wkh ; bharadwaj r. k. mantha ; and carol c. menassa · af t di the the l c ta b methodol o the...
Post on 08-Jul-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
A Framework to Evaluate the Life Cycle Costs and Environmental Impacts of Water Pipelines
Albert Thomas1; Bharadwaj R. K. Mantha2; and Carol C. Menassa3
1Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Michigan, 2350 Hayward St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109. E-mail: albertth@umich.edu 2Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Michigan, 2350 Hayward St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109. E-mail: baddu@umich.edu 3Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Michigan, 2350 Hayward St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109. E-mail: menassa@umich.edu
Abstract
The true value of a pipeline as an asset should be based on several factors that impact its service life. Those considerations include the consumption and production of raw materials, design, installation, operation and maintenance, and planning for the end of the pipeline’s service life; as well as, the corresponding environmental impacts at each of these life cycle phases. In this paper, a model is presented that allows utilities and engineers to evaluate the total life cycle cost associated with a water transmission pipeline. The model is designed to compare Ductile Iron (DI) versus PVC pipe, two of the most commonly used pipe materials. In addition to the tangible cost comparisons, the model also includes an evaluation of environmental impacts that need to be considered by utilities to build or replace a transmission pipeline. Results from scenario analysis for 8” and 24” pipes illustrate that although PVC pipes have initial economic benefits (due to lower material costs), DI tends to be more cost effective and also comparatively environmentally sustainable (less CO2 emissions) over its service life.
1.0 Introduction
Water distribution systems consist of an interconnected series of pipes, storage facilities, and components that convey drinking water and required fire protection needs for cities, homes, schools, hospitals, businesses, industries and other facilities (EPA 2015). More than one million miles of water mains are located across the United States (US). Based on the number of people being served, the American Water Works Association (AWWA) classifies water distribution system into four major categories: (1) very small systems (serving fewer than 3,300, 84.5% of community water systems); (2) small systems (3,300-9,999, 8.5%); (3) medium systems (10,000-49,999, 5.5%); and (4) large systems (>50,000, 1.5%). The main stakeholders involved in these infrastructure facilities include federal, state and municipal governments and the city local bodies.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has estimated that, approximately 4,000 to 5,000 miles of water mains are being replaced annually and this rate is projected to increase in the coming years (EPA 2013). This is mostly because many pipes in the US are reported to be nearing the end of their useful service life, and the cost to replace those pipes for the next 25 years are estimated to reach more than $1 trillion USD to maintain the current levels of water service
Pipelines 2016 1152
© ASCE
Pipelines 2016
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
184.
96.2
11.1
7 on
04/
28/1
7. C
opyr
ight
ASC
E. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly;
all
righ
ts r
eser
ved.
(ASCE 2013). Hence, in the coming decades there is a strong need for new water infrastructure projects especially in the US and the selection of a sustainable and cost effective pipe material is one of the important parameters for ensuring efficient water distribution systems for the future. There are several factors that affect the selection process of a suitable pipe material, which demands meticulous and systematic analysis of various pipe alternatives to arrive at the best solution. It is also required that the analysis not be limited to initial economic benefits but should also consider the engineering, practical, operational and environmental factors. The main objective of this paper is to develop a user-friendly tool that performs a life cycle analysis on the major pipe materials, which can be used by various stakeholders/designers to determine/design the most sustainable and efficient water distribution system, in the long run.
2.0 Research Background and Objectives
There are various types of pipe materials used for water distribution networks such as Ductile Iron (DI), Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC), High Density Polyethylene (HDPE), Cast Iron (CI) and pipes made of Asbestos and Concrete. However, PVC and DI are the most commonly used pipe materials (Moser et al. 2008, Rajani 2003, EPA 2002b).
Several existing life cycle based studies have attempted to analyze the cost as well as environmental impacts for the pipe materials at various life cycle stages such as manufacturing, transportation, construction, operation and end-of-life phases (Piratla et al. 2012, Du et al. 2013, McPherson 2009, Lundi et al. 2005, Recio et al. 2005, Filion et al. 2004, Dennison et al. 1999). The general methodology reported in these studies involves selecting specific case studies and analyzing the life cycle cost/environmental impact of that particular scenario. However, there is a need to develop a general framework that can analyze the life cycle cost impacts for various scenarios (such as different pipe sizes, flow parameters, and locations). In addition, most of the existing studies considered a study period less than 50 years. Generally, a pipe system is designed for longer service lives (around 100 years) and the ideal modeling tool should be able to mimic the performance for a longer period.
