Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Review

Multi-Decision-Making Criteria Approach for Choosing Trenchless Construction and Renewal Method: A Comprehensive Review

Altmetrics

Downloads

141

Views

52

Comments

0

This version is not peer-reviewed

Submitted:

26 August 2024

Posted:

26 August 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
Trenchless technologies are utilized for installing new pipes or repairing and replacing old ones, categorized into construction and rehabilitation/replacement methods. With rapid urbanization, new pipe networks must be established in proportion to population growth. Additionally, due to issues like corrosion and aging, a significant portion of storm sewers, waste sewers, gas, and water pipes need annual replacement or rehabilitation. Traditional open-cut methods are no longer viable due to traffic disruption, safety concerns, environmental impacts, and high costs. Trenchless construction methods address these issues effectively. Construction trenchless methods include horizontal earth boring (no worker entry), pipe jacking, and utility tunneling (worker entry). Horizontal earth boring is further divided into horizontal auger boring, horizontal directional drilling, pipe ramming, microtunneling, pilot tube microtunneling, and compaction methods. The first part of the current study reviews and discusses the design criteria for horizontal auger boring, horizontal directional drilling, pipe jacking, pipe ramming, and microtunneling. Based on these unique project requirements, the optimal trenchless technology can be proposed. In the second part of the research, a hierarchical algorithm is proposed, based on literature concepts, to serve as a decision-making tool for selecting the optimal trenchless construction method. Sometimes, multiple methods may be proposed, with the best one chosen based on equipment availability, skilled teams, budget, and sustainability principles. Although trenchless renewal methods are not the focus of this study, their design criteria are provided in the appendices to offer a comprehensive collection of design requirements for all trenchless technologies.
Keywords: 
Subject: Engineering  -   Civil Engineering

Introduction

With the rapid and continuous growth of cities, trenchless technologies have become attractive solutions for expanding or replacing underground utility infrastructures. This is particularly true in developed and Western countries, where aging infrastructure is a common issue. The importance and viability of trenchless technologies are becoming increasingly evident. In North America, trenchless technologies account for 16.2% to 22.1% of new water main and wastewater pipe construction projects, and 69.2% and 30.9% of rehabilitation projects, respectively [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30].
Although the open-cut method remains the primary approach for pipe laying, it presents numerous problems, such as traffic disruption, safety concerns, environmental impacts, surface restoration, reduced lifespan of surface structures like pavement, and high costs. Conversely, trenchless technologies offer the best solutions for installing pipes beneath roadways without interrupting their operation. Using trenchless technologies can also reduce CO2 emissions and noise pollution [30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50].
Despite the clear advantages of trenchless technology (TT), careful consideration is needed when evaluating different trenchless methods to select the one that most efficiently meets project requirements. Various parameters and conditions must be considered, including geotechnical conditions, installation length, depth, diameter, cost, accessibility, traffic, pipe material, and more. Choosing an inappropriate trenchless method can lead to serious problems, such as damage to existing structures and utility infrastructures, surface uplift or settlement, pavement damage, and casualties [50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70].
To select between a conventional open-cut method or an appropriate TT method, various factors should be considered, classified into five groups: need-based criteria, economic criteria, technological criteria, project-specific criteria, and safety/risk criteria. These factors and their subfactors are summarized in Figure 1. If a project involves concerns such as environmental impact, traffic disruption, tight schedules, detours, high volumes of fill and cut, maintenance of bypass flows, dewatering, safety, existing facilities, good pavement quality, or right-of-way limitations, then a trenchless excavation method would be feasible [30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80].
In this study, various parameters essential for selecting a trenchless technology (TT) method are analyzed and discussed, with the findings summarized in corresponding tables. These tables serve as the primary tool for decision support systems (DSS) in choosing an appropriate trenchless method [20,21,22,23,24,25].

Methodology

Trenchless technologies are divided into two primary categories: trenchless construction methods (such as utility tunneling, pipe jacking, horizontal auger boring, horizontal directional drilling, pipe ramming, compaction methods, and pilot-tube micro-tunneling) and trenchless renewal/replacement methods (including cured-in-place pipe, underground coatings and linings, sliplining, modified sliplining, in-line replacement, and close-fit pipe). This discussion will focus on the first category. To choose the most suitable trenchless construction method, numerous influential parameters must be considered, which are examined individually in the following sections.

Geotechnical Considerations

Soil conditions play a crucial role in the successful evaluation and selection of a trenchless method. Each project has unique site conditions that must be considered. The first step involves surface investigation to gather information such as the required area, grade elevation, existing surface structures, test pit and borehole locations, and wetlands [80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90].
Following this, subsurface investigation is necessary. This includes obtaining geotechnical and geological information, as well as details about existing utility structures from local cities and utility companies. It is important to identify the type of soil and its layers, the depth of bedrock, and the water table. Common tools for obtaining subsurface geotechnical information include ground-penetrating radar (for granular soils), acoustic and geophysical methods (to determine soil type, bedrock depth, and water table), test pits, and boreholes. Budget constraints and limited access to areas beneath existing structures, such as railways, should be considered when planning subsurface investigations. Key parameters to determine at this stage include soil classification and gradation, presence of boulders and cobbles, shear strength, underground water and bedrock depth, and permeability [90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110].
When using trenchless technologies (TTs) to install underground pipes, earth displacement can occur. This depends on factors such as pipe depth, soil type and compaction, pipe size, and installation method. If the boring speed exceeds spoil removal, surface deformation is likely. The driving force should be limited by the pipe depth, as it can decrease pore pressure when excavating in cohesive soils, potentially causing the soil to shift to a liquid state and resulting in significant surface displacement. If the water table decreases, soil consolidation around the pipe can occur, increasing the driving force [110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130].
The applicability of trenchless construction methods (TCM) to different soil conditions and types is detailed in Table 1 and Table 2.
While these tables serve as useful guidelines, there are limitations to using trenchless technologies (TTs) that can vary depending on the state where the project is conducted.
For instance, according to MassDOT (1996), auger boring is not permitted if site investigations reveal a combination of loose sand and a high-water table. In such cases, ground stabilization must be carried out before excavation can proceed [130,131,132,133,134,135].

