Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Review

Evaluation of Trenchless Pressure Pipeline Inspection Methods

Altmetrics

Downloads

45

Views

30

Comments

0

This version is not peer-reviewed

Submitted:

04 September 2024

Posted:

05 September 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
Within the research of pressure pipeline inspection methods there is an industry that is constantly growing and becoming more efficient. The purpose of inspection methods on pressure pipelines comes back to the issue of resolving leaks, corrosion, and inability of a pipeline to function (eventually). Evidently, these issues can hurt the environment, the public using the material being carried out by these pressure pipelines such as natural gas or petroleum and can hurt the pockets of pipeline companies that did not react quick enough to their pipeline solely for the reason that they may have not noticed there was an issue with their pressure pipeline. In-line inspection methods are continuously growing and have already made an impact to prevent the catastrophes that occur when a pipeline is not maintained. Technology such as smart pigs, MFLs, and ultrasounds are the future of pressure pipeline inspection. This research paper explains their pros and cons and how they’re overall more efficient and preferred as the primary inspection method for a pipeline. Older, more traditional methods such as aerial inspection, by-foot inspection, hydrostatic pressure testing, and Direct Assessment does not cover every base of inspection like in-line inspection technology does and this research explains why that is and the areas of where in-line inspection technology can be improved and deemed not as useful. This is where trenchless renewal and replacement methods come into play with inspection methods and determining the characteristics of a pipeline that matches with which inspection method and which trenchless method to use. The future of inspection methods for pressure pipelines is attainable and is somewhat already here, this research discusses the new emerging technologies and how designing in-line inspection technology to be cheaper and more versatile with pipeline characteristics can make everyone a winner in the future. A winner as far the environment being safe, neighborhoods near pressure pipelines being safe, companies being able to install in-line inspection technology at a fraction of the cost of today and the efficiency of pipelines by monitoring the characteristics with this new technology.
Keywords: 
Subject: Engineering  -   Civil Engineering

Introduction and Background

Pressure pipelines are the most cost-effective way to transport large amounts of important material that is used in the industry and the every day lives of human civilization such as crude oil, natural gas liquids, and even something that adults drink globally other than water, that would be beer. In a 2014 study, it was estimated that around 2,175,000 miles of pipeline has been built in about 120 countries since humans have began building these transportation systems [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].
Now there is one big issue with these amazing engineering products, the problem is that pressure pipelines can go through corrosion, cracks and holes, and even lead to a pipeline failure where a pipe bursts and causes a huge accident which can be dangerous for pressure pipelines that might hold flammable material ready to explode. This is where research has come into play on finding inspection methods to safely diagnose and resolve issues that a pipeline may have in the present or future. Since taking pipes out of service and/or installing bypass pumps is considered drastically expensive, new methods have been discovered to inspect a pressure pipeline without having to do such things. A major inspection device used in the oil and gas industry to diagnose pipelines is the use of a pipeline inspection gauge, also known as pigs which will be discussed in this paper [22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42].
The following lists are different trenchless methods that are determined the best practice to use after doing inspection on a pressure pipeline and concluding on what would be the most economical and long- term improvement of a failing or corroded pressure pipeline.
  • Pressure pipelines are renewed and replaced by the following trenchless methods: “Conventional Pipe Jacking & Utility Tunneling, Auger Boring, Horizontal Directional Drilling.”
  • And the following renewal methods: “Cured-In-Place Pipe, Sliplining, Coatings and Linings, Close- Fit Pipe (AWWA Class 3 or 4 depending on floor pressure), Thermoformed Pipe”
  • And the following trenchless replacement methods: “Pipe Bursting, Pipe Removal, Pipe Extraction [30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50].”
These methods are applied to pressure pipelines after inspection methods are used based on: installation methods, long term and short-term localized issues, design of the pipe, materials, and construction of the pipe. Other parameters for inspection can be settlement, groundwater control, contamination. Through quality assurance and quality control, these parameters can be controlled using the latest technology and ensuring practice safety on site [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].
The leading most common cause of failure in gas and oil pipelines is internal corrosion, this is followed by external corrosion and joint leakage on the list. Obviously when these kinds of problems develop on a pipeline, a plan needs to be set to figure out whether it needs to be replaced or renewed with lining or if it is a localized problem and just needs a repair. That is where inspection comes into play to figure out the most cost-effective plan without having to impede the service of the pipeline unless it is absolutely necessary in which case a trenchless method would be used [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].
Overall, pipelines are inspected regularly to ensure they are in good condition and to ensure the safety of the environment around them. With the latest technology such as pigging, magnetic-flux leakage technology, ultrasounds and so on can help engineers for pipeline owners determine the best repair methods to keep the pipeline in safe and good condition for long term use. Depending on the cost and trenchless method used, a certain amount of years is added to the long-term lifespan of the pipeline which all comes together as a matrix to make things simpler and cost effective [60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90].