Hence, despite the significant contributions of these aforementioned studies, there is an emerging need for a comprehensive life cycle analysis of major pipe materials under varying conditions of operation and actual service life scenarios. Accordingly, this research study aims to develop a Pipe Material Life Cycle Assessment tool (PM-LCA) that is capable of analyzing different pipe material scenarios (for all the major diameters) and suggesting the best option to the various decision makers (such as stakeholders, utility companies, owners, and consumers). The major objectives of this study are as listed below:
1. Develop a comprehensive tool to conduct a Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) of alternative pipe materials with different service lives in consideration of all costs: initial, installation, operation and maintenance, service life, and a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of environmental impacts. In this example, we compare Life Cycle Costs and Life Cycle Assessment (LCC+LCA) of DI and PVC pipes.
2. Perform a Sensitivity/Scenario analysis to evaluate the total life cycle impact.
Pipelines 2016 1153
© ASCE
Pipelines 2016
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
184.
96.2
11.1
7 on
04/
28/1
7. C
opyr
ight
ASC
E. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly;
all
righ
ts r
eser
ved.
3.0
Figvardetcycthe env
of tapppipbedIncservAftDI the the LC
Tab
Methodolo
The overallg.1 below. It rious stakehoermines the
cle phases frend-of-life
vironmental
One major the pipe matproximately es predict a
dding design, 2008). Thvice lives oter reviewingand PVC, reliterature sumodel allow
C analysis.
ble. 1: Liter
DI (in year~150
100-120 >100 100 100
60-80
75
ogy
l frameworkfollows a hy
olders to weicost impact
rom the pipe. In a similimpact assoc
Figure 1
step in perfoterial. PVC 40 years of a service li
n, temperaturhus, an extef PVC and g all the stuespectively, uggests a sews the user t
rature with
rs) PVC (
<
4
k adopted toybrid approaigh differentts of a partice productionlar fashion, ciated with t
: Overview
orming anypipes have b
f performancfe that rangre and other ensive literaDI pipes an
udies, servicein the case s
ervice life arto test the im
focus on ser
(in years)
<55
50-100 1-60 60
50
o achieve thach combinint aspects of acular pipe prn, installatio
LCA analythe various l
of the prop
life cycle anbeen operatice history. Hges from 20environmen
ature reviewnd the resulte lives of 10study considround 50 yeampact that s
rvice life of
SwaParadk
PPI (201(2010); Bu
he above obng LCC anda piping proroject by conon, operationysis determilife cycle pha
posed frame
nalysis is to ional from e
However, the0-100 yearsntal conditiow was condts are tabula00 and 50 ydered in thisars for PVCervice life h
f DI and PV
ReferDIPRA (PWD (2
AWWA (DIPRA (EPA (20
Folkman amee and Shkar (2013); M5); AWWA urn et al. (20
al. (20
bjectives is pd LCA thereboject. The LCnsidering aln and maintines the corases.
ework
determine thearly 1970's e manufactus dependingons (Pennoniducted on thated in Tablyears are con
paper. HowC and 100 yehas on the re
C pipes
rences (2015) 2015) (2015) (2012) 002a) (2012)
harma (2008Marques (20(2007); JM
005); McPhe009)
provided in by allowing CC analysis l of the life
tenance and rresponding
he life span resulting in
ures of PVC g on trench i Associates he reported e 1, below. nsidered for
wever, while ears for DI, esults of the
) 013)
Eagle erson et
Pipelines 2016 1154
© ASCE
Pipelines 2016
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
184.
96.2
11.1
7 on
04/
28/1
7. C
opyr
ight
ASC
E. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly;
all
righ
ts r
eser
ved.
3.1 LCCA Module The production phase involves costs for material extraction, pipe production and
pipe transportation. Various industry standards as well as the RSMeans cost database are used for populating the unit cost of the pipe material (RSMeans 2015). The standard pipe material costs assumed for in this case study were obtained from suppliers. For DI and PVC, lowest pressure classes (including a surge allowance of 100 psi) and the pressure class of 235 psi (DR 18) are assumed respectively. The user will also have the option to consider the pipe material costs based on RSMeans cost database, industry standards or if the preference is to input a different unit cost for the pipe material that feature is also available in the model. This option provides more flexibility for the decision makers (e.g., utilities) to evaluate the cost impacts of various pipe options.