Depth of Installation

Except for horizontal directional drilling (HDD), other trenchless construction technologies can be used at any depth since they require shafts at both ends. However, their application can be limited by soil conditions if the necessary driving force exceeds their capacity [135,136,137].
For HDD, it is recommended that the maximum excavation depth not exceed 160 feet due to tracking system limitations and the absence of entrance and exit shafts. General recommendations for minimum depth of cover are provided in Table 3.

Drive Length

As the installation length increases, project risks and the required driving force also rise due to the complexity of soil conditions and the need for logistical and technical support. The maximum driving force is determined by the equipment’s capacity, while the minimum length is influenced by economic considerations, given the high costs of mobilization and demobilization. Recommendations regarding drive length are provided in Table 4 and Table 5 [40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60].

Diameter

The diameter of the pipe is a crucial factor in selecting the appropriate trenchless technology. The following table outlines the range of pipe diameters suitable for each technology [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30].
Table 6. Recommended diameter for the trenchless construction methods [15].
Table 6. Recommended diameter for the trenchless construction methods [15].
Preprints 116269 i005

Type of Pipe

Although a variety of pipe types can be utilized in trenchless construction methods (TCM), there are certain limitations, which are detailed in Table 7 [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27].

Cost

The cost components of trenchless technology include direct costs (such as construction and management), indirect costs (such as contingency damage compensation), social quantifiable costs (such as traffic, accidents, and pollution), and social non-quantifiable costs (such as environmental impacts and quality of life). According to data from the Public Works Technical Bulletin by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1999, trenchless technologies have been shown to be more cost-effective than open-cut methods (see Table 8) [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27].
Table 9 provides cost guidelines to aid in the final decision-making process when multiple trenchless methods satisfy the project’s requirements.

Application

Auger boring and pipe jacking can be used for both pressure and gravity applications, whereas horizontal directional drilling is limited to pressure applications and microtunneling to gravity applications. Pipe ramming is ideal for crossings and is primarily used for gravity applications [15,16,17,18,19,20,21].

Shafts

Trenchless construction technologies such as pipe jacking, auger boring, microtunneling, pipe ramming, and pilot tube microtunneling require entry and exit shafts. The dimensions of these shafts depend on factors like equipment size, installation length, pipe segment length, pipe diameter, spoil removal system, track system, and thrust block. Shafts can be designed in various shapes, including rectangular, circular, and oval [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28].

Decision Supporting System

As discussed, selecting a trenchless pipe installation method involves considering numerous parameters such as site conditions, existing utilities, environmental concerns, project lifecycle, economic analysis, and pipe dimensions. These parameters are based on the characteristics, design criteria, needs, and objectives of each project. Sometimes, multiple methods may be proposed for a project. To select the optimal method and ensure a successful project that is completed on time and within budget with minimal environmental and societal impact, it is essential to thoroughly evaluate all project conditions and design criteria.
Many researchers have developed analytical models using hierarchical algorithms that can serve as decision support systems (DSS) for selecting the most appropriate trenchless pipe installation method. Figure 2, provided by the author, is based on a flow chart concept and can be used as a DSS tool.
This figure suggests applicable trenchless methods for each type of input (requirement) and ultimately presents the method(s) that meet all requirements in the project report. If multiple methods are proposed, the optimal one is selected based on technology availability, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability concerns [22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44].

