Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Review

Advanced Techniques for Evaluation of Underground System

Altmetrics

Downloads

45

Views

24

Comments

0

This version is not peer-reviewed

Submitted:

14 September 2024

Posted:

17 September 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
Pipelines are regularly trenched and then forgotten, just allowed to run till failure and producing an overall incredibly poorly run system that is ripe for improvements. One of the most needed areas for improvement are proactive methods for condition assessment of existing pipelines. This can be divided into two main categories: proactive condition assessment technologies and nonstructural proactive condition improvement technologies. The objective of this paper is to identify the best option available on the market for both these areas of proactive condition assessment for existing pipelines. The compared proactive condition assessment technologies include Acoustic Resonance Testing, Ultrasonic Thickness Measurement Testing, Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing, Pulsed Eddy Current Testing, and the Multisensor ROV. The technologies compared for nonstructural proactive condition improvement were Jetting, Pigging and also included the main requirements for a proper catalog of pipe information that can be used to produce a ranked system for assessing which pipes are at highest risk for failure and can be used to efficiently direct resources for pipe maintenance. The final conclusion was that Acoustic Resonance Testing and the Multisensor ROV are the two best products available for the proactive condition assessment of existing pipelines available on the market from their versatility of application and amount of information gathered during pipe inspection. The best option available in the group of nonstructural proactive condition improvement technologies was pigging for its incredibly low risk and low social impact as well as potential for improvement in the near future. It was also concluded that every agency would be better off with a catalog of the pipe material, age, length, diameter, and burial depth to know the location of every pipe an agency owns as well as to rank every pipe in terms of risk of failure and impact of said failure to most efficiently direct resources.
Keywords: 
Subject: Engineering  -   Architecture, Building and Construction

Introduction and Background

Routine checks and system maintenance are absolutely critical for any system or product, and the only difference with pipelines is the difficulty associated with routine maintenance. Between all pipes being underground, under roadways or not their existence not even being known until the pipe bursts, pipelines infrastructure is exceptionally difficult to regularly check for system quality assurance. In order for the United States pipeline infrastructure to ever reach an acceptable level of quality, systems need to be put in place that allow for proactive condition assessment of the existing pipeline infrastructure that is not disruptive, time consuming, or destructive to the roadways that lie above the Nations pipelines or to the pipelines themselves [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35]. The goal of this paper is to discuss various forms of non-destructive pipeline condition tests as well as their utility and feasible use as well as possible methods for improving maintenance and the overall condition of pipe assets under the control of government agencies. The scope of this paper will be limited to condition assessment methods that are non-destructive to the pipes in question as the goal of this paper is to determine methods that can be scaled to regularly inspect large swaths of pipe infrastructure and any destructive testing that requires the excavation of the pipe in question is already assumed to be unfeasible [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. This is because of the social impact this sort of excavation would have on major urban centers which have very high concentrations of pipe infrastructure that are completely paved over and these kinds of regular disruptions to roadways and communities would be crippling if regularly done. The scope of this paper will also include technologies and techniques that improve the condition of a pipeline without actively replacing the pipe in question because this regular maintenance is also a critical portion of the idea of proactive condition assessment by bringing the pipe in question to a certain level of quality following upon the initial inspection of the overall condition of the pipe. Technologies and techniques that fall under this category are defined as technology that improves the condition or flow of a pipe and do not modify or become a structurally significant element in the pipe [30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50].

Scope and Methodology

When discussing the proactive options for the condition assessment of existing pipelines, there are specific properties and of the pipe in question that are being inspected or certain issues common to pipes that are regularly checked for. The most universally known issue that afflicts pipes as they age are leaking, which reduces the flow capacity of pipes, wastes precious water or pollutes the soil surrounding the pipe in question depending on whether it s a water or sewage pipeline, and also structurally weakens the pipe by creating failure points on the pipe wall. Because of these negative effects of a pipe leaking, leak detection is one of the issues that is looked for or identified during proactive condition assessment of existing pipelines. The wall thickness of pipes is another must check property during any inspection to determine how close the pipe in question currently is to its original thickness when it was put into the ground. This is an important indicator of whether corrosive soil or water is corroding the pipe in question, which can quickly completely destroy a pipe and render the whole segment useless [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. Another portion of wall thickness inspection is to determine if the walls of the pipe are wearing uniformly or if one section of the pipe is getting dangerously close to failure while the rest is still acceptable. Regular pressure surges can also have a similar effect in weakening segments of pipe that experience the surges due to material fatigue and also need to be monitored. This can provide inspectors with valuable insight into whether spot maintenance and pipeline renewal can extend the useful service life of the pipe in question and is another important part of proactive condition assessment of existing pipelines. Inspection technologies will now be discussed along with their ability to conduct each area of these inspections and a conclusion will be made over which is the best inspection option available.