Objectives and Scope

With the advancement of inspection technology since the beginning of pressure pipeline construction, engineers have become more efficient with determining if pipeline repair and renewal methods are needed and to what extent. This paper analyzes these different trenchless methods and the technology used in those respective methods as well as how they’re applied to certain specifications such as pipe strength, internal roughness, wall thickness, etc.
By analyzing these inspection methods, the goals are to determine the best inspection technologies for each trenchless method and which specifications the respective technologies analyze to determine the needed repair whether its a small localized repair or a pipeline replacement method to continue the life expectancy and safety of the pipeline. This paper also takes into consideration which areas could be improved and discusses the recommendations for future research based on the current trenchless technology methods. There is always room for improvement and finding new ways to keep pressure pipelines in top condition can save resources, time, and the safety of the environment around.
The following trenchless methods were analyzed for the use of inspection technology to keep a pressure pipeline in good condition by researching the specifications that come into play for that specific trenchless method.
  • Pressure pipelines are renewed and replaced by the following trenchless methods: “Conventional Pipe Jacking & Utility Tunneling, Auger Boring, Horizontal Directional Drilling.”
  • And the following renewal methods: “Cured-In-Place Pipe, Sliplining, Coatings and Linings, Close- Fit Pipe (AWWA Class 3 or 4 depending on floor pressure), Thermoformed Pipe”
  • And the following trenchless replacement methods: “Pipe Bursting, Pipe Removal, Pipe Extraction.”
These methods are the most commonly used for pressure pipelines and use the most current inspection technology. This paper does not go far into the measurements and standards for the specifications, but rather the basic guidelines when choosing inspection methods depending on the specifications of the pressure pipeline.

Methodology

The type of research used comes from the Trenchless Technology Piping: Installation and Inspection Textbook, various lectures from the trenchless technology course, Presentations within the trenchless technology course, as well as various sources with information containing the use of pipeline inspection technologies. The trenchless methods that are available for pressure pipelines were the only ones used in this research [70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100].
Again, the methods of analyzing the inspection methods does not quantify or take into consideration the statistics and measurements of specifications, instead it analyzes the use of inspection technology for the respective trenchless methods used when repairing or improving the condition of a pipeline in the industry currently. This method of research aids in the determination of how future research should be approached in the trenchless technology/pipeline inspection industry and predicts how improvements of inspection methods will impact pressure pipeline condition and safety for the environment.

