job trip 1 6 7
site and return equipment after construction finishes
Total miles km (mi) 64 (40) 386 (240) 450 (280)
Diesel required to transport to job site L (gal.) 26 (6.8) 154 (40.6) 180 (47.4)
CO2 emissions kg (lb) 68 (151) 409 (902) 478 (1,053)
Pipe bursting Number of trips required to transport pipe and equipment to the trip 1 2 3
job site and returning the equipment after the construction finish
Total miles km (mi) 64 (40) 128 (80) 193 (120)
Diesel required to transport to job site L (gal.) 26 (6.8) 52 (13.6) 77 (20.4)
CO2 emissions kg (lb) 68 (151) 137 (302) 206 (453)
Cured-in-place Number of trips required to transport pipe and equipment to job trip 0 1 1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Cambridge University on 02/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

pipe site and returning equipment after construction completes

Total miles km (mi) 0 129 (80) 129 (80)
Diesel required to transport to job site L (gal.) 0 52 (13.6) 52 (13.6)
CO2 emissions kg (lb) 0 137 (302) 137 (302)

Fig. 4. e-calc software used to evaluate carbon emissions of open cut construction method during installation phase.

operator efficiency, and equipment efficiency. At the job site, the
CO2 emissions depend on the location, trench cross section, volume
of earthwork, type of soil, hauling distance, water table, and
weather conditions (Chilana et al. 2016). Emission calculation
(e-calc) software is used to estimate and quantify the carbon emis-
sions during installation. Fig. 4 shows an example of e-calc soft-
ware used to calculate the carbon emissions during pipe installation
for the open cut construction method.
As shown in Tables 2–4, the open cut construction method in-
cludes digging the trench, hauling the spoil, and laying the pipe.
The pipe busting method entails digging the entry and exit pits,
hauling the spoil, and breaking the old pipe. The CIPP method
includes digging the entry and exit pits, hauling the spoil, pulling
the liner inside the host pipe, and curing the new pipe.
1. Considerations:
• Emission calculation (e-calc) software is used to estimate
and quantify carbon emissions.
• All equipment and trucks are assumed to be manufactured in
2010, which mean they are 8 years old.
• For open cut, the trench length is 36.5 m (120 ft), the trench
width is 3.0 m (10 ft), and the trench depth is 3.0 m (10 ft).
• For pipe bursting, the size of the two pits are 12 ft long, 3.0 m
(10 ft) wide, and 3.0 m (10 ft) deep.
• For CIPP, the size of the two pits are 2.4 m long, 2.4 m wide
(8 ft long, 8 ft wide), and 3.0 m (10 ft) deep.
• The capacity of the dump truck used to haul the spoil is
11.5 m3 (15 cubic yards).
• The swell factor is assumed to be 40% for hauling spoil.

© ASCE 04020005-4 J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.

J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., 2020, 11(2): 04020005

 Table 2. CO2 emissions during pipeline installation for open cut method
Use/number
Equipment Type/model Power/weight Fuel General use of trips
Equipment details
Wheel loader CAT 926M 114,092 W (153 hp) Diesel Load material into dump trucks 20 h
Excavator CAT 320FL 122,295 W (164 hp) Diesel Excavate trench, lower pipe, and backfill 20 h
Air compressor Ingersoll Rand 10T3NLH200 14,914 W (20 hp) Diesel Power pneumatic tools 20 h
Welding machine Big Blue 400 PipePro 18,419 W (24.7 hp) Diesel Weld pipe joints 6h
Generator Kohler 40REOZK4 46,979 W (63 hp) Diesel Provide electricity to power equipment 20 h
Pavement saw Husqvarna Fs 3500 E 22,371 W (30 hp) Gas Cut pavement 4h
Wastewater pump Honda GX 270 11,185 W (15 hp) Gas Bypass for existing pipeline 72 h
Water pump Honda GX 270 11,185 W (15 hp) Gas Dewatering 72 h
Truck details
Dump truck CAT CT 660 27,216 kg (>60,000 lb) Diesel Haul spoil 70 trips
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Cambridge University on 02/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Pickup truck Ford 250 (4 × 4) 3,037 kg (6,695 lb) Diesel Transport workers and materials 24 trips
Water truck CAT CT 660 27,216 kg (>60,000 lb) Diesel Dust control 1 trip
Note: Total CO2 emissions = 9,974 kg (21,990 lb).

Table 3. CO2 emissions during pipeline installation for pipe bursting method
Use/number
Equipment Type/model Power/weight Fuel General use of trips
Equipment details
Backhoe CAT 415F2 50,708 W (68 hp) Diesel Excavate access pits and backfill 4h
Tension winch TT Technologies RW20 35,794 W (48 hp) Diesel Pull new pipe into host pipe 2h
Air compressor Ingersoll rand 10T3NLH200 14,914 W (20 hp) Diesel Power pneumatic tools 10 h
Fusion machine Ritmo Delta 1,000 Trailer 24,981 W (33.5 hp) Electricity Connect PVC pipes 2h
Generator Kohler 40REOZK4 46,979 W (63 hp) Diesel Provide electricity to power equipment 10 h
Chainsaw ICS 680PG 10 3,728 W (5 hp) Gas Clean and cut extra PVC pipe 1h
Pavement saw Husqvarna Fs 3500 E 22,371 W (30 hp) Gas Cut pavement 2h
Wastewater pump Honda GX 270 11,185 W (15 hp) Gas Bypass for existing pipeline 48 h
Water pump Honda GX 270 11,185 W (15 hp) Gas Dewatering 48 h
Truck Details
Dump truck CAT CT 660 27,216 kg (>60,000 lb) Diesel Haul spoil 11 trips
Pickup truck Ford 250 (4 × 4) 3,037 kg (6,695 lb) Diesel Transport workers and materials 8 trips
Note: Total CO2 emissions = 2,300 kg (5,071 lb).