Condition Assessment Approaches and Technologies

Acoustic Resonance Technology (ART) is one of the promising nondestructive condition assessment technologies that is currently available for use in pipeline maintenance. ART allows for highly accurate measurements of pipeline thickness for large segments of pipe. It works by transmitting an acoustic signal towards the pipe surface and measuring how the signal propagates within the pipe wall. The return signal is detected by a receiver and the data is then analyzed to determine the thickness of the pipe wall. The advantages of this technology in inspecting existing pipe conditions are quite noteworthy. Levels of corrosion could be accurately measured to know just how close a segment of pipe is coming to complete failure and what’s very impressive about the robustness of the diagnostic system is that both internal and external corrosion can be measured and distinguished from each other. This knowledge in itself can inform engineers on the most pressing concerns for maintenance like if it is an unexpectedly corrosive soil which is causing a pipe to deteriorate more rapidly than expected or an internal issue with the pipe that is causing corrosion and all of this without having to actively excavate a segment of pipe to check it. ART can also determine if there is internal blockage in a pipe due to sediment deposition. ART is also capable of analyzing pipes with coatings, which will allow almost every assortment of pipe to be analyzed regardless of what material it’s made out of or what possible coatings the pipe may have over it. In highly urbanized city centers where any road closures can cause very large economic harm to the city, the ability to monitor the condition the pipe network without having to tear up roadways or wait for a burst pipe to notify officials is a huge boost in the efficiency and reliability of the entire system [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].
Another method of non-destructive testing that determines the thickness of pipe walls is Ultrasonic Thickness Measurement Test (UTM). UTM is a thickness test that is specific to metal piping and works by sending out a sound pulse which then travels through the pipe and then bounces off the inside surface or wall of the other face of the pipe. Ultrasonic Thickness Measurement tests perform a very similar function as the Acoustic Resonance Technology in that it allows for a very accurate determination of the pipe wall thickness without having to destroy or excavate the pipe in question to analyze its thickness. When compared to Acoustic Resonance Technology, Ultrasonic Thickness Measurement Tests quickly appear to be less robust than their counterpart for two main reasons. The first being that even though they serve the same purpose, the Ultrasonic Thickness Measurement test is only suitable for metals while Acoustic Resonance Technology can be used on any pipe material and it is capable of use on pipes with a coating while the Ultrasonic Thickness Measurement test cannot distinguish between the coating and the pipe, instantly knocking it down a few pegs when compared to Acoustic Resonance Technology [30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50].
Phased Array Ultrasonic (PAU) Testing is another non-destructive pipe inspection technology that falls in the family of ultrasonic tests like Acoustic Resonance Technology and Ultrasonic Thickness Measurement test. What distinguishes this technology from the others is that the probe used gathers information from multiple angles and focus depths to create a more accurate picture of the interior of the pipe to provide accurate imaging of the pipe wall thickness, inspection of any welds, corrosion within the pipe as well as cracks or any flaws that could cause failure. The nature of this multi angled inspection approach allows for Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing to more quickly and more accurately analyze complex pipe geometries when compared to single angle ultrasonic tests like the Acoustic Resonance Technology or the Ultrasonic Thickness Measurement test which allows for more efficient inspection of pipes that have rough surfaces from corrosion or sedimentation buildup as well as pipes that are not the traditional circular cross section. Another advantage that it has over other ultrasonic tests is that the scanning process of the entire cross section of a pipe does not require the probe to be moved or rotated, which makes it particularly useful for the inspection of pipes with small diameters where there is simply not enough room to maneuver other probes as needed to completely scan the pipe in question. There are multiple advantages to the Phased Array Ultrasonic test which include its ability to inspect more than just metallic pipes which makes it more robust than the Ultrasonic Thickness Measurement test. The multiple angles of the scan also have the advantage of producing a much more accurate image of the cross section of the pipe which has the upside of providing more information for the inspectors to work with. This kind of knowledge can give helpful clues to the cause of defects in the pipe by showing if corrosion is occurring on the outer wall of the pipe and being cause primarily by corrosive soil or the interior of the pipe and thus being caused by the water being transported or the pressure the pipe is experiencing [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].
The Pulsed Eddy Current (PEC) is a pipe inspection technology that uses a unique characteristic of magnetic fields in relation to metallic substances to detect flaws and corrosion in the metals and relates to pipe infrastructure by detecting corrosion and measuring the thickness of metallic pipes. The Pulsed Eddy Current technique differentiates itself from the other inspection technologies discussed so far by utilizing magnetic fields to inspect the properties of the pipe in question and not sound pulses. The Pulsed Eddy Current works by sending a magnetic field that penetrates through all layers of the pipe, including any sheeting/ weather jacket if present that is allowed to stabilize through the pipe and then the electrical current is shut off, which in turn suddenly reduces the produced magnetic field. This causes eddy currents to appear within the pipe wall which then slowly diffuse into the pipe while decreasing in strength. The relationship between eddy current decay and pipe wall thickness is the thicker the pipe wall, the more time is needed for the eddy currents to completely decay. Pulsed Eddy Current inspection technique is only applicable to metallic pipes but is quite versatile within the range of metallic pipes. The robustness of the Pulsed Eddy Current inspection technique is made self-evident by its ability to penetrate through concrete, polymer coatings, metallic mesh and rebar. It is also capable of penetrating any surface insulation as well as aluminum, stainless and galvanized steel weather jackets as well as any fireproofing cover [50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90].