Results and Discussions

Smart pigs are the most commonly used inspection equipment because of how advanced they are. They are deployed inside the pipeline and takes data of all of the most important specs such as wall thickness, corrosion, dents, temperature and such others. The engineer has to be practical and avoid obstacles, so it won’t get stuck or damaged. A common smart pig used is called a Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) and essentially, they use magnets to determine defects along the pipeline, this is how an engineer could detect an area of the pipe that is undergoing corrosion or deformation [85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120]. It is also possible that a pipeline cannot allow the use of smart pigs. This is usually when there are sharp bends, excessive amounts of debris or broken particles inside the pipe, valves that may be damaged, etc. in order to avoid this, new pipeline companies are leaning towards designing safety plans for their pipelines to accommodate for in- line inspection methods such as pigs. The way they are aiming to do this is by building technology that has self-propelled and can travel with or against gas flows. The whole purpose of this in-line inspection technology is to not have to shut down a pipeline or disrupt services.
When pipelines are usually not piggable they are tested with what is called Direct Assessment (DA) technique that measures corrosion. This does not require for the shut down of a line and instead involves excavating in order to have a crew inspect, test, and examine the area and determine If the pipeline needs renewal or replacement. Usually if a pipeline is relatively longer, the more expensive it will be to use in-line inspection technology. For example, a pipeline that’s around 1000-3000 meters in length a company would rather use an inexpensive method such as chemical testing by foot instead of using smart pigs in the case that the company cannot afford it. This becomes a cost analysis issue to figure out if investing in pigging technology exceeds the revenue of using a traditional method to inspect a pipeline instead [110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140].
If a pipeline is not in service, there is hydrostatic pressure testing to analyze the pipeline for any corrosion or deformation based on the pressure results given from the test. A dramatic loss of pressure would indicate that there is something wrong with a pipeline for example. There is also speculation that by doing this form of “destructive testing” is that it can incur the possibility of damaging the pipeline. Another problem with this method is its inability to detect small leaks which can eventually become a larger issue for the pipeline. Smart pigs are the only method that can detect all four leak detection categories: constant, visible leaks, non-visible leaks, small leaks. Also, if a pipeline were not in service it might be a good idea to have a crew go out and inspect along the pipeline to see any visual leaks or corrosion and perform some tests on the pipeline. For hydrostatic pressure testing here are some examples of tests done: temperature compensated and volumetric testing, helium & pneumatic pressure testing to find leaks, pressure relief valve and transmitter calibration, and pressure indicator [120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138].
Another traditional way of examining a pipeline is the aerial method in which an aircraft goes over along the route of the pipeline and use leak detection instruments that can detect the presence of leaks with sensors. This can be an expensive technique and it would honestly be better to aid pipelines with in-line inspection methods such as smart pigs because it is better and more cost effective in the long run. UAV inspection methods are common as well which can be efficient for very long gas or petroleum pressure pipelines that may have leaks. It is an inexpensive method compared to in-line inspection technology such as pigging and ultrasounds. The UAV method can carry out infrared laser tests with video camera data processing but would obviously need a specialist to analyze the resulting data. A big plus side of using UAV is the ability of this method to analyze the surrounding areas such as: the location of roads, hydrology, wetlands, cleared rights-of-way, structures, and cultural features. This can aid with the preconstruction of a pressure pipeline but the best reason for this method is for leakage detection along the pipeline [135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159].