Table 4. CO2 emissions during pipeline installation for CIPP method

Use/number
Equipment Type/model Power/weight Fuel General use of trips
Equipment details
Backhoe CAT 415F2 50,708 W (68 hp) Diesel Excavate access pits and backfill 2h
Air compressor Ingersoll Rand 10T3NLH200 14,914 W (20 hp) Diesel Power pneumatic tools 10 h
Generator Kohler 40REOZK4 46,979 W (63 hp) Diesel Provide electricity to power equipment 10 h
Tension winch TT Technologies RW20 35,794 W (48 hp) Diesel Pull tube into host pipe 2h
Chainsaw ICS 680PG 10 3,728 W (5 hp) Gas Clean and cut extra liner 0.5 h
Pavement saw Husqvarna Fs 3500 E 22,371 W (30 hp) Gas Cut pavement 1h
Wastewater pump Honda GX 270 11,185 W (15 hp) Gas Bypass for existing pipeline 36 h
Water pump Honda GX 270 11,185 W (15 hp) Gas Dewatering 36 h
Truck details
Dump truck CAT CT 660 27,216 kg (>60,000 lb) Diesel Haul spoil 4 trips
Pickup truck Ford 250 (4 × 4) 3,037 kg (6,695 lb) Diesel Transport workers and materials 4 trips
Utility van Ford E-350 3,231 kg (7,124 lb) Diesel Inspect closed-circuit television (CCTV) 1 trip
Box truck Ford E-350 3,231 kg (7,124 lb) Diesel CIPP cure control 1 trip
Vacuum truck CAT CT 660 27,216 kg (>60,000 lb) Diesel Clean host pipeline 1 trip
Note: Total CO2 emissions = 1,697 kg (3,741 lb).

Carbon Emissions from Backfill Materials and
Repaving
Backfilling refers to refilling the trench with the same material or
new material. In this study, new backfilling materials are used.
Backfill should not contain debris, big stones, or unstable material.
As shown in Fig. 5, the depth of the trench for the three methods is
3.04 m (10 ft): the first 0.6 m (2 ft) is gravel as foundation, 1.21 m
(4 ft) of sand surrounds the pipe, and the last 1.21 m (4 ft) is dirt.
The thickness of the pavement is assumed to be 10.16 cm (4 in.).

© ASCE 04020005-5 J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.