References

  1. Abusad, B. (2012). Selectin a Shaft/ Pit Construction Method for Trenchless Technology. Arlington, TX.
  2. Amr Mostafa Fathy, Soliman Abu Samra. (n.d.). Trenchless Technologies Decision Support System Using Integrated Heirarchical Artificial Neural Netwroks and Genetic Algorithms. Researchgate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282800874.
  3. Caslaov Dunovic, Maja Marija Nahod. (n.d.). Expert Choice Model for Choosing appropriate Trenchless Method for Pipe Laying. Reseachgate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265191981.
  4. Dulcy M. Abraham, Hyeon Shik Baik, Sanjive Gokhale. (2002). Development of a Decision Support System for Selection of Trenchless Technologies to Minimize Impact of Utility Constrcution On Roadways. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University.
  5. Zwierzchowska, A. (2006). The Optimum Choice of Trenchless Pipe Laying Technologies. ELSEVIER, Tunnelign and Underground Space Technology. [CrossRef]
  6. Berardi, L., Giustolisi, O., Savic, D. and Kapelan, Z. (2009). An effective multi-objective approach to prioritization of sewer pipe inspection. Water Science & Technology, 60(4), p.841. [CrossRef]
  7. Syar, J., Najafi, M., Kouchesfehani, Z.K., Korky, S.J., Tehrani, A.D., Kaushal, V. (2020). “Soil Box Testing of Spray Applied Pipe Linings as a Structural Renewal for Gravity Storm Water Conveyance Conduits.” Proc. North American Society for Trenchless Technology (NASTT) No-Dig Conference, Denver, CO.
  8. Kaushal, V., Najafi, M., Serajiantehrani, R. (2019). “Evaluation of Construction Cost of Trenchless Cured-in-Place Pipe Renewal Method Compared with Open-cut Pipeline Replacement for Sanitary Sewers.” Proc. ICPTT 2019, China.
  9. Kaushal, V., Serajiantehrani, R., Najafi, M., and Hummel, M. (2019). “Seismic Hazards Estimation for Buried Infrastructure Systems: Challenges and Solutions.” Proc. 2PndP International Conference on Natural Hazards & Infrastructure, 23-26 June, 2019, Chania, Greece.
  10. Berardi, L., Giustolisi, O., Savic, D. and Kapelan, Z. (2009). An effective multi-objective approach to prioritization of sewer pipe inspection. Water Science & Technology, 60(4), p.841. [CrossRef]
  11. He, S. and Koizumi, A. (2013). Damage Discrimination Analysis with QuantificationTheory for Sewage Pipe System. Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice, 4(1), pp.11-16. [CrossRef]
  12. Duran, O., Althoefer, K. & Seneviratne, L.D. 2002, "Automated sewer pipe inspection through image processing", IEEE, pp. 2551. [CrossRef]
  13. Elmasry, M., Zayed, T. and Hawari, A. (2018). Defect-Based ArcGIS Tool for Prioritizing Inspection of Sewer Pipelines. Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice, 9(4), p.04018021. [CrossRef]
  14. Najafi, M., Kaushal, V., Visser, J. (2024). “Operational Planning and Design Considerations for an Underground Logistics Transportation in Texas.” Infrastructures, MDPI. [CrossRef]
  15. Lindsat Ivey Burden, E. J. (2015). Synthesis of Trenchless Technologies. Virginia Center For Transportation Innovation and Research.
  16. Makarand Hastak, Sanjiv Gokhale. (2000). System for Evaluating Underground Pipeline Renewal Options. ASCE Journal of Infrastructure System. [CrossRef]
  17. Oregon Department of Transportation. (2014). Hydraulics Manual. Oregon.
  18. PINTER & Associates Ltd. (2013). Trenchless Technologoes and Work Practices Review For Saskatchewan Municipalities.
  19. Underground Engineering and Trenchless Technologies at the Defense of Environment. (2016). 15th Intl Scientific Conference Underground Urbanization as Prerequisite for Sustainable Development. St. Petersburg: ELSEVIER.
  20. Kaushal, V., Saeed, E. (2024). “Advanced Self-Healing Concrete Technologies to Minimize Environmental Consequences in Building Industry.” Highlights of Sustainability.
  21. Thakre, G., Kaushal, V., Najafi, M. (2024). “A Comparative Impact Assessment of Hail Damage to Tile and Built-Up Roofing Systems: Technical Review and Field Study.” Preprints.
  22. Kaushal, V., Pham, A. (2024). “Towards Sustainable Construction Development: A Qualitative Review.” Preprints.
  23. Kaushal, V., Saeed, E. (2024). “Sustainable and Innovative Self-Healing Concrete Technologies to Mitigate Environmental Impacts in Construction.” CivilEng, MDPI. [CrossRef]
  24. Patel, J., Kaushal, V. (2024). “Comparative Review Study of Modular Construction with Traditional On-site Construction.” Preprints.
  25. Bavilinezhad, S., Najafi, M., Kaushal, V., Elledge, W., Kaynak, B. (2024). “Environmental Impact Assessment of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions during Trenchless Cured-in-Place Pipe Installation.” MDPI Environments. [CrossRef]
  26. Bani Fawwaz, M.D., Najafi, M., Kaushal, V. (2023). “Asset Management of Wastewater Interceptors Adjacent to Bodies of Water.” Water, MDPI, ISSN: 2073-4441. [CrossRef]
  27. Kaushal, V. and Najafi, M. (2022). Investigation of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion of Concrete in Sanitary Sewer Pipes and Manholes: Field Surveys and Laboratory Assessment. Advances in Environmental and Engineering Research, 3 (2). [CrossRef]
  28. Jamali, K., Kaushal, V. (2022). “Additive Manufacturing: The Future of Construction.” Trends in Civil Engineering and its Architecture, ISSN: 2637-4668.