Conclusions and Recommendations

Since the beginning of pressure pipeline inspection methods, the industry has developed more highly advanced technology to increase safety as well as prevent the leakage and spills of pipelines due to leaks, cracks, holes, and corrosion in general. We analyzed the invention of smart pigs and how efficient and analytical they are in the pressure pipeline industry and how they benefit inspection more than the more traditional methods of the past.
Analyzing the procedures of these inspection methods helped determine which inspection methods may benefit certain kinds of pipelines based on their characteristics and which trenchless renewal or replacement methods are usually used for that certain pipeline. Inspection methods such as hydrostatic pressure testing, UAV (unarmed aerial vehicle) testing, smart pigs (in-line inspection technology), Direct Assessment (DA) techniques, were all used to determine any change in characteristics of a pressure pipeline such as pipe strength, internal roughness, wall thickness, deformation, leaks, cracks, or holes, and much more. The best perspective is that smart pigs are the future and the number one cause of pressure pipe failure is internal corrosion which is what smart pigs analyze best. We dive into recommendations for future research based on looking at this new in-line inspection technology as well as other emerging technology.
The industry of pressure pipelines has come a long way since the traditional methods of pressure pipeline inspection. There has been another emerging unarmed aircraft that has been used for engineering and research purposes plenty in various fields recently, this would be the use of drones.
Drones could be the new main inspection method to monitor pressure pipelines, their size and ability to cover different type of lands can aid in the visual inspection as well as practicing and working on drones to carry and operate sensors and testing equipment will make the industry of pipeline inspection much more efficient and cheaper. This is based on the speed, reliability, methodology, and sensitivity (probability of detection without false alarm) that can help use drones instead of more traditional methods or even pigging. Pigging is shown to be very expensive and with miles and miles of pipelines, it can add up for a pipeline company. Drones are the future of automated pipeline inspection and will continue to grow as long as the effort of research is being put in.
Another major future trend could be the improvement and efficiency of pigging. If the industry can find a way to make smart pigs cheaper to produce and put the on the market for a less expensive price then the ability for companies to obtain this technology and add it along to pressure pipelines, especially at the beginning of pipeline construction. Another thing is, pigging is unavailable whenever there are constraints such as diameter changes, pressure, line wall thickness, product velocity, type, installations, etc. Because of this, researchers are diving into finding ways around this by researching on how to make a better design for in-line inspection technology. The way the design is done is by designing the equipment to withstand higher pressure, keep a good standard velocity while maintaining sensitivity, designing good battery capacity, memory capacity, etc.
A test was carried out at ROSEN Technology and Research Center to perform pressure tests on tool segments to see how an efficient design would look like for in-line inspection technology and a view of the adjustments were what kind of material to use and increasing wall thickness. The material was changed to duplex steel and the wall thickness slightly. The tests revealed over a double increase in resistance for every unit of the in-line inspection technology (transmitter, battery, MFL, Geo, Electronic units).
Ideally we would want the industry to continue research in the design of in-line technology such as ultrasounds and MFLs but at the same time find a way to make them less expensive to produce so future pressure pipelines can be installed with this technology frequently and in the long run companies, the environment, as well as the public using the everyday material in these pipelines, will all win due to the advancement of inspection technology.