Similarly, costs associated with the installation of pipes are determined from the RSMeans (2015) database. The typical installation procedure for DI and PVC pipes are adopted as per the relevant AWWA standards and other industry reference manuals (AWWA M41, AWWA M23, DIPRA 2015). The unit rates assumed for the typical activities in a pipe installation phase are summarized in Table 2, below. The costs associated with the transportation of pipe materials to the project site are assumed to range between 5 and 7 percent of the pipe material costs (US ITC 2000).
Table. 2: Unit Rates assumed for Installation phase (Source RSMeans 2015)
Item Unit Rate ($)
Mobilization of Equipment Ea. $641.89
Excavation BCY $2.11
Bedding Placement LCY $32.27
Bedding Compaction S.Y $0.62
Structural Backfill ECY $0.78
Final Compaction ECY $0.27
Demobilization of Equipment Ea. $641.89
The operation phase in a water distribution project involves costs associated with pumping the water and carrying out the necessary repairs and regular maintenance activities. Prior studies have identified pumping costs to constitute a significant portion of the total life cycle costs (Piratla 2012, McPherson 2009). For a given scenario, this cost can be computed using the Hazen–Williams equation by taking flow rate ( ), unit cost of electricity ( ), and efficiency of the pump system ( ) as inputs. The relevant equations used to estimate this cost are provided below (equations 1-3). In the case of the costs and the frequency of repair activities,
Pipelines 2016 1155
© ASCE
Pipelines 2016
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
184.
96.2
11.1
7 on
04/
28/1
7. C
opyr
ight
ASC
E. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly;
all
righ
ts r
eser
ved.
standard failure rates obtained from industry sources and the typical costs suggested in the literature for each repair (Haas 2012) are assumed.
= . − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − ( )
Where, V=Velocity (fps), Q=Flow rate (gpm) and d=Actual inside diameter (in.) = . ( ) . . − − − − − − − − − − − − − − ( )
Where, HL = Head loss (ft./1000 ft.), V=Velocity of flow (fps), C=Hazen Williams factor, d=Actual inside diameter (in.) = . − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − ( )
Where PC = Pumping Cost in $/year /1000 ft. of pipe based on 24 hr./ day pump
operation, HL=Hydraulic gradient or head loss in ft./(1000 ft.), Q=flow rate, gpm), a=unit cost of electricity in $/KWH, E=total efficiency of pump system
When the pipe reaches its End-Of-Life (EOL) phase, i.e., after completing its service life and the pipe is no longer useful for operation, it is either exhumed for salvage, recycling or disposal; or will be abandoned-in-place. From discussions with industry experts, these pipes are usually abandoned because of the manpower, resources, time and money involved to unearth the pipe. In addition, the energy required to take the pipe out of the trench overshadows the benefits arising out of possible recycling of the buried materials. Thus, it is assumed that pipes are abandoned at the end of their service lives and any salvaging values are omitted from the scope of this study.
Carrying out an LCCA as outlined above can provide a model to evaluate the economic benefits of alternative pipe materials of differing service lives to decision-makers. Figure 2, below, gives a view of the input sheet of the Life Cycle Cost Analysis (“LCCA”) model through which the user can select the various options for which the life cycle impacts need to be ascertained.
3.2 LCA Module LCA is a well-established analytical method for assessing the environmental
balance of a product, process or service (Horvath 2004). It is learnt from the LCCA study that out of the total energy requirement for a pipe’s life cycle, the most important energy requirements come from pipe production and from pumping costs during operation. Hence, for this version of the model, only those environmental impacts from pipe production and operational phases are considered.
The embodied energy required for producing the material include the energy associated with the production of raw materials and pipe casting or extrusion processes. The energy required for producing unit quantity of pipe material is adopted based on various literature studies (Piratla et al. 2012, Ambrose et al. 2002).
Pipelines 2016 1156
© ASCE
Pipelines 2016
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
184.
96.2
11.1
7 on
04/
28/1
7. C
opyr
ight
ASC
E. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly;
all
righ
ts r
eser
ved.
Bascomtabuto pumwaygen
Tab
D
E
E
W
W
W
W
sed on the qumputed. Allulated in Tabthe pumpin
mping energy that the pnerated.