  29. Ebrahimi, M., Ebrahimi, M., Seyedkazemi, A., Shirkhanloo, S., Kaushal, V. (2022). “Effects of Micro and Nano Silica and Steel and Polypropylene (PPS) Fibers on the Characteristics of High Strength Self-Compacting Concrete (HSC-SCC).” Trends in Civil Engineering and its Architecture, ISSN: 2637-4668.
  30. Atambo, D. O., Najafi, M., Kaushal, V. (2022). “Condition Prediction of Sanitary Sewerage Pipeline Systems Using Multinomial Logistic Regression.” Journal of Engineering in Agriculture and the Environment, 8(3). [CrossRef]
  31. Hicks, J., Kaushal, V., Jamali, K. (2022). “A Comparative Review of Trenchless Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP) with Spray Applied Pipe Lining (SAPL) Renewal Methods for Pipelines.” Frontiers in Water, Frontiers, 2022. [CrossRef]
  32. Atambo, D. O., Najafi, M., Kaushal, V. (2022). Development and Comparison of Prediction Models for Sanitary Sewer Pipes Condition Assessment Using Multinomial Logistic Regression and Artificial Neural Network. Sustainability, 14(9), 5549. [CrossRef]
  33. Rezaeifar, F., Najafi, M., Kaushal, V. (2022). “Development of a Model to Optimize the Operations Of An Intermodal Underground Freight Transportation Terminal.” Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice, ASCE, ISSN: 1949-1204. [CrossRef]
  34. Shirkhanloo, S., Najafi, M., Kaushal, V. (2022). “A Comparative Study on the Effect of Class C and Class F Fly Ashes on Geotechnical Parameters of High-Plasticity Clay.” MDPI’s Civil Engineering Journal, 2021. [CrossRef]
  35. He, S. and Koizumi, A. (2013). Damage Discrimination Analysis with QuantificationTheory for Sewage Pipe System. Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice, 4(1), pp.11-16. [CrossRef]
  36. Kunzel, J., Werner, T., Eisert, P. & Waschnewski, J. 2018, "Automatic Analysis of Sewer Pipes Based on Unrolled Monocular Fisheye Images", IEEE, pp. 2019. [CrossRef]
  37. Nassiraei, A.A.F., Kawamura, Y., Ahrary, A., Mikuriya, Y. & Ishii, K. 2006, "A New Approach to the Sewer Pipe Inspection: Fully Autonomous Mobile Robot "KANTARO"", IEEE, pp. 4088. [CrossRef]
  38. Sasaki, K., Katagiri, T., Yusa, N. & Hashizume, H. 2018, "Experimental verification of long-range microwave pipe inspection using straight pipes with lengths of 19–26.5 m", NDT and E International, vol. 96, pp. 47-57. [CrossRef]
  39. Kaushal, V., Najafi, M., Serajiantehrani, R., Malek Mohammadi, M. (2020). “A Framework for Evaluation of Social Costs of Open-cut Pipeline Replacement for Sanitary Sewers.” Proc. ASCE Pipelines 2020, San Antonio, TX.
  40. Kaushal, V., Najafi, M., Serajiantehrani, R. (2020). “Sanitary Sewer Construction Cost Comparison Between Trenchless CIPP Renewal and Open-Cut Replacement.” Proc. The Third European and Mediterranean Structural Engineering and Construction Conference, Limassol, Cyprus, June 22-27, 2020. [CrossRef]
  41. Korky, S.J., Najafi, M., Syar, J.E., Serajiantehrani, R., Kaushal, V., Malek Mohammadi, M. (2020). “Development of a Decision Support System for Selecting Trenchless Renewal Methods for Structural Renewal of Culverts and Drainage Structures.” Proc. North American Society for Trenchless Technology (NASTT) No-Dig Conference, Denver, CO.
  42. Korky, S.J., Najafi, M., Kaushal, V., Serajiantehrani, R. (2022). “State-of-the-Art Review on Application of Spray Applied Pipe Linings (SAPLs) in Gravity Storm Water Conveyance Conduits.” Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice, ASCE, ISSN: 1949-1204. [CrossRef]
  43. Jamali, K., Kaushal, V., and Najafi, M. (2021). Evolution of Additive Manufacturing in Civil Infrastructure Systems: A Ten-Year Review. MDPI’s Infrastructures, 2021. [CrossRef]
  44. Kaushal, V., Najafi, M. and Entezarmahdi, A. (2021). Testing, Analysis and Classification of No-Dig Manhole Rehabilitation Materials. Front. Water, 3, 713817. [CrossRef]
  45. Kaushal, V. and Najafi, M. (2021). “Strategies to Mitigate COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts on Health and Safety of Workers in Construction Projects.” Civil Engineering Beyond Limits (CEBEL), ACA Publishing, Turkey, Vol. 2021, Issue 2, ISSN: 2687-5756.
  46. Kaushal, C.P. and Kaushal, V. (2021). “Impact of COVID-19 on Higher Education in India: Lessons Learned and Mitigation Measures.” Journal of Nature, Science & Technology, ACA Publishing, Turkey, Vol. 2021, Issue 1, ISSN: 2757-7783.
  47. Loganathan, K., Najafi, M., Kaushal, V., Agyemang, P. (2021). “Development of a Decision Support Tool for Inspection and Monitoring of Large-Diameter Steel and Prestressed Concrete Cylinder Water Pipes.” Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice, ASCE, Vol. 13, Issue 1, ISSN: 1949-1204. [CrossRef]
  48. Gao, R., & Wang, J. (2023). The influence of repair technique on the distribution of biogenic CaCO3 in a mimic vertical crack. Construction and Building Materials, 402, 133021. [CrossRef]
  49. J.Y. Richard Liew, M.-X. X.-L. (2021). Design of Steel-Concrete Composite Structures Using High-Strength Materials. Woodhead Publishing Series in Civil and Structural Engineering.
  50. Jianhang Feng, S. Q. (2023). Accelerating autonomic healing of cementitious composites by using nano calcium carbonate coated polypropylene fibers. Materials & Design, 225. [CrossRef]