References

  1. Preiser, W. (2016) Engineering design research. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
  2. Tank, W. (2015) Short-Radius Horizontal Drilling System Optimization in Yates Field Unit Provides Excellent Directional Control and Highly Economical Completions. SPE Drilling & Completion, 12(01), 43-48. [CrossRef]
  3. Barlow J., Roehrich J., Wright S. Europe Sees Mixed Results From Public-Private Parntnerships For Building and Managing Health Care Facilities and Services. In: Health Affairs 32, no. 1. 2013.
  4. Cui C., Liu Y., Hope A., Wang J. Review of studies on the public-private partnerships (PPP) for infrastructure projects. In: International Journal of Project Management 36. 2018.
  5. Blessing, L., & Chakrabarti, A. (2014) Making a design research methodology; Heidelberg: Springer Faghih, A., & Yi, Y. (2016) Efficient drilling in horizontal directional drilling by implementing the concept of specific energy. Geomechanics And Geo-engineering, 12(3), 201-206.
  6. Kaushal, V., Najafi, M. and Entezarmahdi, A. (2021). Testing, Analysis and Classification of No-Dig Manhole Rehabilitation Materials. Front. Water, 3, 713817. [CrossRef]
  7. 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.
  8. Sugio, T., White, K.J., Shute, E., Choate, D. and Blake, R.C. (1992). “Existence of a Hydrogen.
  9. Sulfide, Ferric Ion Oxidoreductase in Iron-oxidizing Bacteria.” Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 58, 431-433.
  10. U.S. DOT. (2015). “The State of the National Pipeline Infrastructure.” A Report, 2015.
  11. Abusad, B. (2012). Selectin a Shaft/ Pit Construction Method for Trenchless Technology. Arlington, TX.
  12. Fei, Y., Cong, S., & Bian, B. (2011) Hydraulic System Simulation of Heavy Horizontal Directional Drilling Head; Advanced Materials Research, 287-290, 428-431.
  13. George, F. (2017) Horizontal Directional Drilling-Length Detection Technology While Drilling Based on Bi-Electro-Magnetic Sensing. Sensors, 17(5), 967.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Jamali, K., Kaushal, V., and Najafi, M. (2021). Evolution of Additive Manufacturing in Civil Infrastructure Systems: A Ten-Year Review. MDPI’s Infrastructures, 2021.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. Klijn, E. H. (2009). Public-private partnerships in the Netherlands: Policy, projects and lessons. Economic Affairs, 29, 26-32.
  20. Kwak Y.H., Chih Y., Ibbs C.W. Towards a Comprehensive Understanding of Public Private Partnerships for Infrastructure Development. In: California Management Review volume 51, no. 2. Winter 2009.
  21. Little, R. G. (2011). The emerging role of public-private partnerships in megaproject delivery. Public Works Management & Policy, 16, 240-249.
  22. Rocca M.D. The rising advantage of Public-Private Partnerships. In: Voices. June 2017.
  23. Shen L., Platten A., Deng X.P. Role of public private partnerships to manage risks in public sector projects in Hong Kong. In: International Journal of Project Management 24. 2006.
  24. Spackman, M. (2002) ‘Public-private partnerships – lessons learned from the British approach’. Construction Economics, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 283-301.
  25. Eadie R., Millar P. Public Private Partnerships, Reevaluating value for money. In: International Journal of Procurement Management, vol. 6, no. 2. 2013.
  26. Grimsey D., Lewis M.K. Evaluating the risks of public private partnerships for infrastructure projects. In: International Journal of Project Management 20. 2002.
  27. Grimsey D., Lewis M.K. Public Private Partnerships and Public Procurement. In: A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, vol. 14, no. 2. 2007.
  28. Jeffares, S., Sullivan, H., & Bovaird, T. (2013) Beyond the Contract: The challenge of evaluating the performance(s) of public-private partnerships. In C. Greve & G. A. Hodge (Eds.), Rethinking public-private parnterships: Strategies for turbulent times (pp. 166-187). New York, NY: Routledge.
  29. Jones, R. & Noble, G. (2008). Success factors: Public works and public-private partnerships. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21, 637-657.
  30. Ke, Y., Wang, S., Chan, A. P., & Cheung, E. (2009). Research trend o f public-private partnership in construction journals. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135, 1076-1086.
  31. Tang L., Shen Q., Cheng E.W.L. A review of studies on Public-Private Partnership projects in the Construction Industry. In: International Journal of Project Management 28. 2010.
  32. Verweij S., Teisman G.R., Gerrits L.M. Implementing Public-Private Partnerships: How Management Responses to Events Produce Satisfactory Outcomes. In: Public Works Management & Policy, vol. 22(2). 2017.
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. Duran, O., Althoefer, K. & Seneviratne, L.D. 2002, “Automated sewer pipe inspection through image processing”, IEEE, pp. 2551.
  36. 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.
  37. Najafi, M., Kaushal, V., Visser, J. (2024). “Operational Planning and Design Considerations for an Underground Logistics Transportation in Texas.” Infrastructures, MDPI.
  38. 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.
  39. 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.
  40. 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.
  41. 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.
  42. 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.
  43. Yuan, J. Zeng, Y., Skibniewski, M. and Li, Q. (2009). ‘Selection of performance objectives and key performance indicators in PPP projects to achieve value for money’, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.253-277.
  44. 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).