Figure
ble. 3: Key
Description
Embodied Ene
Embodied Ene
Wt. of 8’’ dia
Wt. of 8’’ dia
Wt. of 24’’ dia
Wt. of 24’’ dia
uantity of pil the corresble 3. The m
ng of water.gy in this phaumping ene
e 2: A scree
assumption
ergy (PVC)
ergy (DI)
(PVC) pipe
(DI) pipe
a (PVC) pipe
a (DI) pipe
ipe selected fsponding as
major energy The Hazenase. As men
ergy of any
nshot of the
ns considere
Unit
MJ/K
MJ/K
lbs./f
lbs./f
lbs./f
lbs./f
for the case ssumptions
y required in n Williams ntioned beforflow param
e user interf
d for the LC
s Inpu
Kg 74.
Kg 38.
ft. 9.
ft. 21.
ft. 76.
ft. 80.
study, the toalong withthe operatioequation is
re, the modemeters and pu
face for the
CA study
uts
.9 Am
.2 Am
1
.1
.5
.8
otal embodieh their refeon phase is ws used to coel is designeumping perc
LCCA mod
Reference
mbrose et al.
mbrose et al.
NPP (2016
AWWA (20
NPP (2016
AWWA (20
ed energy is erences are with regards ompute the ed in such a cent can be
del
e
(2002)
(2002)
6)
010)
6)
010)
Pipelines 2016 1157
© ASCE
Pipelines 2016
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
184.
96.2
11.1
7 on
04/
28/1
7. C
opyr
ight
ASC
E. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly;
all
righ
ts r
eser
ved.
Once the energy requirements are obtained for a particular scenario, the corresponding CO2 emissions are calculated based on US EPA data that provide the corresponding environmental impact for all the US states based on a zip code (EPA 2016). Once the emissions are calculated in this fashion, they are converted to an equivalent dollar value for easy comparison with the LCCA analysis and for measuring the total savings for any given scenario.
4.0 Case Study and Scenario Analysis
In order to understand the cost impacts ranging from lower to higher diameters, the LCCA of an 8-inch pipe project and a 24-inch pipe project for both DI and PVC are considered for the case study. A preliminary analysis was conducted to observe the general trends of the cost break-even points and the annual emissions for these two pipe diameters. For making a fair comparison, similar nominal diameter and pressure classes of the pipe are used as per American Water Works Association (AWWA) standards. Some of the key details adopted for this case study are shown in Table 4 below. In addition, most of the values considered for analysis were obtained from the RS Means data and pertinent AWWA standards and manuals such as C900, C905, C151, M23, M41 and C150.
Table. 4: Key assumptions considered for the LCCA
Description Units Inputs Description Units Inputs
Location of the job site
NA Michigan Bare pipe costs (DI/PVC) 8’’ dia pipe
$ 51.4/61.9
Total length of pipe
Ft 1000 Hazen William factor (C) DI/PVC
NA 140/150
Diameter of the pipe
Inches 8 and 24 Discount rate % 2
DI (Pressure Class*)
psi 350 (8’’) and 200 (24’’)
Escalation rate % 1.9
PVC (DR 18) psi 235(8’’
and 24’’) % of Pumping % 25
Project life Span
Years 100 Rate of Electricity $/KWh 0.06
Service Life (DI/PVC)
Years 100/50 Efficiency of Pump
Percent 70
Bare pipe costs (DI/PVC) 8’’ dia pipe
$ 12.91/6.33 Q (Flow rate) gpm 1000 (8’’) and 6000
(24’’) *DI pipe is adequate for the rated working pressure indicated, plus a surge allowance of 100 psi.
Fig. 3 below shows the results obtained for both 8-inch and 24-inch diameter pipes. It can be seen from the graphs that the annual CO2 emissions significantly increase for 24-inch PVC pipe compared to 8-inch PVC pipe, which is obvious because of the heavy pipe weight and increased emissions associated with the pipe production. In the cost break-even analysis, it is shown that operational savings
Pipelines 2016 1158
© ASCE
Pipelines 2016
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
184.