  51. Maddalena, R. e. (2022). Applications and Life Cycle Assessment of Shape Memory Polyethylene Terephthalate in Concrete for Crack Closure. Polymers, 15(5). [CrossRef]
  52. Nasser, A. A. (2022). Microbially-Induced-Calcite-Precipitation (MICP): A Biotechnological Approach to Enhance the Durability of Concrete Using Bacillus Pasteurii and Bacillus Sphaericus. Heliyon, 8(7). [CrossRef]
  53. PCA. (2024, April 09). Retrieved from Portland Cement Association: https://www.cement.org/cement-concrete.
  54. Pisani, S. G. (2022). Shape-Memory Polymers Hallmarks and Their Biomedical Applications in the Form of Nanofibers. Internal Journal of Molecular Sciences, 23(3). [CrossRef]
  55. Pitcha Jongvivatsakul, K. J. (2019). Investigation of the crack healing performance in mortar using microbially induced calcium carbonate precipitation (MICP) method. Construction and Building Materials, 212, 737-744. [CrossRef]
  56. Prabha, S. L. (2020). Development of high-strength nano-cementitious composites using copper slag. ACI Materials Journal, 117(4), 37-46. [CrossRef]
  57. Ruben Snellings, P. S. (2023). Future and emerging supplementary cementitious materials. Cement and Concrete Research, 171. [CrossRef]
  58. Simpkins, K. (2022, June 23). Cities of the future may be built with algae-grown limestone. Retrieved from CU Boulder Today: https://www.colorado.edu/today/2022/06/23/cities-future-may-be-built-algae-grown-limestone.
  59. Malek Mohammadi, M., Najafi, M., Kaushal, V., Serajiantehrani, R., Salehabadi, N., Ashoori, T. (2019). “Sewer Pipes Condition Prediction Models: A State-of-the-Art Review.” Infrastructures, Vol. 64, Issue 4, MDPI, ISSN: 2412-3811. [CrossRef]
  60. Kaushal, V., Najafi, M., Love, J., and Qasim, S. R. (2019). “Microbiologically Induced Deterioration and Protection of Concrete in Municipal Sewerage System: Technical Review.” Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice, ASCE, Vol. 11, Issue 1, ISSN: 1949-1204. [CrossRef]
  61. Sharma, J., Najafi, M., Marshall, D., Kaushal, V., and Hatami, M. (2019). “Development of a Model for Estimation of Buried Large Diameter Thin-Walled Steel Pipe Deflection due to External Loads.” Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice, ASCE, Vol. 10, Issue 3, ISSN: 1949-1204. [CrossRef]
  62. Kaushal, V. (2015). “Influence of Jute Fibres on Unconfined and Compressive Strength of Alkaline Soil.” Journal of Civil Engineering and Environmental Technology, Vol. 2, Issue 4, April-June 2015, ISSN: 2349-879X.
  63. Kaushal, V. (2014). “Earthquake Resistant Construction.” Engineering Sciences International Research Journal, Vol.2, Issue 1, ISSN 2320-4338.
  64. Kaushal, V. and Guleria, S.P. (2015). “Geotechnical Investigation of Black Cotton Soils.” International Journal of Advances in Engineering Sciences, Vol.5, Issue 2, ISSN: 2231-0347.
  65. Thakre, G., Kaushal, V., Najafi, M. (2024). “Concrete Foundation Damage Assessment and Repair Methodologies for Residential Structures.” 10th Forensic Engineering Congress, 2024.
  66. Thakre, G., Kaushal, V., Najafi, M. (2024). “Assessment of Hail Damage for Tile Roofing System: A Technical Review.” 10th Forensic Engineering Congress, 2024.
  67. Kaur, K., Calderón, D. R., Ghalambor, S., Najafi, M., Caldwell, B., Kaushal, V. (2024). “Testing and Evaluating of Spray Applied Pipe Lining as a Class IV Lining System.” Proc. ASCE Pipelines 2024.
  68. Kaushal, V., Saeed, E. (2024). “Socio-Environmental Costs Comparison of Trenchless Cured-in-Place Pipe and Open-cut Pipeline Replacement Methods.” Proc. 2024 College of Engineering Innovation Day.
  69. Bavilinezhad, S., Elledge, W., Kaynak, B., Najafi, M., Kaushal, V and Hamidzadeh, P. (2024). “Equipment and Methods for Measuring Volatile Organic Compound Emissions During CIPP Renewal.” No-Dig Show 2024.
  70. Atambo, D., Kaushal, V., Najafi, M. (2023). “Condition Prediction of Sanitary Sewerage Pipeline Systems Using Multinomial Logistic Regression.” NASTT No-Dig Show 2023. [CrossRef]
  71. Atambo, D., Kaushal, V., Najafi, M. (2023). “Condition Prediction of Sanitary Sewer Pipes Using Artificial Neural Network.” NASTT No-Dig Show 2023.
  72. Kaushal, V., Kaddoura, K., Adhikari, S., Najafi, M. (2022). “The Level of Utilizing Water Pipeline Condition Assessment Tools by Public Owners: A Structured Survey.” Proc. ASCE Pipelines 2022, Indianapolis, IN.
  73. Serajiantehrani, R., Najafi, M., Kaushal, V., Malek Mohammadi, M. (2022). “Environmental and Construction Costs Analysis of Trenchless High Density Poly Ethylene (HDPE) Sliplining Renewal Method in Large Diameter Culverts.” Proc. ASCE Pipelines 2022, Indianapolis, IN.
  74. Atambo, D., Kaushal, V., Najafi, M. (2022). “Prediction Model Development for Sanitary Sewer Pipes Condition Assessment Using Logistic Regression and Neural Networks.” Proc. ASCE Pipelines 2022, Indianapolis, IN.
  75. Kaushal, V., Najafi, M., Serajiantehrani, R., Malek Mohammadi, M., Shirkhanloo, S. (2022). “Construction Cost Comparison between Trenchless Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP) Renewal and Open-cut Replacement for Sanitary Sewers.” Proc. ASCE Pipelines 2022, Indianapolis, IN.