The most impressive capability of the Pulsed Eddy Current technology is that it does not need to make contact with the surface of the pipe in question to determine its thickness, meaning that a pipe can be inspected for corrosion or acceptable wall thickness without any excavation needing to be done, even if the pipe is under concrete like many pipes that are located under roadways. This single trait of the Pulsed Eddy Current technology immediately makes it stand out from the other inspection techniques because of its minimal long-term impact to the local population while inspections are being done. This technology, however, is not the perfect end all be all of pipe inspection and does have some limitations. The two major limitations of the Pulsed Eddy Current inspection technology is that it is incapable of distinguishing between defects in the near-side and far-side of the pipe being inspected, which means its only capable of locating sections of pipe with defects and not the exact location of said defect. The other drawback of this technology is that it becomes difficult to use on pipe elbows fitted to pipes smaller than 8 inches in diameter, which means it is not reliable for testing most gas lines, which are usually small diameter pipes. The Pulsed Eddy Current inspection technology may have some draw backs but overall is a strong choice for the most versatile pipe inspection technology currently available on the marketplace [60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80].
A very novel technology for the proactive condition assessment of existing pipelines is the Multi-Sensor ROV, which is a small rover with sensors and a camera attached to it which travels the length of the pipe being inspected and records the interior of the pipe as its travels. This rover is mounted with precise ultrasonic scanning equipment that allows it to accurately measure the thickness of the pipe walls and can also detect small leaks the pipe may have as it moves. On top of this it also has a front and back mounted camera so that the operator can also actually view the interior of the pipe to look for any sediment buildup or other possible issues. The rover is quite small and can travel through pipes that in any other way would be incredibly difficult to inspect and is capable of accessing any pipe with a four inch diameter or larger, allowing for the inspection of a almost every pipeline possible except for the smallest of gas lines. The rover can also inspect active pipes which means pipe service does not even have to be disrupted during inspections, lowering the social impact on the community to essentially zero. The rovers sturdy design allows it to inspect active pressurized pipes up to an impressive 145psi, making it capable of inspecting almost every possible active pipe that could need to be inspected with its small and sturdy design. Its small footprint also does not require the construction of any large launching station which helps to keep this a highly economical inspection option. This impressive rover does have its drawbacks however, and the primary one being that it is not wireless and is in fact tethered to the terminal the operator is using. The maximum length of the rover’s tether is 3000ft, which means that the rover must be drawn back out of the pipe and repositioned for approximately every half mile of inspected pipe. This drawback the problems with this drawback are lessened by the fact that no large launch station needs to be constructed every time, making this downside vastly outweighed by the utility and cost effective benefits of the Multisensor ROV, cementing this technology as a fantastic addition to the toolkit of proactive methods for the condition assessment of existing pipelines [60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95].
Some methods of proactive condition assessment don’t require a new technology or diagnostic system, it merely requires a well-run maintenance plan and well documented asset inventory of pipes. An often-overlooked method of proactive condition assessment is to put in place an effective maintenance system to regularly monitor pipes. Currently, most agencies run in the school of thought of allowing assets to run until failure and completely neglect their pipes; sometimes not even knowing where their own pipes are located in the ground, until they are notified that a pipe has burst and that’s when they actually go do repairs. This reactive culture results in an overall poorer quality of system as well as much more expensive repairs when they are required. A noticeable improvement in the entire pipeline infrastructure of an agency can be produced by putting in place a regular maintenance schedule that is up to the requirements of the manufacturer as well actually identifying the location of all pipe assets under their charge. By regularly checking the condition of all the assets, pipes reaching the end of their useful lifecycle can be replaced before major repairs and replacements are needed to be done, which serves the double advantage of cheaper repairs and a higher quality system as a whole [70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102].
There are five important pieces of information that ideally should be cataloged for every pipe under the charge of an agency which are: pipe material, pipe age, pipe length, pipe diameter, and pipe depth of burial. These pieces of information all together provide a solid hierarchy for checking understanding the condition of all pipes an agency needs to look after and how these pipes can be ranked in terms of importance and risk of failure in the near- or long-term future. Pipe material is important to know because each material used has a different overall service life so no blanket pipe useful lifecycle can just be put over every pipe in an agency, which makes cataloging what the pipes are made out of very important and useful information for proactive condition assessment. Pipe age is a very useful indicator in understanding what pipes need maintenance and how close they are to the end of their useful service life, however, pipe age is not a hard rule and there are many examples of 20 year old pipes being closer to failure than 100 year old pipes. Pipe age is still a useful tool for ranking which pipes need more regular inspections to make sure they are running as well as they can and is important to keep track of for all pipes an agency is responsible for. Pipe length is very self-explanatory as to why it is important to catalog and that is to actually know how much pipe an agency even has