96.2
11.1
7 on
04/
28/1
7. C
opyr
ight
ASC
E. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly;
all
righ
ts r
eser
ved.
assovePVyeaanainstwhwitpumthe sce
Fin
4.1
grathe as icumyeaaccopeyeaPV
ociated withershadow ini
VC pipe has ars, there arealysis graph talling new en pumpingth increase imping phase
cost sensitinario analys
Figure 3: Toncluding thtwo with cu
Scenario ABased on th
aphs are genFig. 4 and F
indicated in mulative savar and plottecumulated coerational cosar for differe
VC) for both
h an alternatitial savings initial cost
e considerabis due to
PVC pipelig water throuin diameter.e and hence ivity to varisis is only lim
otal (produce replaceme
umulative co
Analysis he inference
nerated for vFig. 5 below
the graph lvings for DI ed. These vaost of DI ansts) at each yent pumping24-inch and
tive materialfor another
advantages, le savings wlesser servi
ine. It can augh DI pipe The major an exclusive
ious pumpinmited to the
ction) and aent of PVC osts) for 8 in
e obtained fvarious percew, each line clabels. Sinceover PVC fo
alues were cand PVC pipyear respectig scenarios. -8 inch pipe
l over the enpipe materiwhen consi
with DI pipe.ice life for also be seens is very imenergy and
e scenario ang scenariosLCCA.
annual (operpipe) and cnch (left) an
from the aboent of pumpcorresponds e pumping cfor varied pualculated by
pe (includingvely. Fig. 4 It can be s
s are signific
ntire designal. In our exidering the e. The suddenPVC (50 y
n that the enmportant andd impacts wanalysis is pe. For the sc
ration) CO2
cost breakevnd 24 inch (
ove case stuping rangingto a particul
costs have a umping levely taking the g the initial and Fig. 5 d
seen that thecant for a 10
n life of a pixample, whientire life cyn rise in the years), whicnergy saving improves s
were observeerformed to cope of this
2 emissions ven analysis(right) respe
udy, LCCA g from 0% tlar pumping
a dominatingls are recorddifference bpipe costs
depict the LCe savings (f00-year anal
ipeline may ile a typical ycle of 100 break-even
ch demands gs achieved ignificantly
ed from the understand paper, this
(top two
s (bottom ectively.
break-even o 100%. In
g percentage g effect, the ded for eachbetween the and annual
CC for each for DI over ysis period.
Pipelines 2016 1159
© ASCE
Pipelines 2016
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
184.
96.2
11.1
7 on
04/
28/1
7. C
opyr
ight
ASC
E. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly;
all
righ
ts r
eser
ved.
In aa m
5.0
matexamatand
addition, witmuch earlier t
Figure 4: L
Figure 5: L
Discussion
This paper terials (DI
ample considterial costs,
d also compa
th an increastime.
LCC scenari
LCC scenari
s and Concl
conducted aand PVC) udered, thougespecially i
aratively env
se in percent
io/ breakevepumpin
io/ breakevepumpin
lusions
a life cycle used for wagh PVC pipein smaller sivironmentall
t of pumping
en analysis fng percenta
en analysis fng percenta
analysis on ater distributes had initiaizes), DI turly more sust
g, the break-
for a 24’’ diages.
for an 8’’ diages.
the two of ttion pipelin
al economic rned out to tainable (less
even starts t
ia. pipe with
ia. pipe with
the most cones. In the
benefits (dube more co
s CO2 emiss
to happen at
h varied
h varied
mmon pipe case study
ue to lower ost effective sions) in the
Pipelines 2016 1160
© ASCE
Pipelines 2016
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
184.
96.2
11.1
7 on
04/
28/1
7. C
opyr
ight
ASC
E. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly;
all
righ
ts r
eser
ved.
long run. In addition, for higher diameter pipes (more than 12’’ dia), DI tends to have more cost savings (around $100,000 to $1000,000 depending on the % of pumping and length of pipe for the entire life span) in comparison to PVC pipes.
Furthermore, sensitivity/scenario analyses were conducted to investigate which of the life cycle phases has the most impact on the LCCA results. It was found that, the operation and maintenance phase (pumping costs in particular) contributes the most to the life cycle costs. A case study was conducted to investigate the individual impact of percent of pumping on the dollar value of the savings. The overall results of the case study indicate that the percent of pumping is important for arriving at the life cycle cost savings.
Water distribution projects are generally planned for a longer period mainly because of the huge initial investment. Given the general nature of this model, utilities and various stakeholders can effectively use this tool to determine the optimum pipe material for any given scenario (for e.g., varied life spans, diameters, flow rates, and locations). Currently, the model incorporates specific pipe classes and materials.
As part of future studies, the authors plan to include other pipe classes and perform additional case study scenarios.