J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., 2020, 11(2): 04020005


Fig. 5. Pipeline backfill materials.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Cambridge University on 02/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
This part of the study focuses on the CO2 emissions created during
the production of the backfill materials, transport of the materials to
the job site, and repaving activity. The ICE database is used to
evaluate the carbon emissions for the backfill material production.
The EPA’s fuel consumption rate is used to evaluate the carbon
emissions from transporting the backfill materials to the job site
(Table 5).
1. Considerations:
a. New backfill material is used to fill the trenches.
b. The materials used as backfill are gravel, sand, and dirt, as
shown in Fig. 5.
c. The distance between the job site and the plant is
32.1 km (20 mi).
d. The thickness of the asphalt/concrete is 10.16 cm (4 in.)
e. The EE database (ICE version 2) is used to quantify the
carbon emission for backfill materials.
f. The excavation for the three methods is as follows:
(1) The dimensions of the trench for open cut are 3.65 m
(12 ft) wide, 3.04 m (10 ft) deep, and 36.5 m
(120 ft) long.
(2) The dimensions of the exit and entry pit for pipe bursting
are 3.65 (12 ft) wide, 3.04 m (10 ft) deep, and 3.04 m
(10 ft) long.
(3) The dimensions of the exit and entry pit for CIPP are
2.4 m (8 ft) wide, 3.04 m (10 ft) deep, and 2.4 m
(8 ft) long.
g. The density and EE for backfill materials are shown in
Table 6.
h. The swell factor for the backfill material is assumed to be
12% for sand and gravel and 40% for dirt.
The capacity of the truck used to transport the backfill material
to the job site is assumed to be medium sized [11.5 m3 (15 cubic
yards)].
Repaving: Repaving, which follow pipeline installation, con-
sumes significant energy. The energy consumed in this stage is
dependent on the size of the trench, type of pavement (concrete
or asphalt), and thickness of pavement. In this study, the pave-
ment is assumed to be asphalt 4 in. thick. E-calc software is used
to evaluate the CO2 emissions from surface repaving, as shown
in Table 7. The open cut method is shown to consume more energy
compared to pipe bursting and CIPP, and that is because of the size
of the trench and because open cut needs more equipment and
asphalt.
All energy is consumed in the second phase (installation) of the
pipeline life cycle: transporting pipe and equipment to the job site,
installing/repaving, and backfilling (Fig. 6). The results show that
the CIPP method is the most environmentally friendly method com-
pared to the other two methods, while open cut consumes the most
energy during installation.
© ASCE 04020005-6
J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., 2020, 11(2): 04020005
Operation Phase
In this study, the operating life of the pipeline is assumed to be
100 years. Usually, PCCP, PVC, and HDPE are designed for an
average life of 100 years and CIPP an average of 50 years (Bueno
2010). Because the operating life used in this study is 100 years and
the average life of CIPP is 50 years, CIPP is rehabilitated after
50 years of service, which means the inside diameter is different in
the first 50 years than the last 50 years of service, as shown in
Table 8. The operation phase for a pressure sewer pipe can be di-
vided into two categories when accounting for energy consump-
tion. First, sewer water needs to be pumped at a specific pressure
and flow rate. Second, the sewer pipe needs to be cleaned from time
to time using high-pressure water. The energy used for pipe break
repair over the life cycle of the pipeline is assumed to be negligible
in this study.
Pumping Energy
Sewer water needs to be pumped at a pressure higher than the mini-
mum required. Factors affecting pump energy consumption are
cross-sectional area, coefficient of friction (C), and pump effi-
ciency. The higher the C factor, the less friction between the fluid
and the surface. The flow rate is 20 ft3 =s (8,977 gal.=min). Pump
efficiencies vary depending on the manufacturer, age, and con-
dition. In this study, pump efficiency is assumed to be 70%
((McPherson 2009). The impact on pumping energy is primarily
related to the decreases in roughness, decreasing in pipe roughness
with energy savings of 0.20% to 0.70% (Speight 2014). Hazen–
Williams equations are used to calculate the pump brake power
(Khan and Tee 2015). The energy consumed by a pump is ob-
tained by the pump power in a certain number of working hours.
Usually, the pump operating time is considered to be 6–8 h daily
throughout the service life of the pipe (Piratla et al. 2012). How-
ever, the operating time varies during the day. The demand for
pumping is high from 6 to 9 a.m., from 1 to 2 p.m., and from
7 to 9 p.m. In this study, the operation time assumed to be 6 h
every day. The pumping design, amount of energy consumed, and
CO2 emissions released from pumping wastewater in this study
are calculated and presented in Table 8. The CO2 emissions are
calculated using an emissions factor of 1.2038 kWh [eGRID2014
(EPA 2014)].
Pipe Cleaning
The second category in the operation phase of a pipeline’s life cycle
is cleaning. Proper cleaning of a sewer pipeline can improve its
capacity and hydraulic performance. Operational records can show
when a force main needs cleaning. One useful indicator is the
volume of flow per unit of electricity consumed; a significantly re-
duced flow rate indicates a build-up of debris or encrustation on the
pipeline. Cleaning methods can be categorized into two groups:
those that remove solids (pigging, vacuum jetters, and buckets)
and those that dislodge solids and carry them away with water flow
(high-pressure water jetting and mechanical rodding) (Morrison
2010). In this study, the pigging method is used and is assumed
to be used every 10 years, which means it will be used 10 times
over the life of the pipeline.
Pigging has become a popular cleaning method, and it is cur-
rently the most popular cleaning method for sewer pressure pipes.
Pigging requires a high volume of water at high pressure to force
the pig to move through the pipeline, which will remove debris and
clean the interior pipeline wall. A pumper truck is used to push the
pig into the pipe. The most commonly used pig is the poly pig, as
Fig. 7 shows. Care must be taken not to exceed the design pressure
J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Cambridge University on 02/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

© ASCE

Table 5. CO2 emissions from backfill materials

Total CO2
Method Material Gravel Sand Dirt Asphalt Total emissions [kg (lb)]
Open cut Amount [kg (lb)] 153,626 (338,688) 249,490 (550,032) 277,990 (612,864) 31,570 (69,600) 713,130 (1,572,184) 33,173 (73,134)
method Energy consumption during 3,542 5,616 — 43,848 53,006 33,173 (73,134)
material production (kWh)
CO2 emission from material 1,934 (4,264) 3,067 (6,761) — 23,942 (52,784) 28,943 (63,809) 33,173 (73,134)
production [kg (lb)]
Number of trips required to 13 22 24 3 62 33,173 (73,134)
transport the material
Diesel required to transport 333 (88) 564 (149) 617 (163) 75 (20) 1,590 (420) 33,173 (73,134)
material to job site [L (gal.)]
CO2 emissions from 886 (1,954) 1,500 (3,308) 1,642 (3,619) 201 (444) 4,230 (9,325) 33,173 (73,134)
transport material to job site
[kg (lb)]
Pipe bursting Amount [kg (lb)] 25,604 (56,448) 41,607 (91,728) 46,332 (102,144) 5,262 (11,600) 118,805 (261,920) 5,578 (12,298)
method Energy consumption during 590 937 — 7,308 8,835 5,578 (12,298)
J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., 2020, 11(2): 04020005

material production (kWh)

CO2 emissions from 322 (710) 511 (1,127) — 3,990 (8,797) 4,824 (10,634) 5,578 (12,298)
material production [kg (lb)]
Number of trips required to 2 4 4 1 11 5,578 (12,298)
transport material
Diesel required to transport 53 (14) 102 (27) 102 (27) 26.5 (7) 284 (75) 5,578 (12,298)
04020005-7

material to job site [L (gal.)]