to inspect. This does not add to the ranking system of the pipes in any way other than knowing how much pipe even needs to be cataloged which in a way is the most important information of all since other information wouldn’t matter if the agency doesn’t even know how much pipe infrastructure its responsible for. Pipe diameter does not directly affect the service life of the pipe in question, but it is an incredibly valuable part of ranking the maintenance priority of pipes. Intuitively, pipes with larger flows are more important than pipes with smaller flows, which also means that these larger and more important pipes would cause a much greater disruption if they were to fail or fall under disrepair. Pipe diameter then comes in to play by helping to set the priorities of which pipes need more proactive condition assessment and possible maintenance, which is very valuable for agencies to know how to most efficiently use their resources to the greatest effect. Pipe depth of burial is the final piece of information that every agency should have cataloged for all pipes under their care. This information does not contribute to the ranking of maintenance importance but is critical for knowing the relative position of every pipe which is of crucial importance since its impossible to properly maintain a pipe if the pipe cant even be located for said maintenance or if the pipe is accidently struck by equipment because workers didn’t think they would reach the pipe for another few feet of digging. An agency cataloging all these pieces of information will allow for a highly efficient in both time and resources system of proactive condition assessment and maintenance of every pipe they are responsible for maintaining and is something many agencies don’t even do. This simple act of collecting this data about the pipes can have a noticeable impact on the quality of any agencies pipe infrastructure while simultaneously reducing expenditures by replacing the much more expensive repairs of failed pipes with the cheaper option of regular maintenance and efficiently allocating resources to pipes that have been identified as high risk instead of blindly checking or replacing pipes off the assumption that they are nearing failure [80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120].
An exceptional technology for proactive condition assessment and maintenance is a technology called jetting, which involves using high pressure flowing water to clean the interior surface of a pipe of all the debris and scaling that has accumulated on the interior walls of the pipe over time. The system works by having a pressurized water tank attached to a trailer with a long nozzle be brought over to the segment of pipe that needs to be cleaned and the nozzle is pulled into the pipe. The jetting nozzle head is then sent through the pipe (some having a length of up to 2000 feet) spraying pressurized water and blasting any accumulated sedimentation off the interior walls of the pipe. There is a very wide variety of jetting head types to allow jetting in many different pipe shapes and sections with innovations like a spinning jet head to clean the pipe walls even more or jetting head with jets in the front and back of the head. There are some limitations to this technology, however. One of these limitations is that the maximum length of the jetting hose is 2000 feet which means the entire system must be moved almost every third of a mile and repositioned within the pipe, making frequent repositioning’s necessary when using this technology. Another limitation of this technology is that the pipe being cleaned cannot have anything flowing through it during the cleaning process. This means whenever this maintenance is being done on a section of pipe, water services must be cut to all residents that rely on that segment of pipe. This causes a very noticeable social impact whenever jetting is used to improve flow in pipes [90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130].
Another tool in the toolbelt of proactive pipeline condition assessment and maintenance is pipeline pigging (Pipeline Inspection Gauge), which is a process that cleans the inside of a pipe by using usually cylindrical or spherical device called a pig that travels along the length a pipeline being propelled by the pipes flow. The pig scrapes along the interior walls of the pipe while removing any built-up debris and pushing it along with the pig. The types of pigs available on the market are incredibly diverse with a wide series of possible attachments on the pig, ranging from brushes to imbedded stubs on the exterior of the pig to aid with removing debris from the walls of the pipe. There are also newer multifunction “smart” pigs entering the market which allows the pig to both inspect the pipeline as well as clean it at the same time. Pigging has been regularly used in the oil and gas industry for some time and the technology is now making its way into water and sewer lines with very promising possibilities for the maintenance of water and sewer pipes. The most impressive part of pigging is how low risk the process has been made. The greatest danger in pigging is the pig getting so encumbered with the debris it has removed that the pressure within the pipe is no longer able to keep it moving along and thus causing a major clog in the pipe that was supposed to be cleaned. There is already a solution to this possible issue in the form of a variation of pigging called ice pigging, which uses an injected slurry of ice or a shaped block of ice to do the exact same purpose as a regular pig. The difference is that there is absolutely no danger of any clog occurring because the very nature of this pig is that its existence only lasts until the ice melts. So even if the ice pig happens to cause a clog in the pipe, it will just melt after some time and the problem will essentially solve itself in one of the most simple and elegant solutions possible to this major problem. This low risk nature to pipe cleaning results in pigging being one of the most impressive, versatile, and low risk solutions to proactive pipe condition assessment and maintenance available on the market, especially so once smart pigs are regularly used in the world of water and sewer lines. This low risk yet effective nature of pigging makes it stand head and shoulders above the other proactive condition assessment and maintenance technology of jetting from allowing it to be used while the pipe in question still is in active use, its very low risk nature and the multiple use nature of pigs with the advent of smart pigs entering the market place; making it by far the most ideal technology in the category of proactive pipe maintenance that does not affect the structural integrity of the pipe [100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150].