  76. Atambo, D., Kaushal, V., Najafi, M. (2022). “Prediction of Sanitary Sewer Pipes Using Multinomial Logistic Regression and Artificial Neural Network.” Proc. The Fourth European and Mediterranean Structural Engineering and Construction Conference, Leipzig, Germany, June 20-25, 2022.
  77. Xin Qian, H. Y. (2022). Eco-friendly treatment of carbon nanofibers in cementitious materials for better performance Author links open overlay panel. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 16. [CrossRef]
  78. Kaushal, V. and Najafi, M. (2020). “Comparative Assessment of Environmental Impacts from Open-cut Pipeline Replacement and Trenchless Cured-in-Place Pipe Renewal Method for Sanitary Sewers.” MDPI’s Infrastructures, 5(6) 48, ISSN: 2412-3811. [CrossRef]
  79. Kaushal, V., Najafi, M., Serajiantehrani, R. (2020). “Environmental Impacts of Conventional Open-cut Pipeline Installation and Trenchless Technology Methods: A State-of-the-Art Review." Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice, ASCE, Vol. 11, Issue 2, ISSN: 1949-1204. [CrossRef]
  80. Kaushal, V. and Najafi, M. (2020). “Comparison of Environmental and Social Costs of Trenchless Cured-in-Place Pipe Renewal Method with Open-cut Pipeline Replacement for Sanitary Sewers.” Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice, ASCE, Vol. 11, Issue 4, ISSN: 1949-1204.
  81. Mamaqani, B., Najafi, M., and Kaushal, V. (2020). “Developing a Risk Assessment Model for Trenchless Technology Box Jacking Technique.” Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice, ASCE, Vol. 11 (4), ISSN: 1949-1204. [CrossRef]
  82. Malek Mohammadi, M., Najafi, M., Kermanshachi, S., Kaushal, V., Serajiantehrani, R. (2020). “Factors Influencing the Condition of Sewer Pipes: A State-of-the-Art Review.” Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice, ASCE, Vol. 11, Issue 4, ISSN: 1949-1204. [CrossRef]
  83. Kaushal, V., Najafi, M. (2022). “Evaluation of Microbiologically Induced Corrosion of Concrete in Sanitary Sewerage System.” Proc. The Fourth European and Mediterranean Structural Engineering and Construction Conference, Leipzig, Germany, June 20-25, 2022.
  84. Loganathan, K., Najafi, M., Kaushal, V., Agyemang, P. (2021). “Evaluation of Public Private Partnership in Infrastructure Projects.” Proc. ASCE Pipelines 2021, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
  85. Kaushal, V., Najafi, M. (2021). “Microbiologically Induced Corrosion of Concrete in Sanitary Sewerage System: A Review of Processes and Control Mechanisms.” Proc. ASCE Pipelines 2021, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
  86. Kaushal, V., Najafi, M., Serajiantehrani, R., Malek Mohammadi, M. (2020). “Environmental Impact Assessment of Trenchless Cured-in-Place Pipe Renewal Method for Sanitary Sewer Applications.” Proc. ASCE Pipelines 2021, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
  87. Serajiantehrani, R., Najafi, M., Kaushal, V., Malek Mohammadi, M. (2021). “Life-cycle Assessment of Trenchless Cured-in-place Pipe (CIPP) Renewal Method in Large Diameter Stormwater Drainage Conduits.” Proc. World Environmental & Water Resources Congress 2021.
  88. Kaushal, V. and Guleria, S.P. (2015). Investigation of Flyash–Lime-Gypsum Mix Reinforced with Jute Fibres. Thesis. Jawaharlal Nehru Government Engineering College, Sundernagar, India.
  89. ASCE (2017). “Infrastructure Report Card,” Reston, VA.
  90. Hashemi, B., Iseley, T., and Raulston, J. (2011). “Water Pipeline Renewal Evaluation Using AWWA Class IV CIPP, Pipe Bursting and Open-Cut,” ASCE International Conference on Pipelines and Trenchless Technology, 2011.
  91. Santo Domingo, J. W., Revetta, R. P., Iker, B., Gomez-Alvarez, V., Garcia, J., Sullivan, J., and Weast, J. (2011). “Molecular Survey of Concrete Sewer Biofilm Microbial Communities.” Biofouling, 27, 993–1001. [CrossRef]
  92. Satoh, H., Odagiri, M., Ito, T., Okabe, S. (2009). “Microbial Community Structures and In Situ Sulfate-Reducing and Sulfur-Oxidizing Activities in Biofilms Developed on Mortar Specimens in a Corroded Sewer System.” Water Res. 43, 4729-4739. [CrossRef]
  93. Roy, D.M., Arjunan, P. and Silsbee, M.R. (2001). “Effect of Silica Fume, Metakaolin, and Low-Calcium Fly Ash on Chemical Resistance of Concrete.” Cem. Concr. Res. 2001, 31, 1809–1813. [CrossRef]
  94. Sabir, B.B., Wild, S. and Bai, J. (2001). “Metakaolin and Calcined Clays as Pozzolans for Concrete: A Review.” Cem. Concr. Compos. 2001, 23, 441–454. [CrossRef]
  95. Santo Domingo, J. W., Revetta, R. P., Iker, B., Gomez-Alvarez, V., Garcia, J., Sullivan, J., and Weast, J. (2011). “Molecular Survey of Concrete Sewer Biofilm Microbial Communities.” Biofouling, 27, 993–1001. [CrossRef]
  96. Satoh, H., Odagiri, M., Ito, T., Okabe, S. (2009). “Microbial Community Structures and In Situ Sulfate-Reducing and Sulfur-Oxidizing Activities in Biofilms Developed on Mortar Specimens in a Corroded Sewer System.” Water Res. 43, 4729-4739. [CrossRef]
  97. Senhadji, Y., Escadeillas, G., Mouli, M., Khelafi, H. and Benosman (2014). “Influence of Natural Pozzolan, Silica Fume and Limestone Fine on Strength, Acid Resistance and Microstructure of Mortar.” Powder Technol. 2014, 254, 314–323. [CrossRef]