CO2 emissions from 141 (311) 272 (599) 272 (599) 70 (155) 755 (1,664) 5,578 (12,298)
transporting material to job
site [kg (lb)]
Cured-in-place Amount [kg (lb)] 13,656 (30,106) 20,270 (44,688) 24,710 (54,477) 2,806 (6,187) 61,443 (135,458) 2,972 (6,552)
pipe method Energy consumption during 315 456 — 3,898 4,669 2,972 (6,552)
material production (kWh)
CO2 emissions from 172 (379) 249 (549) — 2,128 (4,692) 2,549 (5,620) 2,972 (6,552)
material production [kg (lb)]
Number of trips required to 1 2 2 1 6 2,972 (6,552)
transport material
Diesel required to transport 26.5 (7) 53 (14) 53 (14) 26.5 (7) 159 (42) 2,972 (6,552)
material to job site [L (gal.)]
CO2 emissions from 70 (155) 141 (311) 141 (311) 70 (155) 423 (932) 2,972 (6,552)
transporting material to job
site [kg (lb)]
J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.
 Table 6. Density and embodied energy for backfill materials CO2 EMISSIONS DURING
INSTALLATION STAGE
Material Density [kg=m3 ðlb=ft3 Þ] EE (kWh=lb) 120000

CO2 Emissions (Pound)

Gravel 1,682 (105) 0.01046 100000

Sand 1,602 (100) 0.01021 80000

Asphalt 2,323 (145) 0.63 60000 73134
Dirt 1,217 (76) Assumed to be neglected
40000

20000
12298
6552
0
Pipe
Open-cut CIPP
of the pipeline during cleaning using the pigging method. Access Bursting
Backfill 73134 12298 6552
to a pipeline is required for pig insertion, so this may be a Installation and Repaving 23270 5171 3801
significant problem when using the pigging method for a pressure Transport Pipe and Equipment to
1053 453 302
Jobsite
pipeline, unless access can be provided at the pump station
Installation Methods
(Morrison 2010).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Cambridge University on 02/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The processes of pumping and water treatment are the largest
consumers of energy in water use and recycling (EPA 2013).
For pipeline cleaning, in this study, two things are taken into
consideration: the amount of water that will be used to clean the
pipeline and the amount of fuel that will be consumed by the
pumper truck to transport water to the job site. The water that will
be used to clean the pipeline will go in the system and to the plant
for treatment. Thus, this research will focus on how much energy
will be used to treat the water used for cleaning. According to EPA
(2013) (energy efficiency in water and wastewater facilities), the
energy used for water treatment is 100–16,000 kWh=MG. For fuel
consumption, this study will determine how many trucks will be
needed to clean the pipeline and, based on the distance and number
of trucks, will determine how much CO2 will be emitted. Table 9
shows the total CO2 emissions during the pipeline cleaning stage.
The following considerations were made:
1. The pigging method is used for pipeline cleaning every 10 years,
which means it will be used 10 times over the life of the
pipeline.
2. The distance between the job site and truck storage is
32.1 km (20 mi).
3. Fuel consumption is 5.9 mi=gal. of diesel fuel (Williams et al.
2017).
4. CO2 emissions from diesel are 22.2 lb=gal. (USEPA 2005).
5. The energy used for water treatment is 0.002502 kWh=gal.
(EPA 2013).
6. Owing to interior roughness in PCCP, the amount of water used
for cleaning is assumed to be 1.2 times the volume of the pipe.
7. The CO2 emission rate used in this study is 1.2038 lb=kWh
[eGRID2014 (EPA 2014)].
Disposal
At the end of the useful service life of a pipeline, the pipe is dis-
posed of, recycled, or abandoned. This part of the study focuses on
recycling material and EE for recycling and the energy required
Fig. 6. CO2 emissions during installation phase.
to dispose of the rest of the materials. Recycling consumes energy,
but the recycling energy is generally small compared to the initial
embodied energy. Total energy use throughout the life cycle of a
pipeline is high and impacts the environment through CO2 emis-
sions. Recycling makes it possible to reduce the energy consumed
in the fabrication phase by using recyclable/reusable materials.
Recycling is the reprocessing of recovered materials at the end of
the product life so they can be reused. This study assumes that a
new pipeline is used at the end of the useful service life of the old
pipe. Considering each type of pipe material, determining what
content can be recycled and how much embodied energy will be
used in recycling, and adding the energy consumption for each
material in the pipe makes it possible to obtain the total energy used
to recycle the pipe (Table 10).
The use of environmentally friendly and recyclable materials is
the key to reducing CO2 emissions and improving environmental
impacts. Many materials have significant environmental impacts
from CO2 emissions. The use of recyclable materials can reduce
CO2 emissions by more than half. Table 11 shows the differences
between fabricating pipes from virgin materials (previous study)
versus using recycled material. CIPP cannot be recycled because
of the epoxy resin.
This study shows that most of the energy consumed to fabricate
PCCP comes from steel, and a small amount of energy comes from
concrete. The concrete in PCCP is assumed to recyclable into ag-
gregate, assumed to be 80% steel and 20% concrete here. Aggre-
gate can be used again for pipeline bedding or in the concrete
core of PCCP. Half of PVC and HDPE pipe is considered to be
recyclable into the same material again. Because CIPP cannot
be recycled, it requires 100% virgin materials. The energy con-
sumed to dispose of the material that cannot be recycled is consid-
ered to be 3.5% of the fabrication energy (Table 12) (ImpEE
Project 2005).