Results and Discussion of Results

Now the pros and cons of each proactive method for condition assessment of existing pipelines will be discussed and the superior option will be chosen from the nondestructive pipeline inspection techniques and technologies then followed by the pipeline nonstructural maintenance technologies. The first category to be discussed will be the nondestructive pipeline inspection technologies, which include ART, UTM, PAU, PEC, and The Multisensor ROV. The first point of comparison will be what pipe materials each of these technologies are capable of inspecting. Acoustic Resonance Testing (ART) is highly versatile and capable of testing pipes made out of any material and can even inspect pipes with a variety of external coatings with the ability to distinguish between the two layers which is very impressive. Next is the Ultrasonic Thickness Measurement (UTM) technology which is definitely a niche inspection compared to ART. UTM is only capable of inspecting metallic pipes without any coating, making it highly limited in the scope of pipes it can inspect and of applicable for a select few types of pipes. Next is the Phased Array Ultrasonic test (PAU) which is similar in versatility to Acoustic Resonance Testing in that it is capable of inspecting a variety of pipe materials and not just metallic pipes but is unable to deal with coatings on pipes, leaving it in between ART and UTM in terms of versatility of usage. Next in line is the Pulsed Eddy Current technology (PEC) which uses electromagnetic fields instead of ultrasonic waves to inspect pipes. Due to the fact that it utilizes magnetic fields to inspect the pipe in question, it only works on metallic pipes, but, it is capable of inspecting metallic pipes with a variety of coatings and weathering jackets surrounding the pipe, leaving it more versatile than UTM but less so than ART and PEC testing. The last technology to compare is the Multisensor ROV, which is capable of inspecting the interior of any pipe with a diameter larger than four inches, regardless of what its made of or what possible coatings are covering the pipe. Upon looking at just the versatility of inspection possibility, the Acoustic Resonance Test (ART) and the Multisensor ROV are just about tied in versatility, followed by the Phased Array Ultrasonic Test (PAU), then the Pulsed Eddy Current Test (PEC) and in last place, the Ultrasonic Thickness Measurement Technology (UTM) [110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155].
The next point of Comparison for the proactive methods for condition assessment of existing pipelines is how many variables each test or technology is capable of inspecting. The first is Acoustic Resonance Testing which is capable of accurately inspecting pipe wall thickness, identifying possible corrosion and its exact location in the cross section of the examined pipe as well as identifying any built-up sedimentation in the pipe. In comparison the Ultrasonic Thickness Measurement (UTM) Technology is only capable of inspecting the wall thickness of the pipe in question, once again showing it to be a very niche technology when compared to more versatile options. The Phased Array Ultrasonic test (PAU) shows itself to be quite robust in its inspection capabilities and can inspect pipe wall thickness, corrosion in the pipe, inspect any welds as well as check for cracks in the pipe, showing the multi-angle scan technology to have quite a few utilities. Next in line is the Pulsed Eddy Current technology (PEC), which is capable of only inspecting the thickness of the pipe walls along with any corrosion occurring in the pipe, however, its scans cannot show the exact location of any corrosion on the cross section, merely that corrosion has occurred in that section of the pipe. Last but not least is the Multisensor ROV, which can be used to inspect pipe wall thickness and scan for any small cracks present in the pipe. The cameras on the rover sending real time footage of the pipe interior back to the rover operator also allows for the checking of any sedimentation build up or signs of pipe corrosion depending on the attentiveness of the rover operator. Thus, the ranking for versatility of possible variables to be inspected goes with the Multisensor ROV being the most impressive, then followed by the Acoustic Resonance Test (ART), then the Phased Array Ultrasonic test (PAU), then second to last being the Pulsed Eddy Current technology (PEC) and more firmly cementing its place as an incredibly niche inspection technology, the Ultrasonic Thickness Measurement technology (UTM) [115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150].
The final comparison points for all the proactive methods for condition assessment of existing pipeline inspection technologies are the unique advantages and disadvantages that come with the usage of that specific test or technology. First up once again is the Acoustic Resonance Test (ART) which has the unique advantage of being able to inspect pipes without having to be in direct contact with the pipe, allowing maintenance to be done on the pipe while all equipment being on surface level. Next is the Ultrasonic Thickness Measurement test which has the same advantage as ART and all scans can be done on surface level without having to excavate or be in contact with the pipe to inspect it. The downside of UTM is that it cannot distinguish the outer coating possibly on the pipe in question from the pipe itself, thus giving inaccurate pipe wall thickness measurements for any pipe that has a coating. There are multiple advantage to the Phased Array Ultrasonic test (PAU) which come from the multiple angles of readings taken by the probe during the scanning process which allows for a much faster and more accurate reading taken of the pipe in question. It is also capable of accurately scanning pipes with a more complex geometry than just the standard circular cross-sectional area. The disadvantages of this technology are that it is more expensive and requires highly trained personnel to correctly operate it. Next to be discussed is the Pulsed Eddy Current (PEC) technology which has one major advantage and disadvantage. The primary advantage of PEC is that is also capable of inspecting a pipe without any excavating or direct contact required, thus allowing all work to be done on ground level. The major disadvantage associated with PEC is that cannot determine whether defects are on the near or far side of the cross section of the pipe, merely that there is a defect present in that location. The last to be discussed is the Multisensor ROV, which has its own unique advantage and disadvantage. The advantage being that cameras on the rover allow the inside of the pipe to be inspected by eyes of the operator as well, which is impossible for many small diameter pipes that a human could never actually enter. The main disadvantage is that the rover must be tethered to the operators console and thus has a limited range and has to be driven back then relaunched for each new segment of pipe to inspect, essentially doubling the amount of time it takes to inspect every section of pipe [120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140].
Now the proactive methods for condition assessment of existing pipelines that improve the conditions of the pipe without becoming a structurally significant member shall be compared and contrasted in a similar fashion. Since having a well-run maintenance plan and well documented inventory of assets is not mutually exclusive to jetting and pigging, it will not be compared to the other two as it should be a part of every municipal agency’s toolbelt. The two technologies will be compared by directly looking at the advantages and disadvantages of each technology. Jetting will be the first to be looked at and has the distinct advantages of noticeably cleaning all built up residue from the insides of the pipe being jetted. Utilizing pressurized water in the neighborhood of 2000psi allows for it to literally blast off anything but the walls of the pipe itself. This technology does have a few drawbacks that come along with it, the first being that the pipe being cleaned must have all flow stopped, thus causing a noticeable service disruption to the community every time this maintenance procedure is done. The other disadvantage is the relatively short length of hose for the jet (2000ft) which means that the jet must frequently be repositioned during the cleaning process and thus making the whole process quite time consuming. Next the advantages and disadvantages associated with pigging will be discussed. The biggest advantage of pigging is how non disruptive it is to the system since it can be done while the pipes are in service, thus allowing maintenance to occur with minimal social impact. The other major advantage of pigging is that innovations in this technique have made it such a low risk maintenance technique that it might as well be risk free. The only danger associated with it is clogging the pipe as it travels along its length and with the invention of ice pigging, this one major issue is no longer relevant since any possible clog will unclog itself once the ice slug melts. The one disadvantage associated with this technology is that is just cannot clean the walls of the pipe as thoroughly as jetting can and thus is an inferior final result when compared to jetting [136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162].