6.0 Acknowledgements
This research was sponsored by the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association (DIPRA). The authors would also like to thank all the member companies for providing the necessary data for the LCCA model developed. We specially thank Gregg Horn (Vice president – Technical services, DIPRA) for his continued support throughout the development of the tool.
7.0 References
Ambrose, M., Burn, S., DeSilva, D., and Rahilly, M. "Life cycle analysis of Water
Networks." Proc., Plastics Pipe XIV: Plastics Pipes Conferences Association. American Water Works Association (AWWA) (2015). “Buried No Longer: Confronting
America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge.” http://www.awwa.org/Portals/0/files/legreg/documents/BuriedNoLonger.pdf (May 8th,2015).
American Water Works Association (AWWA), and American National Standards Institute. (2007). “AWWA standard for polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pressure pipe and fabricated fittings, 4 in. through 12 in. (100 mm through 300 mm), for water transmission and distribution.” Denver, Colo: American Water Works Association.
ASCE (2013). 2013 Report card for America's infrastructure, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va.
AWWA C151-Ductile Iron Pipe (2010). “Centrifugally Cast in Metal Molds or Sand-Lined Molds, for Water or Other Liquids” ANSI/AWWA C151/A21.51-09 (Revision of ANSI/AWWA C151/A21.51-02).
Burn, S., Davis, P., and Schiller, T., (2005). ”Long-term performance prediction for PVC pipes” (pp. 1-205). AWWA Research Foundation.
Dandy, G., Roberts, A., Hewitson, C., and Chrystie, P. "Sustainability objectives for the optimization of water distribution networks." Proc., Proc., 8th Annual Water Distribution Systems Analysis Symp, 1-11.
Pipelines 2016 1161
© ASCE
Pipelines 2016
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
184.
96.2
11.1
7 on
04/
28/1
7. C
opyr
ight
ASC
E. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly;
all
righ
ts r
eser
ved.
Dennison, F. J., Azapagic, A., Clift, R., and Colbourne, J. S. (1999). "Life cycle assessment: Comparing strategic options for the mains infrastructure — Part I." Water Science and Technology, 39(10–11), 315-319.
DIPRA., (2012). “Certified Sustainable to the Triple Bottom Line: Good for the Environment, the Economic, and for Society.” http://mts.sustainableproducts.com/DIP%20SMaRT%20Summary%20Sheet-1.pdf (May 5th, 2015).
Du, F., Woods, G. J., Kang, D., Lansey, K. E., and Arnold, R. G. (2012). "Life cycle analysis for water and wastewater pipe materials." Journal of Environmental Engineering, 139(5), 703-711.
Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association (2015). “GUIDELINES Installation Guide for Ductile Iron Pipe”, DIPRA
Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association (DIPRA) (2015). “Ductile Iron Pipe vs PVC.” http://www.dipra.org/app/uploads/ DuctileIronPipeVSPVCpipe.pdf , (May 30th, 2015)
Filion, Y. R., MacLean, H. L., and Karney, B. W. (2004). “Life-cycle energy analysis of a water distribution system”. Journal of Infrastructure systems, 10(3), 120-130.
Folkman, S., (2012). “Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study.” Utah State University Buried Structures Laboratory http://www.watermainbreakclock.com/docs/UtahStateWaterBreakRates_FINAL_TH_Ver5lowrez.pdf (May 7th, 2015)
Haas, Kyle. "Lifecycle Cost and Performance of Plastic Pipelines in Modern Water Infrastructure." <http://www.truthaboutpipes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Kyle-Haas-Lifecycle-Plastic-Pipeline-Performance.pdf> (Jan 21st, 2016)
Halfawy, M., Dridi, L., and Baker, S. (2008). "Integrated Decision Support System for Optimal Renewal Planning of Sewer Networks." J.Comput.Civ.Eng., 22(6), 360-372.
Horvath, A. (2004). “Construction materials and the environment.” Annu. Rev. Environ. Resources., 29, 181-204
JM Eagle, Inc., (2010). "BLUE BRUTE PVC C.I.O.D Distribution Pipe DR15/ DR18/ DR14". http://www.jmeagle.com/pdfs/2008%20Brochures/Blue%20Brute_web.pdf (May 7th,2015)
Manual, A. W. W. A. "M23." PVC pipe-design and installation. American Water Works Association (AWWA) (2002).
