Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Jul / Aug 2009 Home | Free E-Newsletter | Free Subscription | Resource Center | Advertise | BMI
Featured Articles | News | Washington Report | Financial Report | Email the Editors | Webinars | UIM Conference | Forums | Calendar | Archives
This paper is also important because it presents an approach for comparing the costs of other trenchless
technologies with the open-cut method and highlights important areas in which more research is needed.
1. Introduction
Most existing underground utilities in North America were installed in the postwar construction boom that
resulted from the growing economies of Canada and the United States in the 1950s and 1960s (McKim
1997). This period witnessed the rapid expansion of extensive underground systems for water, sewer, gas
and power utilities. As McKim (1997) notes, these systems were constructed in greenfields, and the sparsely
built environment presented few impedments to large-scale open trenching.
However, over time these systems have deteriorated and now need extensive rehabilitation. Indeed, the
America Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimates that it will cost $1.3 trillion over the next five years just
to maintain current underground infrastructure systems. Extensive rehabilitation will be even more expensive,
and since open-cut construction is the preferred method, approximately 70 percent of the costs will simply be
for replacing the ground dug up in this process (Najafi and Gokhale, 2005).
In response to these costs, a different approach to rehabilitating underground infrastructure has emerged.
Referred to as trenchless technology, it is defined as ‘‘techniques for utility line installation, replacement,
rehabilitation, renovation, repair, inspection, location and leak detection, with minimum excavation from the
ground surface” (North American Society for Trenchless Technology). According to proponents of these
technologies, they should provide significant cost savings over traditional open-cut methods (Najafi and
Gokhale, 2005).
Create
1 of 4 PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 9/23/2009 7:06 PM
Underground Infrastructure Management Online - Cost Comparison of ... http://www.uimonline.com/index/webapp-stories-action?id=182&arch...
We manipulated the GIS to provide us with information on the length of each pipe segment. (Because we are
interested only in ‘public costs,’ we do not consider private sewer lines — commonly called laterals — that run
from the public sewer through yards to houses. These laterals are the property of homeowners, and
decisions to maintain or replace them are a private matter left up to individual households). Utilizing
information provided by the GIS on the diameter of each pipe segment, we were able to determine the total
length of pipe for each diameter.
The second source of data was standard cost estimates provided by R. S. Means (2005a and 2005b). These
publications are widely accepted and are employed by contractors, engineers and project owners to provide
baseline cost estimates for construction projects. From these publications, we obtained information on unit
cost estimates for replacing all the sewer pipes in Troy utilizing both the pipe-bursting and open-cut methods.
We applied these unit costs to the pipe lengths obtained from the GIS, but with some qualifications as dis-
cussed in subsequent sections.
Using data from R. S. Means (2005a), Table 1 shows the direct cost for the pipe-bursting method based on
the length and diameter of the pipes.
4. Cost for Replacing the Sewer Network Using the Open-Cut Method
Create
2 of 4 PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 9/23/2009 7:06 PM
Underground Infrastructure Management Online - Cost Comparison of ... http://www.uimonline.com/index/webapp-stories-action?id=182&arch...
Using the numbers in Table 4, Table 5 shows the estimated cost of sewer pipeline replacement using the
open-cut method. The total cost for replacing the sewer network in Troy using the pipe-bursting method is
about $304 million.
6. Conclusions and
Recommendations for Future
Research
In this study, we determined that the pipe-bursting method would be much less expensive than the open-cut
method for replacing the underground sewer network in Troy, Mich. The paper is also important because it
provides a template for future comparisons of the costs of other trenchless technologies vs. the open-cut
method.
However, a number of caveats and areas for future research need to be noted.
First, this research assumed that the whole pipe network would be replaced at the same time. In practice,
the replacement process will depend on the age and condition of specific sections of the network. In turn, the
cost estimated in this research would be incurred over a period of time.