Table 7. CO2 emissions from repaving activities

Equipment Type/model Power [W (hp)] Fuel General use Use (h) CO2 emissions [kg (lb)]
Open cut method
Paving machine CAT AP555F 105,889 (142) Diesel Resurface road following pipe installation 4 581 (1,280)
Asphalt compactor CAT CCS7 75,017 (100.6) Diesel Resurface road following pipe installation 4 581 (1,280)
Pipe bursting method
Asphalt compactor CAT CCS7 75,017 (100.6) Diesel Resurface road following pipe installation 1 45 (100)
Cured-in-place pipe method
Asphalt compactor CAT CCS7 75,017 (100.6) Diesel Resurface road following pipe installation 0.5 27 (60)

© ASCE 04020005-8 J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.

J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., 2020, 11(2): 04020005

 Table 8. CO2 emissions while pumping wastewater
Description Quantity Unit Remark/reference
Prestressed concrete cylinder pipe (PCCP)
Wall thickness 7.62 (3) cm (in.) AWWA C301
Inside diameter 76 (30) cm (in.) Outside diameter—2 × wallthickness
Flow rate 0.57 (20) m3 =s ðft3 =sÞ Assumption
Hazen–Williams coefficient (C) 130 — Gupta (2008)
π
Cross-sectional area (A) 4.9 ft2 A ¼ ðdÞ2
4
Q
Velocity of flow 1.24 (4.08) m=s ðft=sÞ V¼
A
−4
Equivalent roughness of PCCP (ε) 40 × 10 — Gupta (2008)
Kinematic viscosity (v) 0.93 × 10−5 ft2 =s Gupta (2008)
Vd
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Cambridge University on 02/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Re 1,096,774 — Re ¼
v
Friction factor (f) 0.0225 — From Moody diagram for frication factor for
pipes
fL V 2
Friction head loss 0.07 (0.23) m (ft) hf ¼
d 2g
Pump head (Hp) 0.37 (1.23) m (ft) hp ¼ ΔZ þ hloss ΔZ ¼ 1 ft
Pump efficiency 70% — Assumption
Specific weight (γ) 999.84 (62.418) kg=m3 ðlb=ft3 Þ Gupta (2008)
γQHp
Pump brake power 2,983 (4) W (hp) BHP ¼
550η
Working hours/day 6 h Assumption
Energy consumed/year 6,535 kWh 1 hp = 0.746 kW
CO2 emission rate 0.546 (1.2038) kg=kWh ðlb=kWhÞ eGRID2014
CO2 emissions for 100 years 356,841 (786,700) kg (lb) Total energy for 100 years × CO2 emission rate
Polyvinylchloride (PVC) pipe
Wall thickness 2.22 (0.875) cm (in.) AWWA C905
Inside diameter 87 (34.25) cm (in.) Outside diameter—2 × wallthickness
Flow rate 0.57 (20) m3 =s ðft3 =sÞ Assumption
Hazen–Williams coefficient (C) 140 — Gupta (2008)
π
Cross-sectional area (A) 0.59 (6.38) m2 ðft2 Þ A ¼ ðdÞ2
4
Q
Velocity of flow 0.96 (3.14) m=s ðft=sÞ V¼
A
Equivalent roughness of PVC (ε) 5× 10−6 — Gupta (2008)
Kinematic viscosity (v) 0.93 × 10−5 ft2 =s Gupta (2008)
Vd
Re 962,258 — Re ¼
v
Friction factor (f) 0.0118 — From Moody diagram for frication factor for
pipes
fL V 2
Friction head loss 0.019 (0.063) m (ft) hf ¼
d 2g
Pump head Hp 0.32 (1.063) m (ft) Hp ¼ ΔZ þ hloss ΔZ ¼ 1 ft
Pump efficiency 70% — Assumption
Specific weight (γ) 999.84 (62.418) kg/m3 (lb=ft3 ) Gupta (2008)
γQHp
Pump brake power 2,573 (3.45) W (hp) BHP ¼
550η
Working hours/day 6 h Assumption
Energy consumed/year 5,636 kWh 1 hp = 0.746 kW
CO2 emission rate 0.546 (1.2038) kg/kWh (lb=kWh) eGRID2014
CO2 emissions for 100 years 307,762 (678,500) kg (lb) Total energy for 100 years × CO2 emission rate
High-density polyethylene (HDPE)
Wall thickness 5.4 (2.12) cm (in.) AWWA C906
Inside diameter 80.7 (31.76) cm (in.) Outside diameter—2 × wall thickness
Flow rate 0.57 (20) m3/s (ft3 =s) Assumption
Hazen–Williams coefficient (C) 140 Gupta (2008)
π
Cross-sectional area (A) 0.51 (5.52) m2 (ft2 ) A ¼ ðdÞ2
4
Q
Velocity of flow 1.1 (3.62) m/s (ft=s) V¼
A
Equivalent roughness of PVC (ε) 5× 10−6 Gupta (2008)
Kinematic viscosity (v) 0.93 × 10−5 ft2 =s Gupta (2008)

© ASCE 04020005-9 J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.