Manual, A. W. W. A. "M41,“." Ductile Iron Pipe and Fittings”, American Water Works Association (2009):
Marques Arsénio, A., 2013. ”Lifetime Prediction of PVC Push-fit Joints” (Doctoral dissertation, TU Delft, Delft University of Technology).
McPherson, David L. "Choice of Pipeline Material: PVC or DI Using a Life Cycle Cost Analysis." In Proceedings of the Pipelines 2009 Conference, ASCE Conf. Proc. doi, vol. 10, no. 41069, p. 360. 2009.
Moser, A. P. and Folkman, Steven L. (2008) Buried Pipe Design (3rd edition) McGraw-Hill, New York, p. 336-337
NAHB, and Bank of America Home Equity (2007). Study of life expectancy of home components, National Association of Home Builders ; Bank of America, [Washington, DC]; [S.l.].
Neelakantan, T., and Suribabu, C. "Lingireddy Srinivasa.(2008).“Optimization procedure for pipe-sizing with break-repair and replacement economics.”." Water SA, 34(2), 217-224.
Northen pipe products (NPP) (2016), taken from AWWA C900-C905, <http://www.northernpipe.com/downloads/C-900C-905.pdf> (Jan 25th, 2016).
Pipelines 2016 1162
© ASCE
Pipelines 2016
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
184.
96.2
11.1
7 on
04/
28/1
7. C
opyr
ight
ASC
E. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly;
all
righ
ts r
eser
ved.
Paradkar, A. B., (2013). “An Evaluation Of Failure Modes For Cast Iron And Ductile Iron Water Pipes.”
Philadelphia Water Department. (2015). “Water Infrastructure Management.” http://www.phillywatersheds.org/watershed_issues/ infrastructure_management (May 15th, 2015)
Piratla, K. R., Ariaratnam, S. T., and Cohen, A. (2011). "Estimation of CO 2 emissions from the life cycle of a potable water pipeline project." Journal of Management in Engineering, 28(1), 22-30.
Plastic Pipe Institute (2014) “High-Density Polyethylene Pipe Systems: Meeting the challenges of the 21st century”, <http://www.plasticpipe.org/pdf/high_density_polyethylene_pipe_ systems.pdf> (Sep 9th, 2014)
Plastic Pipe Institute (PPI)., (2015). “Design of PE Piping Systems.” http://plasticpipe.org/pdf/chapter06.pdf (May 7th, 2015)
PVC's Physical Properties (2014), <http://www.pvc.org/en/p/pvcs-physical-properties> (Sep 8, 2014)
R. S. Means, C. (2015). RSMeans building construction cost data 2015, RSMeans, Norwell, MA.
Rajani, Balvant, and Yehuda Kleiner. "Protection of ductile iron water mains against external corrosion: review of methods and case histories." Jour. AWWA 95, no. 11 (2003): 110.
Recio, J. M. B., Guerrero, P. J., Ageitos, M. G., & Narváez, R. P. (2005). “Estimate of energy consumption and CO2 emission associated with the production, use and final disposal of PVC, HDPE, PP, ductile iron and concrete pipes.” Barcelona: Universitat Politécnica de Catalunya.
Swamee, Prabhata K., and Ashok K. Sharma. Design of water supply pipe networks. John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
Tukker, A. (2000). “Life cycle assessment as a tool in environmental impact assessment”. Environmental impact assessment review, 20(4), 435-456.
U. S International Trade Commission (2000), “Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From Brazil, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand, Investigations Nos. 731 -TA-278-280 (Review) and 731 -TA-347-348 (Review), Publication 3274
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002a). “Deteriorating Buried Infrastructure Management Challenges and Strategies.” Prepared by American Water Works Service (AWWS) for EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/2007_09_04_disinfection_tcr_whitepaper_tcr_infrastructure.pdf (May 15th, 2015)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002b). “New or Repaired Water Mains http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201509/documents/neworrepairedwatermains.pdf (Feb 02, 2016)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013). “2013 Report card for America’sInfrastructure”http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/a/documents/Drinking-Water.pdf (Jan 31st 2016)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2015). “Drinking Water Distribution Systems < http://www.epa.gov/dwsixyearreview/drinking-water-distribution-systems> (Jan 21, 2016).
Pipelines 2016 1163
© ASCE
Pipelines 2016
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
184.
96.2
11.1
7 on
04/
28/1
7. C
opyr
ight
ASC
E. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly;
all
righ
ts r
eser
ved.
top related