Conclusions

In conclusion, many methods for the proactive condition assessment of existing pipes have been discussed and the best and worst options currently available on the marketplace have been determined for both proactive condition assessment and proactive condition improvement. There were two equally impressive options for proactive condition assessment and those were Acoustic Resonance Testing and the Multisensor ROV while the worst option available was the Ultrasonic Thickness Measurement Technology. Both ART and the Multisensor ROV were capable of checking so many variables of maintenance, being so versatile for the range of pipes to examine while having such a light setup and community impact that they quickly started to stand out as the best in class for proactive condition assessment options available. On the other side, UTM was by far the most niche option available with a limited range of pipes it could examine and as well as only inspecting the pipe wall thickness, showing that there are much better options in terms of efficiency for proactively inspecting the pipes under an agency’s charge. In the field of proactive condition improvement, it was a tough choice, but pigging is too phenomenally versatile and low risk to not choose as the superior option. The fact that it can clean the insides of a pipe while not disrupting service and having such a low risk that there might as well be no risk is almost too good to be true which is why it was the clear choice for best in class. The other proactive condition improvement was having a fully fleshed out inventory of information regarding all pipes an agency is responsible for managing and the importance of this cannot be understated. This simple task of just properly documenting everything can help an agency rank every pipe in its charge in terms of risk for failure and help direct agency resources in the most efficient way possible, saving money and improving the entire system while at the same time setting up a well thought out and sustainable system for regularly checking the pipes it is responsible for. If anything is taken away from this report, it is that cataloguing the information of all pipes an agency owns is the best thing any municipality can do for itself.

Recommendations for Future Research

There are two areas that are ripe for future research, the first being the realm of smart pigging which has the possibility of combining regular maintenance and improvement of the whole system into one step, which has the potential to be an industry transforming technology. The other is to research any proactive method for the condition assessment of existing pipelines that is also capable of inspecting soil surrounding the pipe in question to determine if it is the source of corrosion. This has the potential to provide that much more information to pipeline inspectors to keep infrastructure investments lasting as long as possible by not allowing a situation where a pipe is put in place and forgotten thinking it will be fine for decades when in reality it is destroyed in 15 years by corrosive soil and has to be replaced that quickly.

