Evaluation of Life Cycle Cost of Excavation and Trenchless Cured-in-Place Pipeline Technologies for Sustainable Wastewater Applications

Sanitary sewer pipelines frequently experience blockages, structural failures, and overflows, underscoring the dire state of U.S. wastewater infrastructure, which has been rated a D-, while America’s overall infrastructure scores only slightly better at C-. Traditional open-trench excavation methods or excavation technology (ET) for replacing deteriorated pipes are notoriously expensive and disruptive, requiring extensive processes like route planning, surveying, engineering, trench excavation, pipe installation, backfilling, and ground restoration. In contrast, trenchless technologies (TT) provide a less invasive and more cost-effective alternative. Among these, cured-in-place pipe technology (CIPPT), which involves inserting resin-impregnated fabric into damaged pipelines, is widely recognized for its efficiency. However, a comprehensive life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) directly comparing ET and TT, accounting for the net present value (NPV) across installation, maintenance, and rehabilitation costs, remains unexplored. This study aims to establish an LCCA framework for both CIPPT and ET, specifically for sanitary sewer pipes ranging from 8 to 42 inches in diameter. The framework incorporates construction, environmental, and social costs, providing a holistic evaluation. The key costs for ET involve pipe materials and subsurface investigations, whereas TT’s costs center around engineering and design. Social impacts, such as road and pavement damage, disruption to adjacent utilities, and noise, are pivotal, alongside environmental factors like material use, transportation, project duration, and equipment emissions. This comprehensive framework empowers decision makers to holistically assess economic and environmental impacts, enabling informed choices for sustainable sewer infrastructure renewal.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Sustainability
Published
2025-03-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052329
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Geotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.86
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluation of Life Cycle Cost of Excavation and Trenchless Cured-in-Place Pipeline Technologies for Sustainable Wastewater Applications

Gayatri Thakre, Vinayak Kaushal, Mohammad Najafi, Eesha Karkhanis
3 citations
Sustainability
Geotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
2.86
article

Evaluation of Life Cycle Cost of Excavation and Trenchless Cured-in-Place Pipeline Technologies for Sustainable Wastewater Applications

Gayatri Thakre, Vinayak Kaushal, Mohammad Najafi, Eesha Karkhanis
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Sanitary sewer pipelines frequently experience blockages, structural failures, and overflows, underscoring the dire state of U.S. wastewater infrastructure, which has been rated a D-, while America’s overall infrastructure scores only slightly better at C-. Traditional open-trench excavation methods or excavation technology (ET) for replacing deteriorated pipes are notoriously expensive and disruptive, requiring extensive processes like route planning, surveying, engineering, trench excavation, pipe installation, backfilling, and ground restoration. In contrast, trenchless technologies (TT) provide a less invasive and more cost-effective alternative. Among these, cured-in-place pipe technology (CIPPT), which involves inserting resin-impregnated fabric into damaged pipelines, is widely recognized for its efficiency. However, a comprehensive life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) directly comparing ET and TT, accounting for the net present value (NPV) across installation, maintenance, and rehabilitation costs, remains unexplored. This study aims to establish an LCCA framework for both CIPPT and ET, specifically for sanitary sewer pipes ranging from 8 to 42 inches in diameter. The framework incorporates construction, environmental, and social costs, providing a holistic evaluation. The key costs for ET involve pipe materials and subsurface investigations, whereas TT’s costs center around engineering and design. Social impacts, such as road and pavement damage, disruption to adjacent utilities, and noise, are pivotal, alongside environmental factors like material use, transportation, project duration, and equipment emissions. This comprehensive framework empowers decision makers to holistically assess economic and environmental impacts, enabling informed choices for sustainable sewer infrastructure renewal.

SustainabilityVol. 17(5)
The University of Texas at Arlington (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Geotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
2.86
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.