Pipelines 2019 64

Comparison of Life Cycle Carbon Footprints of Steel and Concrete Pressure Pipes
Vasudeva Kaushik Nandyala1 ; Seyedmohammadsadegh Jalalediny Korky2;
and Mohammad Najafi3
1
Graduate Research and Teaching Assistant, Center for Underground Infrastructure Research and
Education (CUIRE), Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Texas at Arlington, Box 19308,
Arlington, TX 76019. E-mail: vasudevakaushik.nandyala@mavs.uta.edu
2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de los Andes on 09/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Ph.D. Candidate, Center for Underground Infrastructure Research and Education (CUIRE),
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Texas at Arlington, Box 19308, Arlington, TX 76019. E-
mail: seyedmohammadsadegh.jalaledinykorky@mavs.uta.edu
3
Professor and Director, Center for Underground Infrastructure Research and Education
(CUIRE), Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Texas at Arlington, Box 19308, Arlington, TX
76019. E-mail: najafi@uta.edu

ABSTRACT
Sustainability issues and environmental impacts of pipeline construction is becoming more
critical and should be considered during conceptual phase of a project. Many pipeline owners ask
their consultants and designers to evaluate different pipe materials from environmental point of
view. The objectives of this paper are to analyze and compare the amount of CO2 emissions
produced by steel pipe (SP) and concrete pressure pipe (CPP) from cradle-to-grave. Five life-
cycle phases are considered, which includes material production and fabrication, transportation,
installation, operation, and sustainability of the pipelines. All calculations for CO 2 equivalent
emissions are quantified in each phase with the weight of the pipe section to the length and
diameter of the pipe converted to lb/ft/in. By consuming 74.5% of energy, pipe manufacturing
was found to be the highest in CO2 equivalent emissions among all the above phases. Steel pipe
had larger CO2 equivalent emissions from manufacturing phase, compared to the CPP, however,
80% of SP material can be recycled. For installation and operation, CO2 emissions were found to
be similar for SP and CPP.

INTRODUCTION
A carbon footprint is a measure of the impact that our activities have on the environment
causing climate change. It relates to the amount of greenhouse gases produced in our day-to-day
lives through burning fossil fuels for electricity, heating and transportation, etc. The carbon
footprint is a measurement of all greenhouse gases we individually produce and has a unit of
tones (or pounds) of carbon dioxide equivalent. It typically includes both direct and indirect
emissions according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 2010).
Previous research on combined material flow analysis and life cycle assessment (MFA_LCA)
on wastewater pipeline network shows that the size of pipe has a significant impact on emissions.
Construction of large diameter pipelines account for three times more emissions than small
diameter pipelines (Venkatesh et al. 2009). Venkatesh et al. (2009) conducted a study, which
considered the period from 1991 to 2006 and concluded that in the future, operation,
maintenance and rehabilitation of existing pipelines will be the major concern for CO 2 emissions.
A comparison research was conducted on the wastewater pipelines for high density
polyethylene (HDPE) and concrete pipe (CP), which provided a decision making process for
selection of theses pipe materials based on impacts on environment and cost effectiveness. The

© ASCE

Pipelines 2019
 Pipelines 2019 65

researchers found that the HDPE pipes make less emissions in production and installation phases
compared with CP pipes for the 11.8- and 13.7-in. diameters; however, for 7.8- and 9.84-in.
diameters, the amount of produced emissions are almost the same (Roghani et al. 2017).
In another research, Kim et al. (2012) made a comparison between polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
pipe, high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe, concrete pipe (CP) and cast iron (CI) pipe used for
sewer pipes; and showed that the total CO2 equivalent emissions produced by CI pipe is more
than PVC, PE, and concrete pipes. Table 1 presents results of their research.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de los Andes on 09/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 1. Emissions Produced from PVC, PE, Concrete and Cast Iron Sewer Pipes Source:
Kim et al. (2012)1

Table Acronyms: MP (Materials production), MT (Materials transportation), CO (Construction), OP (Operation),

RE (Rehabilitation), EL (End of life)

Chilana et al. (2016), presented a case study of an actual water main project, which included
installation and operation of the pipeline. This study concluded that fuel consumption by
construction equipment for installation of pipe was similar for steel pipe and CPP (pre-stressed
concrete cylinder pipe or PCCP).
In this paper, the amount of CO2 emissions was calculated from cradle to grave for through a
case study for installation of a conceptual pipeline. The objective of this study is to present an
environmental impact analyses to compare different pipe materials such as SP and CPP.