References

  1. 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. [CrossRef]
  2. 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. [CrossRef]
  3. Preiser, W. (2016) Engineering design research. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
  4. 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]
  5. Sugio, T., White, K.J., Shute, E., Choate, D. and Blake, R.C. (1992). “Existence of a Hydrogen.
  6. 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]
  7. 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. [CrossRef]
  8. Kaushal, V., Najafi, M. and Entezarmahdi, A. (2021). Testing, Analysis and Classification of No-Dig Manhole Rehabilitation Materials. Frontiers in Water, 3, 713817. [CrossRef]
  9. Kaushal, V., Najafi, M. (2021). Microbiologically influenced corrosion of concrete in sanitary sewers: Processes and control mechanisms, In Proceedings of the 1st Corrosion and Materials Degradation, 2021, . [CrossRef]
  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. [CrossRef]
  13. George, F. (2017) Horizontal Directional Drilling-Length Detection Technology While Drilling Based on Bi-Electro-Magnetic Sensing. Sensors, 17(5), 967. [CrossRef]
  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. [CrossRef]
  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. [CrossRef]
  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. [CrossRef]
  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. [CrossRef]
  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. [CrossRef]
  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. [CrossRef]
  21. Najafi, M.; Sattler, M.; Schug, K.; Kaushal, V.; Iyer, G.; Korky, S. (2018). Chemical Emissions of Styrenated CIPP Non-conclusive. UTA, 2018.
  22. Little, R. G. (2011). The emerging role of public-private partnerships in megaproject delivery. Public Works Management & Policy, 16, 240-249. [CrossRef]
  23. Rocca M.D. The rising advantage of Public-Private Partnerships. In: Voices. June 2017.
  24. 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. [CrossRef]
  25. Spackman, M. (2002) ‘Public-private partnerships – lessons learned from the British approach’. Construction Economics, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 283-301.
  26. Kaushal, V.; Najafi, M. (2018). Review of Literature on Chemical Emissions and Worker Exposures Associated with Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP) Installations. 2018 Chesapeake Tri-Association Conference, Ocean City, Maryland.
  27. Eadie R., Millar P. Public Private Partnerships, Reevaluating value for money. In: International Journal of Procurement Management, vol. 6, no. 2. 2013. [CrossRef]
  28. Grimsey D., Lewis M.K. Evaluating the risks of public private partnerships for infrastructure projects. In: International Journal of Project Management 20. 2002. [CrossRef]
  29. Grimsey D., Lewis M.K. Public Private Partnerships and Public Procurement. In: A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, vol. 14, no. 2. 2007. [CrossRef]
  30. 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.
  31. Jones, R. & Noble, G. (2008). Success factors: Public works and public-private partnerships. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21, 637-657. [CrossRef]
  32. 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. [CrossRef]
  33. 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. [CrossRef]
  34. 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. [CrossRef]
  35. 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]
  36. Kaushal, V.; Najafi, M. (2017). Investigating and Reporting Solutions for Microbiologically Induced Corrosion of Concrete in Sanitary Sewer Pipe and Manholes. Report, University of Texas at Arlington, 2017.
  37. 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]
  38. Duran, O., Althoefer, K. & Seneviratne, L.D. 2002, "Automated sewer pipe inspection through image processing", IEEE, pp. 2551. [CrossRef]
  39. 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]
  40. 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.
  41. Najafi, M., Kaushal, V., Visser, J. (2024). “Operational Planning and Design Considerations for an Underground Logistics Transportation in Texas.” Infrastructures, MDPI. [CrossRef]
  42. 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. MDPI Sustainability, 14(9), 5549. [CrossRef]
  43. 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]
  44. 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. [CrossRef]
  45. 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. [CrossRef]
  46. 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. [CrossRef]
  47. 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]
  48. 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]
  49. ASCE (2017). “Infrastructure Report Card,” Reston, VA.
  50. 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.
  51. 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]
  52. 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]
  53. 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]
  54. 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]
  55. 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. [CrossRef]
  56. Kaushal, V., Pham, A. (2024). “Towards Sustainable Construction Development: A Qualitative Review.” Preprints. [CrossRef]
  57. Kaushal, V., Saeed, E. (2024). “Sustainable and Innovative Self-Healing Concrete Technologies to Mitigate Environmental Impacts in Construction.” CivilEng, MDPI. [CrossRef]
  58. 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]
  59. 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.
  60. 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.
  61. Lindsat Ivey Burden, E. J. (2015). Synthesis of Trenchless Technologies. Virginia Center For Transportation Innovation and Research.
  62. Makarand Hastak, Sanjiv Gokhale. (2000). System for Evaluating Underground Pipeline Renewal Options. ASCE Journal of Infrastructure System. [CrossRef]
  63. Oregon Department of Transportation. (2014). Hydraulics Manual. Oregon.
  64. Patel, J., Kaushal, V. (2024). “Comparative Review Study of Modular Construction with Traditional On-site Construction.” Preprints. [CrossRef]
  65. 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]
  66. 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]
  67. PINTER & Associates Ltd. (2013). Trenchless Technologoes and Work Practices Review For Saskatchewan Municipalities.
  68. 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.
  69. Zwierzchowska, A. (2006). The Optimum Choice of Trenchless Pipe Laying Technologies. ELSEVIER, Tunnelign and Underground Space Technology. [CrossRef]
  70. 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]
  71. 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. [CrossRef]
  72. 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]
  73. 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]
  74. Kunzel, J., Werner, T., Eisert, P. & Waschnewski, J. 2018, "Automatic Analysis of Sewer Pipes Based on Unrolled Monocular Fisheye Images", IEEE, pp. 2019.
  75. 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.