J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., 2020, 11(2): 04020005

 Table 8. (Continued.)
Description Quantity Unit Remark/reference
Re 1,027,613 Vd
Re ¼
v
Friction factor (f) 0.0115 — From Moody diagram for frication factor for
pipes
fL V 2
Friction head loss 0.027 (0.088) m (ft) hf ¼
d 2g
Pump head Hp 0.33 (1.088) m (ft) Hp ¼ ΔZ þ hloss ΔZ ¼ 1 ft
Pump efficiency 70% Assumption
Specific weight (γ) 999.84 (62.418) kg/m3 (lb=ft3 ) Gupta (2008)
γQHp
Pump brake power 2,625 (3.52) W (hp) BHP ¼
550η
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Cambridge University on 02/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Working hours/day 6 hours Assumption

Energy consumed/year 5,751 kWh 1 hp = 0.746 kw
CO2 emission rate 0.546 (1.2038) kg/kWh (lb=kWh) eGRID2014
CO2 emissions for 100 years 314,011 (692,277) kg (lb) Total energy for 100 years × CO2 emission rate
Cured-in-place pipe (CIPP)
From 0 to 50 years
Wall thickness 1.47 (0.58) cm (in.) F1216
Inside diameter 73.25 (28.84) cm (in.) Hosting pipe is PCCP with 30 in. inside
diameter—2 × wall thickness
Flow rate 0.57 (20) m3 =s ðft3 =sÞ Assumption
Hazen–Williams coefficient (C) 140 Gupta (2008)
π
Cross-sectional area (A) 0.42 (4.52) m2 ðft2 Þ A ¼ ðdÞ2
4
Q
Velocity of flow 1.35 (4.425) m=s ðft=sÞ V¼
A
−6
Equivalent roughness of PVC (ε) 5 × 10 Gupta (2008)
Kinematic viscosity (v) 0.93 × 10−5 ft2 =s Gupta (2008)
Vd
Re 1,141,878 Re ¼
v
Friction factor (f) 0.011 From Moody diagram for frication factor for
pipes
fL V 2
Friction head loss 0.043 (0.14) m (ft) hf ¼
d 2g
Pump head Hp 0.35 (1.14) m (ft) Hp ¼ ΔZ þ hloss ΔZ ¼ 1 ft
Pump efficiency 70% Assumption
Specific weight (γ) 999.84 (62.418) kg/m3 (lb=ft3 ) Gupta (2008)
γQHp
Pump brake power 2,759 (3.7) W (hp) BHP ¼
550η
Working hours/day 6 h Assumption
Energy consumed/year 6,045 kWh 1 hp = 0.746 kw
CO2 emission rate 0.546 (1.2038) kg/kWh (lb=kWh) eGRID2014
CO2 emissions from 0 to 50 years 165,040 (363,850) kg (lb) Total energy for 50 years × CO2 emission rate
From 50 to 100 years
Wall thickness 1.47 (0.58) cm (in.) F1216
Inside diameter 70.3 (27.68) cm (in.) hosting pipe is PCCP with 28.84 in inside
diameter—2 × wall thickness
π
Cross-sectional area (A) 0.39 (4.17) m2 (ft2 ) A ¼ ðdÞ2
4
Q
Velocity of flow (V) 1.46 (4.80) m/s (ft=s) V¼
A
Vd
Re 1,190,193 — Re ¼
v
Friction factor (f) 0.011 — From Moody diagram for frication factor for
pipes
fL V 2
Friction head loss 0.052 (0.17) m (ft) hf ¼
d 2g
Pump head Hp 0.36 (1.17) m (ft) Hp ¼ ΔZ þ hloss ΔZ ¼ 1 ft
γQHp
Pump brake power 2,826 (3.79) W (hp) BHP ¼
550η
Energy consumed/year 6,192 kWh 1 hp = 0.746 kW
CO2 emissions from 50 to 100 years 169,049 (372,689) kg (lb) Total energy from ð50 to 100Þ years × CO2
emissions rate
CO2 emissions for 100 years 334,088 (736,539) kg (lb) Emissions (0 to 50) + emissions (50 to 100)

© ASCE 04020005-10 J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.

J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., 2020, 11(2): 04020005

 Results and Discussion
Selection of the most feasible construction pipeline materials
and installation method is becoming increasingly important in
connection with design requirements, site restrictions, existing
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Cambridge University on 02/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
infrastructure, aboveground structures, soil conditions, required ac-
curacy, and costs. In general, pipeline materials and installation
methods are selected according based on cost, meaning the lowest
price method is used; however, in response to increased public con-
cern, other factors should be taken into consideration in choosing
pipeline materials and installation method. Three factors should be
considered before starting installation on a new pipeline project or
rehabilitating existing pipeline: direct cost, social costs, and envi-
ronmental impact. This study focuses on environmental impact.
Carbon footprint analysis is becoming more popular in every indus-
try due to increasing concerns about global warming. The construc-
tion industry needs to quantify its carbon footprint for every project
to select the method that is most environmentally friendly. This
study focuses on CO2 emissions during the installation, operation,

and disposal phases of a pipeline’s life cycle (Table 13 and Fig. 8).
The installation phase includes transporting the pipeline and con-
struction equipment to the job site, pipeline installation, backfilling,
and repaving. The operation phase includes pumping energy and
pipeline cleaning, and the disposal phase includes the energy for
disposal of the nonrecyclable materials of the pipeline. Four pipe-
line materials are used in this study: PCCP, PVC, HDPE, and CIPP.
However, three installation methods are used to install the pipeline:
the open cut method is used to install PCCP, the pipe bursting
method is used to install PVC and HDPE, and the CIPP method.
The first phase of the pipeline life cycle (fabrication) was examined
in a previous study (Alsadi et al. 2019), whose results found that
CIPP had the highest CO2 emissions during fabrication due to the
high embodied energy in epoxy resin and because the pipe must be
relined after 50 years, its lifetime. This study aimed to evaluate the
Fig. 7. Polyurethane pigs. (Reprinted with permission from Morrison
environmental impact over the course of 100 years. It was found
and Wang 2010.)
that PCCP had the lowest CO2 emissions. This study looked at the