Second, we assumed that all replacement and renewal work would be conducted using pipe bursting. Again,
in practice, specific neighborhood conditions may dictate that other trenchless methods be employed in
certain locations
Third, we used data from a recent study by Lee et al. (2007), in which costs for the open-cut method were
calculated for pipe sections of 310 feet at a time. However, Troy’s pipe network is much longer. A longer
network could affect the cost per foot because contractors’ unit costs usually fall as length increases. On the
other hand, the size factor might not hold for trenchless methods because larger diameters and longer pipes
may make the project more challenging and require more experience and more sophisticated equipment. In
turn, this could actually increase the cost of trench-less methods. We recommend future research that
examines this issue.
Fourth, for simplicity, we did not perform cost calculations for each diameter size of pipe. Instead, we used a
ratio based on an open-cut parameter from R. S. Means (2005b, see Table 3) and the results of the study by
Lee et al. (2007) for an 18-inch diameter pipe. We recommend that future research determine the cost for
each diameter pipe, although our preliminary findings suggest that the results would not be much different
from those presented here.
Fifth, we did not examine the cost of reconnecting laterals to the sewer lines. This is less expensive to
perform in the open-cut method because the trenching required in this process means that reconnection
should be easier. On the other hand, the pipe-bursting method would require that a pothole be excavated to
reconnect the laterals to the sewer pipes. This factor should be considered in future research. Again,
however, we do not believe that including this factor would change the conclusions of this research, as
pothole excavation is minimal using vacuum excavation or other new technologies.
Sixth, we did not consider other conditions that might affect the results. In a subsequent study, we will
examine how costs for both the open-cut and pipe-bursting methods can vary with different conditions, such
as soil characteristics, the state of decay of the existing pipe, and the density of connections. Finally, we did
not consider other ‘social’ costs, such as disruptions to traffic. These are likely to significantly increase the
costs of the open-cut method relative to the costs of pipe bursting.
Notwithstanding these limitations, it is clear that trenchless technology offers distinct cost advantages. For the
same project, the cost for open-cut excavation will increase in proportion to the depth and length of the pipe
while the cost for the trenchless method will not significantly increase in proportion to the depth and length of
the pipe. This is because the open-cut method requires continuous excavation and expensive trench-wall
protection systems while trenchless technology requires only the excavation of entry and exit pits at widely
Create
3 of 4 PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 9/23/2009 7:06 PM
Underground Infrastructure Management Online - Cost Comparison of ... http://www.uimonline.com/index/webapp-stories-action?id=182&arch...
spaced intervals. We conclude that using the pipe-bursting method instead of open-cut excavation could save
municipalities considerable sums of money as they seek to renew their underground utilities.
Rayman Mohamed, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Environmental Planning for the College of Liberal Arts
& Sciences at Wayne State University, Detroit.
Mohammad Najafi, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor and Coordinator of the Construction Engineering and
Management track within the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Texas-Arlington.
Behnam Hashemi is a graduate student in the Construction Engineering and Management area of Civil
Engineering at the University of Texas-Arlington.
References
Chung, T., Abraham, D., and Gokhale, S. (2004). Decision Support System for Microtunneling Applications.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 130, No. 6,
pp. 835-843.
Lee H., Najafi, M., and Matthys, J. (2007). Cost comparison of pipeline asset replacement: open-cut and pipe
bursting. Proceedings of ASCE International Pipeline 2007 Conference, Boston, Massachusetts.
McKim, R. A. (1997). Selection methods for trenchless technologies. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Vol. 3,
No. 3, pp. 119-125.
Najafi, M., and Gokhale, S. (2005). Trenchless technology: pipeline and utility design, construction and
renewal. McGraw-Hill, New York.
NASTT, Glossary to Terms, The North American Society for Trenchless Technology, http://www.nastt.org
/glossary.php?index=T, downloaded January 14, 2008.
R. S. Means Database. (2005a). Site work & landscape cost data. Construction Publishers & Consultants,
Kingston, MA.
R. S. Means Database. (2005b). Heavy construction cost data. Construction Publishers & Consultants,
Kingston, MA.
Reyna, S., Vanegas, J. and Khan, A. (1994). Construction technologies for sewer rehabilitation. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 120, No. 3, pp.
467-487.
Create
4 of 4 PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 9/23/2009 7:06 PM