METHODOLOGY
Environmental impact is not unique for all the construction projects, nor is it possible to write
a formula for calculating the greenhouse effects. Calculating the CO 2 emissions for construction
projects are usually conducted by case studies. In this paper, a conceptual pipeline project is used
to develop a comparison between SP and CPP. This comparison is performed with consideration
of 24-in., 48-in., 66-in., and 80-in. diameter pipes for the five life cycle phases considered in this
paper. Figure 1 illustrates the research methodology using these five life-cycle phases for both
SP and CPP.
1. Material Production and Pipeline Fabrication
2. Pipe Transportation to the Jobsite
3. Pipe installation in the Trench
4. Operation of the Pipeline
5. Sustainability of the Pipeline
In each of above phases, the energy consumed and the resulting CO2 emissions are quantified
using various fuels and energy sources based on local energy data to differentiate impacts of

1
1 kg CO2-eq = 2.2046 lb CO2-eq

© ASCE

Pipelines 2019
 Pipelines 2019 66

various fuel types for in different regions on the CO2 emissions. For transportation, the distance
from the pipeline project to the manufacturing plant is considered.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de los Andes on 09/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 1. Pipe Installation Process

Table 2. Embodied Energy Coefficients (Source: Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE),
Version 1.6a, 2008)
Embodied Energy Coefficient
Pipe Component Material Kilo Watt-
Mega Joules/kg
hour/lb
Steel Pipe 34.4 4.34
Concrete (5000 psi) 1.13 0.14
Cement Mortar (1:3 Cement:
1.55 0.2
sand mix)
Pre-stressed Steel Wires 36 4.54

Material Production and Pipeline Fabrication

This phase deals with the energy consumed during the material production and pipeline
fabrication. A database entitled “Inventory of Carbon and Energy Version 1.6a, 2008” published
by the University of Bath in the United Kingdom (Hammond and Jones, 2008) is used for this
analysis (Table 2). This database provides a cradle-to-grave evaluation of different construction
material and summarizes the findings in the form of an embodied energy (Mega Joules/Kg) for
each material. The coefficient of Embodied Energy (EE) for steel pipe is calculated as per
Equation 1. Individual embodied energy coefficients are taken from the ICE database 2.

2
The Inventory of Carbon and Energy (also known as the ICE database) is an embodied energy and carbon database
for building materials. Available at: http://www.circularecology.com/embodied-energy-and-carbon-footprint-
database.html#.WoDU153wbcs

© ASCE

Pipelines 2019
 Pipelines 2019 67

EESteelPipe  EESteel ×WSteel  EECementMortar ×WCementMortar (1)

Where, EE Steel and EE Cement Mortar are the Embodied Energy Coefficients for Steel and
Cement Mortar, kWh/lb; and W Steel and W Cement Mortar are the unit weight for Steel and Cement
Mortar, lb/ft
Emissions of CO2 equivalent (CO2-eq) in the region of the assumed pipeline construction is
found to be 0.088 lb of CO2-eq/ KWh (National Inventory Report, 1991-2015). The total energy
consumption was multiplied by 0.088 lb/KWh of electricity usage as per Equation 2. Table 3
summarizes CO2 emissions in lb/ft/in. for steel pipe.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de los Andes on 09/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

TotalCO2 Emissions  Total EnergyConsumption  kWh   Emissions Rate (2)

Similarly, the embodied energy per foot of CPP is calculated using equation 3:
EECPP  EESteel  WSteel  EECement Mortar  WCement Mortar  EE Concrete  WConcrete  EEsteel Wire ×WSteel Wire
(3)
Where, EEConcrete, EESteel, EECement Mortar, EESteel Wires are the Embodied Energy Coefficients for
Concrete, Steel, Cement Mortar, and Pre-Stressed Steel Wires and WConcrete, WSteel, WCement Mortar,
WSteel Wires are the unit weight per foot length for Concrete, Steel, Cement Mortar, and Pre-
Stressed Steel Wires respectively. Table 4 presents embodied energy and CO2-eq emissions in
lb/ft/in. for CPP.
The following assumptions and limitations are used for calculating the CO 2-eq emissions for
both SP and CPP:
 The embodied energy data in Table 2 represents the global average and may vary based
by each location.
 Waste is assumed to be negligible during the manufacturing of SP and CPP.
 The CPP joint ring is manufactured separately, which is not considered in this study.
 Cement mortar is the only lining material considered for internal surfaces of both pipes.
 Emissions rate of 0.088 lb of CO2 per kWh of electricity (in 2015) is used for calculating
the total CO2 emissions.
 Recycled material has not been considered in this phase of the study. Current steel pipe
manufacturing is comprised of typically 80% recycled steel, this would have a significant
impact on the EE calculations and reducing CO2 emissions.

Table 3. CO2 Emissions for Production and Fabrication of Steel Pipe

Unit
Unit Embodied
Weight of Total CO2
Diameter Weight Energy of Total CO2
Cement Emission in
(in.) of Steel Steel Pipe Emission (lb/ft)
Mortar (lb/ft/in.)
(lb /ft) (KWh/ft)
(lb/ft)
24 120 38 528 46 1.9
42 160 64 707 62 1.5
66 220 102 975 86 1.3
80 270 121 1,196 105 1.3
Average CO2 emission in Production and Fabrication for Steel Pipe 1.5

Pipe Transportation to the Jobsite

This phase includes calculation of fuel consumption during pipe transportation from the
manufacturing plant to the jobsite. The contribution of CO 2 emissions from transporting the pipe
is calculated on a total distance basis. The truck-trailer combination unit is selected based on the

© ASCE

Pipelines 2019
 Pipelines 2019 68

length and weight of each pipe section. Tables 6 and 7 present the total CO2-eq emissions
released in lb/ft/in. for different pipe sections from the plant to the jobsite of the SP and CPP
respectively. Total number of pipe sections and the number of truck-trailer units are calculated as
per equations 4 and 5. Fuel consumption is calculated based on a consumption of 5.90 miles per
gallon (Transportation Energy Data Book, 2015) for each truck-trailer as presented in Equations
6 and 7. The total fuel consumption is converted into the CO2 emissions by using an emission
factor of 22.38 lb of CO2 per gallon of diesel fuel (USEIA, 2014) as shown in equation 8.
Total Number of PipeSections  Total Length of Pipeline/Length of Each PipeSection (4)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de los Andes on 09/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Total Number of Truck-Trailer Units  Total Length of Pipeline/Length of Pipe on One Unit (5)
FuelConsumption for Each Truck-Trailer Unit  Distance to beCovered/Mileage (6)
Total FuelConsumption  FuelConsumption for One-Unit  Total Number of Unit (7)
TotalCO2 Emissions for Truck-Trailers  Total FuelConsumption  gal ×22.38lbCO2 /gal (8)
In the above analyses, the following assumptions and limitations are used:
 The length of steel pipe section is considered to be 50 ft.
 The length of concrete pipe section is considered to be 20 ft.
 The distance between the manufacturing plant and jobsite was assumed to be 10 miles.
 The length of pipeline segment is considered to be 1 mile (5,280 ft).
 The assumed maximum weight capacity of a truck trailer carrying pipes is 48,000 lb.
 The distance for each truck-trailer unit is assumed to be 10 miles for hauling CPP and SP
from pipe manufacturing plant to the jobsite in loaded condition. The return conditions
are not considered in this paper as the CO2 emission in that case is assumed to be the
same for both pipe types in empty conditions.