  98. Shetti, A.P. and Das, B.B. (2015). “Acid, Alkali and Chloride Resistance of Early Age Cured Silica Fume Concrete.” Advances in Structural Engineering: Materials; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2015; Volume 3, pp. 1849–1862.
  99. Sublette, K.L., Kolhatkar, R. and Raterman, K. (1998). “Technological Aspects of the Microbial Treatment of Sulfide-Rich Wastewaters: A Case Study.” Biodegradation 1998, 9, 259–271. [CrossRef]
  100. Sugio, T., White, K.J., Shute, E., Choate, D. and Blake, R.C. (1992). “Existence of a Hydrogen.
  101. Sulfide, Ferric Ion Oxidoreductase in Iron-oxidizing Bacteria.” Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 58, 431-433.
  102. American Concrete Institute. (2024, April 9). Technical Questions. Retrieved from American Concrete Institute: https://www.concrete.org/tools/frequentlyaskedquestions.aspx?faqid=688#:~:text=A%20pozzolan%20is%20a%20siliceous,form%20compounds%20having%20cementitious%20properties.
  103. Malek Mohammadi, M., Najafi, M., Serajiantehrani, R., Kaushal, V., Hajyalikhani, P. (2021). “Using Machine Learning to Predict Condition of Sewer Pipes.” Proc. ASCE Pipelines 2021, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
  104. Serajiantehrani, R., Najafi, M., Kaushal, V., Malek Mohammadi, M., Korky, S.J. (2021). “Construction Cost Analysis of Trenchless Cured-in-place Pipe and Spray-applied Pipe Linings Rehabilitation Methods in Gravity Stormwater Conveyance Conduits.” Proc. ASCE Pipelines 2021, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
  105. Serajiantehrani, R., Najafi, M., Kaushal, V., Malek Mohammadi, M. (2020). “Environmental Impact Assessment of Trenchless Spray Applied Pipe Linings Renewal Method in Water Mains.” Proc. World Environmental & Water Resources Congress 2020, Henderson, Nevada.
  106. Malek Mohammadi, M., Najafi, M., Serajiantehrani, R., Kaushal, V. (2020). “Predicting Condition of Sanitary Sewer Pipes with Random Forest.” Proc. ASCE Pipelines 2020, San Antonio, TX.
  107. Serajiantehrani, R., Najafi, M., Kaushal, V., Malek Mohammadi, M. (2020). “Framework for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of Trenchless Renewal Methods for Large Diameter Culverts.” Proc. ASCE Pipelines 2020, San Antonio, TX.
  108. Kaushal, V., Najafi, M., Sattler, M., and Schug, K. (2019). “Review of Literature on Chemical Emissions and Worker Exposures Associated with Cured-In-Place Pipe (CIPP) Installation.” Proc. ASCE Pipelines 2019, Nashville, TN.
  109. Kaushal, V., Najafi, M., Sattler, M., and Schug, K. (2019). “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.” Proc. North American Society for Trenchless Technology (NASTT) No-Dig Conference, Chicago, IL.
  110. Pisani, S. G. (2022). Shape-Memory Polymers Hallmarks and Their Biomedical Applications in the Form of Nanofibers. Internal Journal of Molecular Sciences, 23(3). [CrossRef]
  111. Pitcha Jongvivatsakul, K. J. (2019). Investigation of the crack healing performance in mortar using microbially induced calcium carbonate precipitation (MICP) method. Construction and Building Materials, 212, 737-744. [CrossRef]
  112. Xin Qian, H. Y. (2022). Eco-friendly treatment of carbon nanofibers in cementitious materials for better performance Author links open overlay panel. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 16. [CrossRef]
  113. Prabha, S. L. (2020). Development of high-strength nano-cementitious composites using copper slag. ACI Materials Journal, 117(4), 37-46. [CrossRef]
  114. Ruben Snellings, P. S. (2023). Future and emerging supplementary cementitious materials. Cement and Concrete Research, 171. [CrossRef]
  115. Simpkins, K. (2022, June 23). Cities of the future may be built with algae-grown limestone. Retrieved from CU Boulder Today: https://www.colorado.edu/today/2022/06/23/cities-future-may-be-built-algae-grown-limestone.
  116. Kaushal, V., Iyer, G., Najafi, M., Sattler, M., and Schug, K. (2019). “Review of Literature for Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP) Chemical Emissions and Worker Exposures.” Proc. Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C.
  117. 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. The University of Texas at Arlington.
  118. Kaushal, V., Najafi, M. and Love, J. (2018). "Qualitative Investigation of Microbially Induced Corrosion of Concrete in Sanitary Sewer Pipe and Manholes." Proc. ASCE Pipelines 2018, Toronto, Canada, pp. 768-775.
  119. Kaushal, V. and Guleria, S.P. (2016). “Study of Tensile Strength and Mineralogical behavior of Fly Ash – Lime-Gypsum composite reinforced with Jute Fibres.” Proc. National Conference on Innovation without limits in Civil Engineering during Mar 18-19, 2016, Jawaharlal Nehru Government Engineering College Sundernagar, India.
  120. Kaushal, V. and Sharma, V. (2016). “Novel Composite Mix based on Jute Fibres for Building Construction.” Proc. International Conference on Redefining Textiles-Cutting Edge Technology of the Future (RTCT-2016) during April 8-10, 2016 at NIT Jalandhar, India.
  121. Kaushal, V. (2013). “Green Manufacturing.” Proc. 1st National Seminar on New Horizons in Engineering and Technology, HIET Shahpur, Kangra, April 16-17, 2013, Himachal Pradesh, India.
