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

Gayatri Thakre, Vinayak Kaushal (), Eesha Karkhanis and Mohammad Najafi
Additional contact information
Gayatri Thakre: Civil Engineering Department, The University of Texas at Arlington, P.O. Box 19308, Arlington, TX 76019, USA
Vinayak Kaushal: Civil Engineering Department, The University of Texas at Arlington, P.O. Box 19308, Arlington, TX 76019, USA
Eesha Karkhanis: Civil Engineering Department, The University of Texas at Arlington, P.O. Box 19308, Arlington, TX 76019, USA
Mohammad Najafi: Civil Engineering Department, The University of Texas at Arlington, P.O. Box 19308, Arlington, TX 76019, USA

Sustainability, 2025, vol. 17, issue 5, 1-22

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.

Keywords: life cycle cost; construction cost; social cost; environmental cost; wastewater; sanitary sewer; sustainability (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/5/2329/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/5/2329/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:5:p:2329-:d:1607104

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().