  45. 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.
  46. ASCE (2017). “Infrastructure Report Card,” Reston, VA.
  47. Hashemi, B., Iseley, T., and Raulston, J. (2011). “Water Pipeline Renewal Evaluation Using AWWA Class IV CIPP, Pipe Bursting and Open-trench ,” ASCE International Conference on Pipelines and Trenchless Technology, 2011.
  48. 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.
  49. 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.
  50. 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.
  51. 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.
  52. 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.
  53. Kaushal, V., Pham, A. (2024). “Towards Sustainable Construction Development: A Qualitative Review.” Preprints.
  54. Kaushal, V., Saeed, E. (2024). “Sustainable and Innovative Self-Healing Concrete Technologies to Mitigate Environmental Impacts in Construction.” CivilEng, MDPI.
  55. 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.
  56. 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.
  57. 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.
  58. Lindsat Ivey Burden, E. J. (2015). Synthesis of Trenchless Technologies. Virginia Center For Transportation Innovation and Research.
  59. Makarand Hastak, Sanjiv Gokhale. (2000). System for Evaluating Underground Pipeline Renewal Options. ASCE Journal of Infrastructure System.
  60. Oregon Department of Transportation. (2014). Hydraulics Manual. Oregon.
  61. Patel, J., Kaushal, V. (2024). “Comparative Review Study of Modular Construction with Traditional On-site Construction.” Preprints.
  62. Bani Fawwaz, M.D., Najafi, M., Kaushal, V. (2023). “Asset Management of Wastewater Interceptors Adjacent to Bodies of Water.” Water, MDPI, ISSN: 2073-4441.
  63. 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).
  64. 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.
  65. 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.
  66. PINTER & Associates Ltd. (2013). Trenchless Technologoes and Work Practices Review For Saskatchewan Municipalities.
  67. 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.
  68. Zwierzchowska, A. (2006). The Optimum Choice of Trenchless Pipe Laying Technologies. ELSEVIER, Tunnelign and Underground Space Technology.
  69. 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.
  70. He, S. and Koizumi, A. (2013). Damage Discrimination Analysis with Quantification Theory for Sewage Pipe System. Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice, 4(1), pp.11-16.
  71. Kunzel, J., Werner, T., Eisert, P. & Waschnewski, J. 2018, “Automatic Analysis of Sewer Pipes Based on Unrolled Monocular Fisheye Images”, IEEE, pp. 2019.
  72. 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.
  73. Kaushal, V., Saeed, E. (2024). “Advanced Self-Healing Concrete Technologies to Minimize Environmental Consequences in Building Industry.” Highlights of Sustainability.
  74. 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.
  75. 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.
  76. Jianhang Feng, S. Q. (2023). Accelerating autonomic healing of cementitious composites by using nano calcium carbonate coated polypropylene fibers. Materials & Design, 225.
  77. Maddalena, R. e. (2022). Applications and Life Cycle Assessment of Shape Memory Polyethylene Terephthalate in Concrete for Crack Closure. Polymers, 15(5).
  78. 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).
  79. Jamali, K., Kaushal, V. (2022). “Additive Manufacturing: The Future of Construction.” Trends in Civil Engineering and its Architecture, ISSN: 2637-4668.
  80. 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.
  81. 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.
  82. PCA. (2024, April 09). Retrieved from Portland Cement Association: https://www.cement.org/cement-concrete.
  83. Kaushal, V. and Najafi, M. (2020). “Comparative Assessment of Environmental Impacts from Open-trench Pipeline Replacement and Trenchless Cured-in-Place Pipe Renewal Method for Sanitary Sewers.” MDPI’s Infrastructures, 5(6) 48, ISSN: 2412-3811.
  84. Kaushal, V., Najafi, M., Serajiantehrani, R. (2020). “Environmental Impacts of Conventional Open-trench 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.
  85. Kaushal, V. and Najafi, M. (2020). “Comparison of Environmental and Social Costs of Trenchless Cured-in-Place Pipe Renewal Method with Open-trench Pipeline Replacement for Sanitary Sewers.” Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice, ASCE, Vol. 11, Issue 4, ISSN: 1949-1204.
  86. 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.
  87. 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.
  88. Pisani, S. G. (2022). Shape-Memory Polymers Hallmarks and Their Biomedical Applications in the Form of Nanofibers. Internal Journal of Molecular Sciences, 23(3).
  89. 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.
  90. Prabha, S. L. (2020). Development of high-strength nano-cementitious composites using copper slag. ACI Materials Journal, 117(4), 37-46.
  91. Ruben Snellings, P. S. (2023). Future and emerging supplementary cementitious materials. Cement and Concrete Research, 171.
  92. 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.
  93. Kaushal, V. (2014). “Earthquake Resistant Construction.” Engineering Sciences International Research Journal, Vol.2, Issue 1, ISSN 2320-4338.
  94. 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.
  95. Thakre, G., Kaushal, V., Najafi, M. (2024). “Concrete Foundation Damage Assessment and Repair Methodologies for Residential Structures.” 10th Forensic Engineering Congress, 2024.
  96. Thakre, G., Kaushal, V., Najafi, M. (2024). “Assessment of Hail Damage for Tile Roofing System: A Technical Review.” 10th Forensic Engineering Congress, 2024.