  122. Amran M, O. A. (2022, April 29). Self-Healing Concrete as a Prospective Construction Material: A Review. Materials, 15(9). [CrossRef]
  123. Amran, M. O. (2022). Self-Healing Concrete as a Prospective Construction Material: A Review. Materials, 15(9). [CrossRef]
  124. Balzano B., S. J.-B. (n.d.). Modified hybrid shape memory polymer tendons for enhanced concrete crack closure. Proceedings of the Resilient Materials 4 Life 2020. orca.cardiff.ac.uk.
  125. Bandyopadhyay A, S. A. (2023). Microbial repairing of concrete & its role in CO2 sequestration: A critical review. Beni-Suef University Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 12(1). [CrossRef]
  126. Chen, Q., Su, Y., Li, M., & Qian, C. (2021). Calcium carbonate labeling for the characterization of self-healing cracks in cement-based materials. Materials Letters, 292, 129507. [CrossRef]
  127. D. Matthew Stuart, P. S. (2020). Concrete Deterioration. Fairfax: PDH Center.
  128. Feng, J., Su, Y., & Qian, C. (2019). Coupled effect of PP fiber, PVA fiber and bacteria on self-healing efficiency of early-age cracks in concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 228, 116810. [CrossRef]
  129. Feng, J., Yang, F., & Qian, S. (2021). Improving the bond between polypropylene fiber and cement matrix by nano calcium carbonate modification. Construction and Building Materials, 269, 121249. [CrossRef]
  130. Feng, J., Rohaizat, R. E. B., & Qian, S. (2022). Polydopamine@ carbon nanotube reinforced and calcium sulphoaluminate coated hydrogels encapsulating bacterial spores for self-healing cementitious composites. Cement and Concrete Composites, 133, 104712. [CrossRef]
  131. Feng, J., Rohaizat, R. E. B., & Qian, S. (2024). Unveiling the impact of graphene oxide on bacteria-based autonomous healing of cracks in cementitious composites. Cement and Concrete Composites, 151, 105596. [CrossRef]
  132. Gao, R., & Wang, J. (2023). The influence of repair technique on the distribution of biogenic CaCO3 in a mimic vertical crack. Construction and Building Materials, 402, 133021. [CrossRef]
  133. J.Y. Richard Liew, M.-X. X.-L. (2021). Design of Steel-Concrete Composite Structures Using High-Strength Materials. Woodhead Publishing Series in Civil and Structural Engineering.
  134. Jianhang Feng, S. Q. (2023). Accelerating autonomic healing of cementitious composites by using nano calcium carbonate coated polypropylene fibers. Materials & Design, 225. [CrossRef]
  135. Maddalena, R. e. (2022). Applications and Life Cycle Assessment of Shape Memory Polyethylene Terephthalate in Concrete for Crack Closure. Polymers, 15(5). [CrossRef]
  136. Nasser, A. A. (2022). Microbially-Induced-Calcite-Precipitation (MICP): A Biotechnological Approach to Enhance the Durability of Concrete Using Bacillus Pasteurii and Bacillus Sphaericus. Heliyon, 8(7). [CrossRef]
  137. PCA. (2024, April 09). Retrieved from Portland Cement Association: https://www.cement.org/cement-concrete.
Preprints 116269 g001
Figure 1. The influential factors used to select an appropriate method of pipe laying [16] (Makarand Hastak, Sanjiv Gokhale, 2000).
Figure 1. The influential factors used to select an appropriate method of pipe laying [16] (Makarand Hastak, Sanjiv Gokhale, 2000).
Preprints 116269 g001
Preprints 116269 g002
Figure 2. A flow chart proposed by the author as a tool for DSS.
Figure 2. A flow chart proposed by the author as a tool for DSS.
Preprints 116269 g002
Table 1. Applicability of the trenchless construction methods in different soils [15] (Lindsat Ivey Burden, 2015).
Table 1. Applicability of the trenchless construction methods in different soils [15] (Lindsat Ivey Burden, 2015).
Preprints 116269 i009
Yes=generally used; M=possible but difficulties may occur; No= generally unsuitable.
Table 2. Effect of cohesion on applicability of the trenchless construction methods [15].
Table 2. Effect of cohesion on applicability of the trenchless construction methods [15].
Preprints 116269 i001
Yes=recommended: M=possible but difficulties may occur: No=generally unsuitable: D =size of largest boulder versus minimum diameter.
Table 3. Minimum average depth for the trenchless methods [15].
Table 3. Minimum average depth for the trenchless methods [15].
Preprints 116269 i002
Table 4. Recommended driving length for the trenchless construction methods [15].
Table 4. Recommended driving length for the trenchless construction methods [15].
Preprints 116269 i003
Table 5. Recommended installation length for the trenchless construction methods [15].
Table 5. Recommended installation length for the trenchless construction methods [15].
Preprints 116269 i004
Table 7. Recommended pipe type for the trenchless construction methods [15].
Table 7. Recommended pipe type for the trenchless construction methods [15].
Preprints 116269 i006
Table 8. Cost-effectiveness of the trenchless technologies relative to open-cut method (Dollar 1999) [15].
Table 8. Cost-effectiveness of the trenchless technologies relative to open-cut method (Dollar 1999) [15].
Preprints 116269 i007
LM= Lineal Meter.
Table 9. Recommended cost per foot for the trenchless construction methods [15].
Table 9. Recommended cost per foot for the trenchless construction methods [15].
Preprints 116269 i008
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated