Automation in Construction 15 (2006) 479 – 488

www.elsevier.com/locate/autcon

Innovative method for assessment of underground sewer pipe condition

Dae-Hyun Koo a,*, Samuel T. Ariaratnam b
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States
b
Del E. Webb School of Construction, Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States

Abstract

The accurate evaluation of current underground infrastructure must be done before any crucial decisions regarding lifecycle analysis,
rehabilitation and replacement intervals and appropriate remedial methods can be made. Unfortunately, traditional technologies and
management approaches have been limited by the use of insufficient data in the evaluation of the structural integrity of an aged infrastructure.
This paper describes an innovative method for assessment of underground pipe, utilizing Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) and Digital
Scanning and Evaluation Technology (DSET) to collect accurate information about the condition of a buried pipeline. Prediction modeling,
using logistic regression, to measure the extent of deterioration of the infrastructure system, is described. A case study applying this
innovative technology to sections of large diameter PVC lined concrete pipe in the City of Phoenix, Arizona, is presented.
D 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Underground infrastructure; Utility inspection; Evaluation; Lifecycle prediction modeling

1. Introduction Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) graded the overall

The importance and role of underground infrastructure
cannot be underestimated, especially in populated and
congested urban areas. The most basic resources for
sustaining urban life, including water, wastewater, commu-
nication and power, are distributed or collected through a
network of underground infrastructure. This underground
network has been largely ignored, mostly due to the fact that
it is invisible and not readily seen by the general public.
Recently, the deterioration of these systems has become a
societal issue and an enormous financial burden to utility
owners. In the wastewater area, cities throughout the U.S are
currently faced with the onerous task of replacement or
rehabilitation of their deteriorated sewer systems. According
to the U.S. EPA [1], the majority of current underground
utility infrastructure was built after World War II, making
the average age of sewer systems more than 40 years old.
The same study concluded that less than 44% of the nation’s
wastewater system is projected to be rated as good or
excellent condition in 2010. In a recent study, the American
* Corresponding author.
0926-5805/$ - see front matter D 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2005.06.007
wastewater system in the U.S. a failing grade of ‘‘D’’ [2].
Both of these reports emphasize the need to immediately
address the deterioration of the nation’s wastewater system;
however, sewer system maintenance and rehabilitation
requires extensive capital investment. The capital invest-
ment allocation for any maintenance and rehabilitation must
be prioritized because of limited financial resources [3].
This financial constraint leads decision-makers to imple-
ment proactive management, rather than emergency
response management procedures. Proactive management
for sewer maintenance and rehabilitation is gaining more
attention because it allows the decision-maker to plan and
schedule the inspection and rehabilitation of critical utility
sections prior to the occurrence of emergency response
scenarios [4]. In order to implement a proactive manage-
ment strategy in sewer maintenance and rehabilitation,
collection of data and evaluation of the sewer system’s
current condition must be performed prior to planning any
remedial action. Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) combined
with Digital Scanning and Evaluation Technology (DSET)
is an innovative technological advancement in underground
utility infrastructure condition data collection. Deficiency
prediction modeling, using logistic regression, can be
480 D.-H. Koo, S.T. Ariaratnam / Automation in Construction 15 (2006) 479 – 488
performed utilizing current pipe condition data. An innova-
tive inspection technology for sewer condition assessment
and a deterioration prediction modeling technique used on a
lined concrete sewer inspection and evaluation project in the
City of Phoenix, Arizona are presented.
2. Literature review of various inspection and data
collection techniques
In general, the selection of an appropriate condition
assessment technique in underground infrastructure is
dependent on various factors including: (1) type of pipe
material; (2) type of utility (i.e. water, wastewater, etc.); and
(3) level of information. Ratliff [5] separated inspection
categories into three levels: (1) Level 1—field reconnais-
sance; (2) Level 2—internal inspection; and (3) Level 3—
external inspection. Each level is determined by the
objectives of the inspection program. For example, struc-
tural condition assessment requires at least Level 2 (internal
inspection) to be effective. If the geographical information
of the sewer system is updated using a Global Positioning
System (GPS), then Level 1 (field reconnaissance) is only
required. Circular concrete and vitrified clay pipe have been
used by U.S. municipalities in their sewer systems more
extensively than plastic, iron and steel pipe. Forms of
structural failure in pipes include cracks, vertical and
horizontal deflection, missing bricks, root intrusion, sag,
open joints and deteriorated mortar. Most structural failures
are caused by corrosion, soil movement or roots that
puncture or grow inside the pipe [6]. Adequate internal
inspection and assessment is the most important information
needed for sewer maintenance and rehabilitation planning.
Various non-destructive inspection and data collection
systems are currently available. Those systems provide
visual information on current sewer surface condition and
internal geometric shape, which can reveal the magnitude of
internal corrosion. The selection of appropriate data
collection system is dependent upon the complexity of
deterioration and type of sewer system.
Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) System (Fig. 1) is the
most conventional and cost effective method for assessing
sewer systems. A skilled technician controls a TV camera
mounted on the robotic tractor. When the CCTV unit comes
upon a lateral, defect or any other abnormality, the operator
can stop the tractor and rotate the camera in the direction of
the target and zoom in for further examination. Once this is
completed, a description of the defect is recorded on a
computer and comments by the operator are recorded onto a
media source [7]. The CCTV technology has improved
significantly over the years. For example, high-resolution
cameras now adopt articulating robotic arms for better
accuracy. However, a major limitation of the CCTV system
is that the quality of assessment is heavily dependent upon
the ability and knowledge of the operator. If an operator
inadvertently misses a suspected defect, the optimal
Fig. 1. Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) camera.
evaluation of a sewer system cannot be achieved. Another
limitation of CCTV is that the system cannot detect any
abnormalities found behind of the limit of a visual image.
For example, defects that penetrate into the pipe’s wall or
are behind a pipe liner require more than visualization to
capture them.
Sewer Scanning and Evaluation Technology (SSET),
another assessment technology, was developed by Japanese
engineers in 1994. This technology is an improvement to
the standard CCTV because it adopts a fiber optic
gyroscope, which measures inclination and meander of
the sewer, and a fish eye digital scanner. This system uses
a digital, high-resolution scanner to produce a forward
image, as well as a 360- image of the interior wall of the
sewer, and has a much wider angle image than conven-
tional CCTV system. Additionally, SSET also produces an
unfolded digital image, which increases the accuracy of
wall defect detection and improves assessment producti-
vity. Perhaps the biggest advantage of this technology is
that the pipe can be scanned continuously (due to 360-
image capture), without the need for the operator to stop
and further review suspected defects in the field. This
eliminates possible human error and potentially missed
defects during the data collection process, thereby increa-
sing the quality of sewer evaluation [8]. As with CCTV,
one major limitation of the SSET system is the fact that it
cannot detect any potential defects within the pipe wall or
behind a pipe liner.
Sonar systems use very high frequency to measure
geometrical changes in the sewer interior wall. The high-
frequency wave travels to the object and reflects whenever
there is a change in the density of the material. An
advantage is that this system can detect corrosion pits,
voids and perpendicularly oriented cracks on the pipe’s
inner wall [9]. Sonar can detect defects as small as 5 mm in
size [10]. Subsequently, sonar systems are capable of
detecting defects CCTV or SSET systems may miss.
However, sonar image evaluation requires a high level of
experience to interpret the results.
 D.-H. Koo, S.T. Ariaratnam / Automation in Construction 15 (2006) 479 – 488
Fig. 2. Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) surface cart.
Laser scanning systems, like sonar, also measure geo-
metric images. Laser scanning utilizes a laser as a light
source to scan the geometric shape of a sewer’s interior wall
and can detect cracks as small as 0.3 mm [11]. The scanned
image is processed by a computer and a high-quality digital
image can be recorded in a computer system. A limitation of
laser scanning is that the system is limited to data collection
above the water line [9].
Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) consists of an electro-
magnetic transmitter and receiver. The technology has been
used primarily for detecting structural defects, such as
voids and cavities in pavement, slabs and bridge decks.
Currently, most applications of GPR are at ground level,
where a signal is emitted to find voids or cavities around a
buried pipe, or to locate underground infrastructure systems
(Fig. 2). A limitation of this technology is that it requires
highly trained and experienced individuals to interpret the
results [7].
3. City of Phoenix wastewater system
The City of Phoenix wastewater collection system is
comprised of approximately 6400 km (4000 miles) of
pipeline ranging in diameter from 200 mm (8 in.) to 2250
mm (90 in.), including over 72,000 manholes. Of the
Phoenix system, approximately 98 km (61.4 miles) are
composed of lined concrete pipe. In addition to its own
system, the City operates and maintains two systems from
the Sub-Regional Operating Group (SROG). These systems
convey wastewater from the Cities of Phoenix, Mesa,
Tempe, Scottsdale, Glendale, Peoria and Tolleson to the
91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant located at 91st
Avenue and Southern Avenue. These two SROG-owned
systems include the Southern Avenue Interceptor (SAI) and
the 99th Avenue Interceptor. The SAI includes approx-
imately 30 km (19.1 miles) of PVC lined concrete pipe and
the 99th Avenue system contains approximately 10 km (6.5
miles) of PVC lined concrete pipe.
481
The lined concrete pipe preferred by the City of Phoenix
has been T-Lock PVC lined pipe. T-Lock pipe is a
reinforced concrete pipe lined with a polyvinyl chloride
sheet. As illustrated in Fig. 3, the liner is fixed to the
concrete with imbedded ‘‘Tees’’ that run the length of the
pipe section. This prevents the liner from detaching itself
from the pipe. The degree of lining varies depending on
specification, and is intended to protect the concrete from
harmful sewer gases including hydrogen sulfide. Corrosion
due to hydrogen-sulfide gases reduces the structural
integrity of concrete pipe, leading to collapse. Sewer
collapse is a major environmental concern and generally
results in costly emergency repairs. Important aspects of
concrete hydrogen-sulfide corrosion are: (1) the optimum
range of hydrogen sulfide acid generation is 68 -F to 100 -F;
and (2) sulfide acid mostly attacks the cement binder of the
concrete and not the siliceous aggregates [12]. Therefore, it
is important to protect the concrete from these harmful
hydrogen-sulfide gases.
4. Assessment methodology for the lined concrete sewer
condition assessment program
4.1. Data collection
The City of Phoenix embarked on the Lined Concrete
Sewer Condition Assessment Program in the summer of
2002. Prior to this, no extensive assessment program had
ever been performed for PVC lined concrete sewer systems.
Background data provided by the City of Phoenix included:
Geographical Information System (GIS) data; quarter
section maps; As-Built and Shop drawings; and Hydraulic
data collected in the Phoenix Sewer Model (PSM). An
engineering consultant subsequently created a new database
Fig. 3. Cross-sectional view of reinforced concrete sewer pipe with T-Lock
liner [13].
482 D.-H. Koo, S.T. Ariaratnam / Automation in Construction 15 (2006) 479 – 488

merging all of these data. Based on this new database, a

CCTV inspection schedule was planned and the inspection
results were incorporated as a part of new database. The
PSM is wastewater hydraulic data collection and modeling
database system developed mainly for sewer capacity
analysis. PSM provided hydraulic data, including: depth
of flow; quantity of flow; and velocity of flow of each
segment, defined as a sewer section between two consec-
utive manholes. CCTV inspection results and PSM data
were used to build a multiple logistic regression (MLR)
model for pipe deficiency prediction model.

4.2. NASSCO PACP condition rating system

Standardized sewer assessment protocol is a very

important issue in developing and utilizing a sewer assess-
ment program. By adopting a standardized sewer assess-
ment protocol, future assessment programs can be continued
with the same integrity and confidence, as part of an
ongoing long-term assessment program. The National
Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO)
developed a Pipeline Assessment Certification Program
Fig. 4. Deficiency probability model development.
(PACP) as a standardized protocol of sewer defect coding in
2002. PACP is the first standardized protocol in the U.S. and
was adopted by the City of Phoenix for the condition
assessment program. defects was stored digitally in a database for the evaluation
NASSCO’s PACP system implemented a scoring system process. The Quick Rating was simplified by only consid-
based on the number of occurrences of each condition grade ering the worst defect grade for building the logistic
presented in the Table 1. Sewer condition is expressed in regression model because the single five grade defect
terms of a score, utilizing a Quick Rating method of scoring. segment will fail much faster than a segment that has
For example, a pipe segment containing four occurrences of multiple two defect grades. Subsequently, Quick Rating is
a defect grade 5 and three occurrences of a defect grade 4 suitable for evaluating the overall corrosive condition of a
would have a quick rating of 5443. A score of 32 would be segment, while the worst defect is a better indicator for
calculated as follows: predicting remaining service life. In other words, a sewer
segment is only as strong as its worst defect grade.
Overall pipe rating ¼ ð5T4Þ þ ð4T3Þ ¼ 32
4.3. Logistic regression model
CCTV inspection results were graded using the Quick
Rating for each pipe segment, and visual information of all 4.3.1. Logistic regression model development
Part of the program involved the development of a
multiple logistic regression (MLR) model to predict the
likelihood a section of pipe is in a deficient condition.
Table 1 Logistic regression is defined as a statistical modeling
NASSCO defect grades
technique seeking the relationship between a binary
Defect Defect Description Rate of deterioration
grade condition
5 Immediate Defects requiring Pipe has failed or will
attention immediate attention likely fail within the Table 2
next 5 years Parameters of data categorization
4 Poor Severe defects that will Pipe will probably fail
Parameter Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
become grade 5 defect in 5 to 10 years
within the foreseeable future Age 14 – 28 years 29 – 35 years > 35 years
3 Fair Moderate defects that will Pipe may fail in 10 to Maximum < 2.5 ft/s 2.5 – 6.0 ft/s > 6.0 ft/s
continue to deteriorate 20 years velocity
2 Good Defects that have not Pipe is unlikely to fail Cumulative < 11,000 gal/min 11,000 – 26,000 > 26,000
begun to deteriorate in at least 20 years flow gal/min gal/min
1 Excellent Minor defects Failure is unlikely in < 183.33 gal/h 183.33 – 433.33 > 433.33
the foreseeable future gal/h gal/h
 D.-H. Koo, S.T. Ariaratnam / Automation in Construction 15 (2006) 479 – 488 483

Table 3 equation is presented as follows with g(x)representing the

Wald test result and p values
Independent variables Wald df Significance
Age 9.651 1 0.002
Maximum velocity 1.689 1 0.194
Cumulative flow 4.542 1 0.033
Constant 0.881 1 0.348
parameter (a dependent variable) and other selected param-
eters (independent variables) that are assumed to be related
to the binary parameter. In other words, logistic regression
models can predict the probability of certain events (i.e.
likelihood of being deficient) by given logistic coefficients
[14]. A process map for MLR model development is
illustrated in Fig. 4. Expert judgment determined three
parameters to incorporate into development of the predictive
model: (1) age; (2) maximum velocity (ft/s); and (3)
cumulative flow (gal/h). A total of 579 segment data were
available for the model. Categorization of data was
necessary in developing a logistic regression model to
estimate the probability of being in a deficient state at a
given point in time. The dependent variable is binary which
is coded as being either 0 (not deficient condition) or 1
(deficient condition). The three parameters (age, maximum
velocity and cumulative flow) are independent variables,
with respect to the logistic regression model, and were
further subdivided into three classes (Table 2). Therefore,
the possible data combinations of categories using these
three parameters and three sub-classes are 27. However, this
was reduced to 14 categories, because some categories were
non-existent given the composition of the City of Phoenix
system. An additional explanation of categories can be
found in [14]. In further analysis, categories 5, 8, and 11
were eliminated due to lack of data.
SPSSi Version 11.5 was used as a statistical tool for
data processing and building the model. Multiple logistic
regression model output shows constant (b 0) and logistic
regression coefficients (b 1), which are the main compo-
nents for the log-odds equation. Estimation of the logistic
coefficients is based on the maximum likelihood principle
rather than on the least-squared principle that is used in
ordinary linear regression model [15]. From the result
of the model, the Eq. (1) can be generated using the
constant and coefficients from the multiple logistic
regression model result. Using this equation, other values
such as the odds and probability can be calculated. The
log-odds.
h p i
g ð xÞ ¼ loge ¼ b0 þ b 1 x 1 þ b 2 x 2 þ > þ b p x p ð1Þ
1p
where (x 1, x 2, . . ., x p ) = independent variables
b 0 = constant, b 1, b 2, . . ., b p = variable coefficient,
p = conditional probability of the form P( Y = 1 I X 1, . . .,
X p ),
loge[(k/(1  k))] = log odds
The probability of being deficient is obtained by
applying Eq. (2) as follows:
eg ð xÞ 1
PðY ¼ 1IxÞ ¼ pð xÞ ¼ ¼ ð2Þ
1 þ eg ð xÞ 1 þ egðxÞ
where P = the probability of event Y (being in a deficient
condition).
The value range of g(x) does not have boundary
(symmetrical distribution and no limit); however, the
probability should be distributed between 0 and 1 [16].
4.3.2. Logistic regression model assessment
To assess the model, the Wald test and log likelihood test
were selected. Wald test is the square of the z test of each
logistic coefficient. Wald statistic test is commonly used to
test the significance of an individual independent variable
(i.e. each logistic regression coefficient) that is compared to
other independent variables. The degree of significance of
each independent variable can be conveniently compared;
however, the disadvantage of Wald test is that when the
logistic coefficient is a large value, the estimated standard
error is inflated. In this case, a false hypothesis can be
accepted, which is generally referred to ‘‘Type II error’’ in
statistical terms [17]. Therefore, the log likelihood test
should also be considered to ensure the degree of statistical
significance of the independent variables. As presented in
Table 3, the maximum velocity parameter reveals the lowest
value of Wald test result and significant p value to be much
higher than 0.05 (it should be < 0.05 to reject the null
hypothesis). Therefore, it is concluded that the maximum
velocity is the least significant independent variable based
on Wald test.
Another way to examine the significance of individual
independent variables is by using log-likelihood tests.

Table 4
Statistical significance test for independent variables
Block Independent variables Chi-square df Significance Critical value p value for Result
in the nested model (95%) critical level
1 Age 7.246 1 0.007 3.841 0.05 Age is a significant variable
2 Age, maximum velocity 0.021 1 0.885 3.841 0.05 Maximum velocity is a
non-significant variable
3 Age, maximum velocity, 4.76 1 0.029 3.841 0.05 Cumulative flow is a
cumulative flow significant variable
484 D.-H. Koo, S.T. Ariaratnam / Automation in Construction 15 (2006) 479 – 488
Statistical significance of each independent variable can be
checked by using both the chi-square distribution and
corresponding p value. The log likelihood test procedure
is described as follows. When a nested model is a part of a
host model, the difference of  2 log likelihood ( 2 LL)
between two models will be subtracted. The difference of 
2 LL is distributed as chi-square and the magnitude of the
degree of freedom is the difference between the hosted
model and the nested model. If the difference is below the
critical value, dropping the independent variable makes no
difference in prediction of the model. Also, the correspond-
ing p value from the difference of the two models can be
calculated. If the p value is < 0.05, then the independent
variable in the host model (but not in the nested model) is
considered as a statistically significant prediction factor for
the model. Table 4 shows the results of each independent
variable using the log likelihood test. The result reveals that
maximum velocity is not a significant independent variable
for predicting deterioration condition, confirming the results
from the Wald test.
5. Analysis of the model
Log odds Eq. (1) consists of a constant (b 0) and variable
coefficients (b p ). This equation is the most important part of
the prediction model. The log odds values from this equation
are used directly to calculate the probability. The Step 1
model includes all three parameters, whereas the maximum
velocity was excluded in the Step II model because of the
least effect on the output of the logistic regression model.
The prediction models and the observed condition were
compared in order to examine how closely the model can
generate the probability of being deficient, and then which
categories should be prioritized for the future inspection and
rehabilitation plan. Some categories were excluded because
of insufficient data to predict probabilities adequately. The
overall range of difference between the observed deficiency
and the predicted probability by Step II prediction model
ranges from 0.61% to 13.45%. Step I prediction model
ranges from 0.76% to 12.48%.
Fig. 5 demonstrates the observed deficiency and pre-
dicted probability of Step I and Step II. It clearly shows that
35%
Probability of being deficient
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
cat 1
Fig. 5. Histogram of observed deficiency and predicted probability from Step I and Step II regression model.
Table 5
Prioritization table based on the prediction model
Categories
Probability of being deficient
Highest High Moderate Low
Cat 1 Cat 4 Cat 3 Cat 10
Cat 2 Cat 6 Cat 9 Cat 12
Cat 7 Cat 13
Step I and Step II prediction model are almost identical and
further validates that the maximum velocity is not a
significant parameter. This histogram shows the categories
that are likely in a more deficient condition than others. For
example, category 2 is observed and also predicted as the
most deficient condition. Category 3 is observed that it is
very unlikely deficient condition, but it is predicted that
category 3 may have much higher probability of being
deficient than the observed condition. Categories 10 and 12
have low probabilities of being deficient and observed also
very unlikely deficient condition. Based on the analysis of
the observed deficiency and predicted probability, decision-
makers may utilize the prediction model as a prioritization
tool of sewer system inspection and rehabilitation planning.
Table 5 is an example of grouping categories based on the
likelihood of being deficient of each category.
Inspection and rehabilitation of sewer system in catego-
ries 1 and 2 should begin prior to categories 10, 12, and 13
in order to utilize more remaining life in less-deteriorated
sewer systems and prevent possible failures in more
deteriorated sewer system. Better planning saves more
resources in the sewer system management. Therefore, the
resource for the sewer system inspection and rehabilitation
will be utilized more effectively and efficiently in a
proactive sewer system management manner.
6. Innovative new technology development
6.1. DSET with GPR robotic field experiment
Typical assessment camera systems can only detect the
condition of the liner, thereby missing potential damage to
observed
Step I
Step II
cat 2 cat 3 cat 4 cat 6 cat 7 cat 9 cat 10 cat 12 cat 13
Categories
 D.-H. Koo, S.T. Ariaratnam / Automation in Construction 15 (2006) 479 – 488
Fig. 6. Aboveground pipe test section.
the pipe from hydrogen-sulfide gases that may have seeped
through pinholes or cracks in the liner and attacked the
concrete. Therefore, it was necessary to develop a techno-
logy that could see through the liner and evaluate possible
voids in the concrete.
A field experiment to evaluate the merging of Ground
Penetrating Radar (GPR) with Digital Scanning and
Evaluation Technology (DSET) was conducted in Japan.
A 200 m test section was built to deploy the robotic DSET
system with the GPR attachment to assess the results (Fig.
6). Part of the section contained reinforced concrete pipe
and part was vitrified clay pipe. This allowed the research
team to determine if the robotic system could tell the
difference between pipe mediums. Since GPR signals
bounce back with changing densities, several objects were
placed onto of the test pipe sections to see if the radar could
identify this changing density.
A 2000 mm  1000 mm test section was constructed
by casting concrete and a layer of PVC T-Lock liner.
Voids of various depths and sizes were constructed prior
to casting of the section to provide a means of eval-
uating the DSET with GPR technology’s ability to find
Fig. 7. Detail of PVC lined test section.
485
Fig. 8. Constructed PVC lined test section.
voids behind the liner. This is illustrated in Figs. 7 and
8.
The results of the tests in the 200 m pipe sections are
illustrated in Fig. 9. Through visualization, the pipe joints
are easy to discern, while the defect areas give the
appearance similar to a vertebrae. One unexpected result
was the appearance of steel reinforcement in the concrete
pipe. The GPR could have excellent applications in
assessing unlined concrete pipe to evaluate corrosion in
the reinforcement bars. This task is normally done by taking
a core sample of the concrete for analysis. Being a
destructive evaluation method, coring can result in sub-
stantially higher costs compared to using the DSET with
GPR evaluation technology.
6.2. Phoenix field pilot project
The City of Phoenix approved a pilot project to inspect
1800 m of in-service sewer pipe using a Ground Penetrating
Radar (GPR) and Digital Scanning and Evaluation Tech-
nology (DSET) combined system. It should be noted that
there were limitations associated with the prototype system.
486 D.-H. Koo, S.T. Ariaratnam / Automation in Construction 15 (2006) 479 – 488
Fig. 9. GPR results from test section.
Because of the tractor size used to deploy the radar antenna,
only pipe sections ranging in size from 750 mm to 900 mm
in diameter could be inspected. In addition, the prototype
deployment system was designed for the GPR antenna
platform to rise up vertically, only allowing inspection of the
pipe at the 12 o’clock position.
These limitations significantly reduced the suitable
quantity of pipe in which to operate the system. A suitable
segment of pipe was one that fit within the size limitation
and included previously identified and located defects in the
liner at the 12 o’clock position. The intent was to determine
the extent of the damage, if any, to the concrete pipe behind
the liner, and to ultimately correlate the different types and
severities of liner defects with defects in the concrete pipe.
GEOVision Geophysical Services, a division of Black-
hawk GeoServices, and a subsidiary of the Japanese Oyo
Corporation, was solicited to perform a pilot program with
this GPR with DSET technology. A more robust prototype
Fig. 10. DSET and GPR mounted on tractor with robotic lifting arm.
and deployment system that included a larger, four-wheeled
tractor with the GPR antenna mounted on a raisable
platform and the DSET scanner mounted in the center of
the tractor frame was developed as illustrated in Fig. 10.
In addition to the size and clock-position limitations, the
distance between manholes was also a limitation. The
longest GPR antenna cable available was 75 m in length
meaning that any defects scanned had to be located within
75 m of a manhole access location. With these limitations in
place, approximately 1800 m of pipe that were 750 mm to
900 mm in diameter and included previously assessed liner
defects were selected with condition grades of 3 to 5. An
example of the GPR results from the in-service sewer
viewed by the operator is illustrated in Fig. 11.
Fig. 11 illustrates two, dark-color PVC lining surface
damages detected by DSET scanning. The visual indica-
tion of two defects shows a possible concrete damage
behind of the PVC lining. GPR scanning results are shown
on the top portions of Fig. 11 showing processed data with
rebar reflectivity response highlighted. The GPR scanning
at the top right side shows a definite loss of signal, which
means a substantial material loss by deterioration and
corrosion. These results prove that by using DSET with
GPR, the magnitude of deterioration behind a liner can be
differentiated.
7. Conclusions and recommendations
Digital Scanning and Evaluation Technology (DSET)
provides the highest quality of real time visual condition
data, while Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) can detect
 D.-H. Koo, S.T. Ariaratnam / Automation in Construction 15 (2006) 479 – 488
Fig. 11. GPR and DSET inspection in PVC lining.
geometric abnormalities and property changes that are
difficult to detect by human eyes. Combining GPR and
DSET overcomes the limitations of each technology. It
provides accurate condition data, even capturing information
behind of linings. Field lab testing conducted in Japan with
test sections of various depths of voids behind of PVC lining
and pipe material were performed. The testing results
showed promise for utilizing this innovative method for
PVC lined concrete sewer inspection. This system was tested
successfully under live field conditions in the large diameter
PVC lined concrete sewer in the City of Phoenix, Arizona. It
could be applied to other types of buried pipelines, including
large-diameter water transmission pipeline. Furthermore,
tractor size could be reduced to extend the applications to
small-diameter pipelines in the near future.
Adopting the standardized sewer assessment protocol,
the future assessment program can be continued with the
same integrity and confidence as a part of long-term
assessment program. The City of Phoenix assessment
project adopted National Associate of Sewer Service
Companies (NASCCO)-developed Pipeline Assessment
Certification Program (PACP).
Multiple logistic regression models were generated to
predict the probability of a pipe category being in a deficient
state. The model can predict the probability of certain events
by given logistic coefficient. Condition rating data, maxi-
487
mum velocity, age, and cumulative flow data were analyzed
to determine the logistic coefficient, and subsequent pro-
bability of being deficient in each category. After significant
testing of each variable, age and cumulative flow proved to
be significant variables in the model, while maximum
velocity was found to not be a significant variable. Some
categories were predicted to have more deteriorated con-
dition than others and should be prioritized for inspection
and rehabilitation. The model can be improved through
continued collection of better inspection data.
Assessment methods, in general, are continuously
improving to increase productivity and avoid the subjecti-
vity on the part of the inspector in rating pipe condition. The
application of computer technology and new algorithms in
the assessment process is a good example. To increase the
predictability of a lifecycle model, a well-defined condition
rating system based on accurate condition data is a critical
element. All of these efforts, including the underground
pipeline assessment, life cycle prediction modeling and the
development of inspection technology, will provide better
information to improve the decision-making process,
thereby making decisions that optimize resources in more
efficient and economical ways. Municipality and utility
owners are encouraged to use innovative technologies for
their underground pipeline inspection and assessment
program.
488 D.-H. Koo, S.T. Ariaratnam / Automation in Construction 15 (2006) 479 – 488
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge project engineer-
ing consultants and the city of Phoenix water services
department for funding this research. Additionally, the
support of Geovision Geophysical Services and the Oyo
Corporation should be acknowledged for their contribution
to the field tests conducted in Japan.
References
[1] USEPA, The Clean Water and Drinking Water Gap Analysis, United
States Environmental Protection Agency, 2002, http://www.epa.gov/
safewater/gapreport.pdf.
[2] ASCE, Report Card for America’s Infrastructure 2003 Progress report
(2004), http://www.asce.org/reportcard/.
[3] D. Li, Y.Y. Haimes, Optimal maintenance-related decision making for
deteriorating water distribution systems, Water Resource Research,
vol. 28, 1992, pp. 1053 – 1061.
[4] C.W. MacLeod, S.T. Ariaratnam, K. Chua, Evaluation of emer-
gency response for sewer infrastructure management, Proceedings
of the CSCE 28th Annual Conference (London, Ontario, 2000),
2000, pp. 41 – 47.
[5] A. Ratliff, An overview of current and developing technologies for
pipe condition assessment, ASCE International Conference on Pipe-
line Engineering and Construction (Baltimore, Maryland, 2003), 2003,
pp. 103 – 114.
[6] ASCE, Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice, vol. 92,
Manhole Inspection and Rehabilitation, Reston, VA, 1994.
[7] N. Guercio, Assessment and Modeling of Large Diameter Lined
Concrete Pipe, MS thesis, Del E. Webb School of Construction,
Arizona State University (2002).
[8] CEITEC, CERF innovation center serving the engineering and
construction industries (CERF report: #40551): Evaluation of SSET:
The Sewer Scanner and Evaluation Technology, CIETEC, Washing-
ton, DC, 2001.
[9] S.K. Sinha, State-of-the-art in sensor technologies for pipe inspection,
ASCE International Conference on Pipeline Engineering and Con-
struction (Baltimore, Maryland, 2003), 2003, pp. 1592 – 1602.
[10] M.E. Andrews, Large diameter sewer condition assessment using
combined sonar and CCTV equipment, APWA International Public
Works Congress, NRCC/CPWA Seminar Series ‘‘Innovations in
Urban Infrastructures’’ (Las Vegas, Nevada, 1998), 1998.
[11] J.M. Makar, Diagnostic techniques for sewer systems, ASCE Journal
of Infrastructure Systems, vol. 5(2), 1999, pp. 69 – 78.
[12] A.H. Meyer, W.B. Ledbetter, Sulfuric acid attack on concrete sewer
pipe, Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, vol. 96(5), ASCE,
1970.
[13] Ameron International, Brochure: Amer-Plate\ T-Lock\ Price List,
Ameron International, Brea, CA, 2002.
[14] S.T. Ariaratnam, A. El-Assaly, Y. Yang, Assessment of infrastructure
inspection needs using logistic models, ASCE Journal of Infra-
structure Systems, vol. 7(4), 2001, pp. 160 – 165.
[15] M.C. Dayton, Logistic regression analysis, in: (Department of
Education, University of Maryland, 2004), http://www.education.
umd.edu/EDMS/LRA/LRA.pdf.
[16] D.E. Hosmer, S. Lemeshow, Applied Logistic Regression, 2nd edR,
John Wiley & Son, New York, NJ, 2000.
[17] S. Menard, Quantitative Applications in the Social Science: Applied
Logistic Regression Analysis, 2nd edR, Sage Publication, Thousands
Oaks, CA, 2001.