Table 9. CO2 emissions during pipeline cleaning

Description PCCP PVC CIPP HDPE
Inside diameter [m (ft)] 0.76 (2.5) 0.87 (2.85) 0.73 (2.4) 0.81 (2.65)
Volume of pipeline [L (gal.)] 55,570 (14,680) 72,214 (19,077) 51,213 (13,529) 62,437 (16,494)
Number of trucks for one-time cleaning 4 5 4 5
CO2 emissions from trucks [kg (lb)] in 10 2,731 (6,020) 3,416 (7,530) 2,731 (6,020) 3,416 (7,530)
cleanings
Amount of water [L (gal.)] for 10 cleanings 666,838 (176,160) 722,143 (190,770) 512,128 (135,290) 624,365 (164,940)
Energy consumed in water treatment (kWh) 441 478 338 412
CO2 emissions from water treatment [kg (lb)] 240 (531) 260 (574) 185 (408) 225 (496)
Total CO2 emissions [kg (lb)] 2,971 (6,551) 3,676 (8,104) 2,916 (6,428) 3,641 (8,026)

Table 10. Embodied energy for recycling pipeline materials

Embodied energy for Energy consumption Total energy/100 ft
Material Weight (lb) recycling (Ashby 2009) for recycling (kWh) pipeline (kWh)
Prestressed concrete cylinder pipe (PCCP)
Steel cylinder 459.2 5.5 MJ=kg (0.693 kWh=lb) 318 4,257.5
Concrete core 4,987.35 0.018 MJ=kg (2.27 × 10−3 kWh=lb) 11.3 4,257.5
Mortar coating 861.12 0.015 MJ=kg (1.89 × 10−3 kWh=lb) 1.6 4,257.5
Prestressing wire 421.5 9.8 MJ=kg (1.235 kWh=lb) 520.6 4,257.5
Polyvinylchloride (PVC) pipe
PVC resin 1,328.44 39.9 MJ=kg (5.03 kWh=lb) 6,682 33,410
Cured-in-place pipe (CIPP)
Epoxy resin 3,706.13 No recycling 0 0
Felt 1,080.24 No recycling 0 0
Fiberglass reinforced 1,096.13 No recycling 0 0
Tube liner 4.71 No recycling 0 0
High-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe
HDPE resin 2004 36 MJ=kg (4.536 kWh=lb) 9,090 45,450

© ASCE 04020005-11 J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.

J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., 2020, 11(2): 04020005

 CO2 Emissions During the Life Cycle of Pipe Materials
Table 11. Difference in fabrication phase between using virgin materials
1200000
and recycled materials
1000000
Fabrication from Fabrication from

CO2 Emissions (Pound)

Pipe virgin material (kWh) recycled material (kWh) 800000
PCCP 23,326 4,256
600000
PVC 56,492 33,410
HDPE 106,557 45,450 400000
CIPP 82,731 0
200000

0
installation, operation, and disposal phases. The installation phase PCCP PVC HDPE CIPP
Disposal 279 1061 2245 6971
in this study was divided into three parts (Fig. 6): energy consumed Operation 793251 686604 700303 742967
during pipe and equipment transport, energy consumed from equip- Installation 97457 17922 17922 21310
Fabrication 23326 56492 106557 199183
ment operation, and, finally, energy consumed from the production
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Cambridge University on 02/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of material used for backfilling. Because open cut requires more
construction equipment at the job site to dig trenches and more
backfill material to fill up the trenches compared with the pipe
bursting and CIPP methods, open cut consumes the most energy
during the installation phase, while CIPP is the most environmen-
tally friendly method because it requires less equipment at the job
site, smaller entry and exit pits, and curing the pipe on the job site.
Pipe bursting methods create more carbon emissions compared to
the CIPP method due to the need for more equipment at the job site,
the bigger entry and exit pits, and the requirement to transport pipe
to the job site compared to the CIPP method. To install a 30.4 m
(100-ft) pipeline section with a 91.44 cm (36-in.) diameter, the
open cut method requires an excavation trench 36.5 m (120 ft)
long by 3.67 m (12 ft) wide. In this study, the size of the pits for
the pipe bursting method was 12 × 10 ft, and for the CIPP method
it was 10 × 8 ft.
In this study, asphalt is used to repave the trench surface.
Asphalt has a higher EE (0.63 kWh=lb) compared to reinforced
concrete (0.0945 kWh=lb). (ICE database). For the open cut method,
when using concrete pavement, CO2 emissions are 3,096 kg
(6,826 lb), but when using asphalt to repave a surface, CO2
Pipe Materials
Fabrication Installation Operation Disposal
Fig. 8. CO2 emissions during life cycle of pipe materials.
emissions are 23,942 kg (52,784 lb). With the pipe bursting
method when using asphalt, CO2 emissions are 3,990 kg
(8,797 lb), but they are 619.15 kg (1,365 lb) when using reinforced
concrete. In the CIPP method, when asphalt is used to repave, CO2
emissions are 2,128 kg (4,692 lb) but 330 kg (728 lb) for concrete
pavement. Choosing the right material will result in significant re-
duction in carbon use, which will help mitigate GHG emissions.
For the operation phase, PCCP has the highest energy consump-
tion compared to CIPP, PVC, and HDPE due to the inside pipe
diameter and the roughness of the pipe interior surface. A small
diameter requires a stronger pump to pump the wastewater at a cer-
tain pressure to keep the same flow rate. A smoother interior pipe
surface requires less pump energy compared to a rougher interior
pipe. For pipeline cleaning, the energy consumed in this part is too
small and could be negligible. The only energy considered in this