  97. Kaushal, V., Saeed, E. (2024). “Socio-Environmental Costs Comparison of Trenchless Cured-in-Place Pipe and Open-trench Pipeline Replacement Methods.” Proc. 2024 College of Engineering Innovation Day.
  98. Atambo, D., Kaushal, V., Najafi, M. (2023). “Condition Prediction of Sanitary Sewerage Pipeline Systems Using Multinomial Logistic Regression.” NASTT No-Dig Show 2023.
  99. 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.
  100. 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.
  101. 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.
  102. 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.
  103. 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.
  104. Atambo, D., Kaushal, V., Najafi, M. (2023). “Condition Prediction of Sanitary Sewer Pipes Using Artificial Neural Network.” NASTT No-Dig Show 2023.
  105. 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.
  106. 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.
  107. 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.
  108. 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-trench Replacement for Sanitary Sewers.” Proc. ASCE Pipelines 2022, Indianapolis, IN.
  109. 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.
  110. 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.
  111. 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.
  112. 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.
  113. 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.
  114. 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.
  115. 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.
  116. 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.
  117. Jianhang Feng, S. Q. (2023). Accelerating autonomic healing of cementitious composites by using nano calcium carbonate coated polypropylene fibers. Materials & Design, 225.
  118. 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.
  119. 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.
  120. Kaushal, V., Najafi, M., Serajiantehrani, R., Malek Mohammadi, M. (2020). “A Framework for Evaluation of Social Costs of Open-trench Pipeline Replacement for Sanitary Sewers.” Proc. ASCE Pipelines 2020, San Antonio, TX.
  121. 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.
  122. 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.
  123. 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.
  124. Kaushal, V., Najafi, M., Serajiantehrani, R. (2020). “Sanitary Sewer Construction Cost Comparison Between Trenchless CIPP Renewal and Open-trench Replacement.” Proc. The Third European and Mediterranean Structural Engineering and Construction Conference, Limassol, Cyprus, June 22-27, 2020.
  125. Loganathan, K., Najafi, M., Kaushal, V., Agyemang, P. (2021). “Evaluation of Public Private Partnership in Infrastructure Projects.” Proc. ASCE Pipelines 2021, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
  126. 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.
  127. 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.
  128. 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.
  129. Kaushal, V., Najafi, M., Serajiantehrani, R. (2019). “Evaluation of Construction Cost of Trenchless Cured-in-Place Pipe Renewal Method Compared with Open-trench Pipeline Replacement for Sanitary Sewers.” Proc. ICPTT 2019, China.
  130. 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.
  131. 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.
  132. 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.
  133. 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.
  134. 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.
  135. 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.
  136. 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.
  137. Sugio, T., White, K.J., Shute, E., Choate, D. and Blake, R.C. (1992). “Existence of a Hydrogen.
  138. Sulfide, Ferric Ion Oxidoreductase in Iron-oxidizing Bacteria.” Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 58, 431-433.
  139. 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.
  140. 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.
  141. 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.
  142. Kaushal, V. (2019). Comparison of environmental and social costs of trenchless cured-in-place pipe renewal method with open-trench pipeline replacement for sanitary sewers. The University of Texas at Arlington.
  143. 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.
  144. 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.
  145. 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.
  146. 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.
  147. 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.
  148. Amran M, O. A. (2022, April 29). Self-Healing Concrete as a Prospective Construction Material: A Review. Materials, 15(9).
  149. Amran, M. O. (2022). Self-Healing Concrete as a Prospective Construction Material: A Review. Materials, 15(9).
  150. 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.
  151. 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).
  152. 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.
  153. 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.
  154. 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.
  155. 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.
  156. 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.
  157. D. Matthew Stuart, P. S. (2020). Concrete Deterioration. Fairfax: PDH Center.
  158. 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.
  159. Maddalena, R. e. (2022). Applications and Life Cycle Assessment of Shape Memory Polyethylene Terephthalate in Concrete for Crack Closure. Polymers, 15(5).
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