  76. Kaushal, V., Saeed, E. (2024). “Advanced Self-Healing Concrete Technologies to Minimize Environmental Consequences in Building Industry.” Highlights of Sustainability.
  77. 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]
  78. Jamali, K., Kaushal, V. (2022). “Additive Manufacturing: The Future of Construction.” Trends in Civil Engineering and its Architecture, ISSN: 2637-4668.
  79. 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]
  80. 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.
  81. Jianhang Feng, S. Q. (2023). Accelerating autonomic healing of cementitious composites by using nano calcium carbonate coated polypropylene fibers. Materials & Design, 225. [CrossRef]
  82. Maddalena, R. e. (2022). Applications and Life Cycle Assessment of Shape Memory Polyethylene Terephthalate in Concrete for Crack Closure. Polymers, 15(5). [CrossRef]
  83. 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. [CrossRef]
  84. 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]
  85. PCA. (2024, April 09). Retrieved from Portland Cement Association: https://www.cement.org/cement-concrete.
  86. 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. [CrossRef]
  87. 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.
  88. 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]
  89. 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. [CrossRef]
  90. 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.
  91. Prabha, S. L. (2020). Development of high-strength nano-cementitious composites using copper slag. ACI Materials Journal, 117(4), 37-46. [CrossRef]
  92. Ruben Snellings, P. S. (2023). Future and emerging supplementary cementitious materials. Cement and Concrete Research, 171. [CrossRef]
  93. 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]
  94. Kaushal, V. (2014). “Earthquake Resistant Construction.” Engineering Sciences International Research Journal, Vol.2, Issue 1, ISSN 2320-4338.
  95. 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.
  96. Thakre, G., Kaushal, V., Najafi, M. (2024). “Concrete Foundation Damage Assessment and Repair Methodologies for Residential Structures.” 10th Forensic Engineering Congress, 2024.
  97. Thakre, G., Kaushal, V., Najafi, M. (2024). “Assessment of Hail Damage for Tile Roofing System: A Technical Review.” 10th Forensic Engineering Congress, 2024.
  98. 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]
  99. 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]
  100. 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.
  101. Atambo, D., Kaushal, V., Najafi, M. (2023). “Condition Prediction of Sanitary Sewerage Pipeline Systems Using Multinomial Logistic Regression.” NASTT No-Dig Show 2023. [CrossRef]
  102. 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]
  103. 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]
  104. 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]
  105. 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]
  106. 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.
  107. Atambo, D., Kaushal, V., Najafi, M. (2023). “Condition Prediction of Sanitary Sewer Pipes Using Artificial Neural Network.” NASTT No-Dig Show 2023.
  108. 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.
  109. 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.
  110. 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.
  111. 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.
  112. 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.
  113. 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.
  114. 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]
  115. 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.
  116. Jianhang Feng, S. Q. (2023). Accelerating autonomic healing of cementitious composites by using nano calcium carbonate coated polypropylene fibers. Materials & Design, 225. [CrossRef]
  117. 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.
  118. 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]
  119. 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.
  120. 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.
  121. 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.
  122. 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]
  123. 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.
  124. 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.
  125. 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.
  126. 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.
  127. 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.
  128. Loganathan, K., Najafi, M., Kaushal, V., Agyemang, P. (2021). “Evaluation of Public Private Partnership in Infrastructure Projects.” Proc. ASCE Pipelines 2021, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
  129. 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.
  130. 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.
  131. 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]
  132. 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]
  133. 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.
  134. 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.
  135. 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.
  136. 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.
  137. 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.
  138. 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.
  139. 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]
  140. Sugio, T., White, K.J., Shute, E., Choate, D. and Blake, R.C. (1992). “Existence of a Hydrogen.
  141. Sulfide, Ferric Ion Oxidoreductase in Iron-oxidizing Bacteria.” Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 58, 431-433.
  142. 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.
  143. 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]
  144. 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.
  145. 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.
  146. 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.
  147. 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.
  148. 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.
  149. 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.
  150. 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.
  151. Amran M, O. A. (2022, April 29). Self-Healing Concrete as a Prospective Construction Material: A Review. Materials, 15(9). [CrossRef]
  152. Amran, M. O. (2022). Self-Healing Concrete as a Prospective Construction Material: A Review. Materials, 15(9). [CrossRef]
  153. 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.
  154. 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]
  155. 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]
  156. 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]
  157. 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]
  158. D. Matthew Stuart, P. S. (2020). Concrete Deterioration. Fairfax: PDH Center.
  159. 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]
  160. Maddalena, R. e. (2022). Applications and Life Cycle Assessment of Shape Memory Polyethylene Terephthalate in Concrete for Crack Closure. Polymers, 15(5). [CrossRef]
  161. 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]
  162. 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]
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