Table 12. Energy consumed for pipe material disposal

Recycling Disposal
Percentage of Energy consumption Total of recycling Percentage of Energy required for Total disposal
Pipe Materials recycling (%) by recycling (kWh) energy (kWh) disposal (%) disposal (3.5%) (kWh) energy (kWh)
PCCP Steel cylinder 80 1,272 3,365.3 20 70 231.4
Concrete core 20 11.3 3,365.3 80 83.8 231.4
Mortar coating 0 0 3,365.3 100 10.6 231.4
Prestressing wire 80 2,082 3,365.3 20 67 231.4
PVC PVC resin 50 16,705 16,705 50 881.1 881.1
HDPE HDPE resin 50 22,725 22,725 50 1,864.74 1,864.74
CIPP Epoxy resin 0 0 0 100 4,477.6 5,791
Felt 0 0 0 100 343.3 5,791
Fiberglass reinforced 0 0 0 100 966.8 5,791
Tube liner 0 0 0 100 3.32 5,791

Table 13. CO2 emissions during life cycle of pipe materials

Stage PCCP PVC HDPE CIPP Remark
Fabrication [kg (lb)] 10,580 (23,326) 25,624 (56,492) 48,333 (106,557) 90,347 (199,183) Alsadi et al. (2019)
Installation [kg (lb)] 44,206 (97,457) 8,129 (17,922) 8,129 (17,922) 9,666 (21,310) Transportation +
Installation + Backfill +
Repaving
Operation [kg (lb)] 359,813 (793,251) 311,438 (686,604) 317,652 (700,303) 337,004 (742,967) Pumping + Pipe cleaning
Disposal [kg (lb)] 127 (279) 481 (1,061) 1,018 (2,245) 3,162 (6,971) CIPP cannot be recycled
Total [kg (lb)] 414,725 (914,313) 345,673 (762,079) 375,133 (827,027) 440,180 (970,431) —

© ASCE 04020005-12 J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.

J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., 2020, 11(2): 04020005

 part of the study is energy for water treatment, which is used for
cleaning, and the fuel emissions from the pumping truck, which is
used to pump water for cleaning.
Finally, for the disposal phase, this study focuses on the energy
consumed for the disposal of the pipe materials that cannot be re-
cycled; here 3.5% of the fabrication energy was considered to be
required for the disposal of nonrecyclable pipe materials. Because
CIPP cannot be recycled, the study found that CIPP has the highest
CO2 emissions during the disposal phase compared to the other
materials.
Limitations
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Cambridge University on 02/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
This study focuses only on the environmental impact (carbon
footprint) of pipeline materials during life cycle phases; regarding
social and direct costs, an earlier study on the social costs of
pipeline infrastructure projects could be used to evaluate social and
direct costs.
• The embodied energy database used in this study represents the
UK average and may not be applicable in other locations.
• All construction equipment was made in 2010, and the
dump truck used was of medium size [11.5 m3 (15 cubic
yards)].
• Maintenance and repair are not included in the operation phase
and assumed to be negligible.
• The design life of PCCP, PVC, and HDPE is 100 years, while
that of CIPP is 50 years. In reality no pipeline remains in service
for 100 years because most fail before reaching the 100-year
mark. Thus, considering the first 50 years, the PCCP method
has the largest carbon footprint compared to the other pipes.
Conclusion and Recommended Future Study
The overall goal of this study was to consider CO2 emissions dur-
ing the entire life cycle of pipeline materials to determine which
material generated the lowest amount of CO2 . The study found that
PVC pipe using the pipe bursting method has the smallest carbon
footprint compared to PCCP, HDPE, and CIPP. The CIPP method
has the largest carbon footprint compared to other pipes. It is rec-
ommended that all three impact factors (direct costs, social costs,
and environmental impact) be considered to help decision makers
select the most appropriate pipeline materials and installation
method. This study can be used as a reference for any pipe length,
diameter, or material and any installation method.
For future research, it is recommended that field studies be
conducted to obtain the data required to overcome dependence
on the assumptions made in this study. For the operation phase it
is recommended to include energy required for maintenance and
repair.
References
Alsadi, A., J. Matthews, and E. Matthews. 2018. “Evaluation of the envi-
ronmental sustainability during fabrication of commonly used pipe
materials.” In Pipelines 2018: Utility Engineering, Surveying, and
Multidisciplinary Topics, 168–176. Reston, VA: ASCE.
© ASCE 04020005-13
J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., 2020, 11(2): 04020005
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 transmis-
sion.” 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 waste-
water main rehabilitation technologies. London: IWA Publishing.
Matthews, J., E. Allouche, and R. Sterling. 2015. “Social cost impact as-
sessment 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. EPA Rep. 2010. 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. TTC
Technical Rep. No. 2001.02. 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. Transpor-
tation energy data book. 36 ed. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge
National Lab.
J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.