Table 4. CO2 Emissions for Production and Fabrication of Concrete Pressure Pipe
Unit Unit Unit Embodie
Unit
Weight Weigh Weigh d Energy
Weigh Total CO2 Total CO2
Diameter of t of t of of
t of Emission Emission in
(in.) Cement Concr Steel Concrete
Steel (lb/ft) (lb/ft/in.)
Mortar ete Wire Pipe
(lb/ft)
(lb/ft) (lb/ft) (lb/ft) (KWh/ft)
24 16 100 450 11.0 202 18 0.74
48 35 180 750 25.0 406 36 0.75
66 44 285 1148 33.8 563 50 0.75
80 53 320 1450 80.0 860 76 0.95
Average CO2 emission in Production and Fabrication of Concrete Pressure
0.80
Pipe

As mentioned above, the fuel consumption for each loaded truck trailer, while hauling pipe
sections, is assumed to be an average of 5.90 miles/gallon (Davis and Diegel, 2015) for both SP
and CPP. The CO2 emissions for each gallon of diesel fuel are 22.38 lb/gal and considered to be
constant for all the truck trailers while fully loaded.

Pipe Installation in the Trench

Installation of pipes can be carried out in two ways, open-cut and trenchless technology. This
section considers major construction activities such as excavation, placing, backfilling, material

© ASCE

Pipelines 2019
 Pipelines 2019 69

screening and compaction for open-cut. The production rate of any construction equipment
depends on the following factors.
 Weight and length of each section of pipe
 Topography of construction site, type of soil, hauling distances, water table, weather
conditions, and worker efficiency.
 Type of construction equipment used, nature of job, equipment efficiency, operator’s
efficiency etc.
The average productivity norms are used to calculate the total number of hours to be spent by
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de los Andes on 09/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

construction equipment for the pipe installation. Tables 8 and 9 are adapted from a previous
study and presents the CO2 emissions analyzed for installation of a large diameter pipeline in
lb/ft/in. (Chilana et al. 2016).
Trenchless technology methods are cost-effective if all the life cycle cost factors, including
the social costs, are calculated and considered in the design phase. If open-cut and trenchless
construction are compared, there is a difference between the social cost, which is reported to be
approximately 40% for open-cut and 5% for trenchless technology (Najafi, 2005) and include the
following:
 Vehicular traffic disruption
 Road and pavement damage
 Damage to adjacent utilities
 Damage to adjacent structures
 Noise and vibration
 Heavy construction and air pollution
 Pedestrian safety
 Business and trade loss
 Damage to detour roads
 Site and public safety
 Citizen complaints
 Environmental impacts

Table 5. Total Energy Consumption in Kilowatt-hours for 50 Years

(Adapted from Chilana et al. 2016)
Energy
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Consumption
For 1 Year 121,534 160,753 124,103 165,534 165,544
For 10 Years 1,215,344 1,607,528 1,241,028 1,655,342 1,655,442
Total 8,344,589

Operation of the Pipeline

The operation of the pipeline depends on various factors, such as, number of pump stations,
ground slope and project conditions, etc. For this study, the design life of a pipeline is assumed
to be 50 years. Table 5 presents the total energy consumption for 50 years in kilowatt-hours
(Chilana et al. 2016).

© ASCE

Pipelines 2019
 Pipelines 2019 70

Table 6. Total CO2 Emissions for Transportation of Steel Pipe

Assume Numbe Total
Diam Total Total
d r of diesel Total
eter Weigh numbe diesel Total
Length distance pipe gallons CO2 Total
of t of r of consumpti CO2
of each between sections require emission CO2
each each truck on for Emissi
pipe the carried d for from Emissio
pipe pipe trailer each on in
section plant by each all diesel fuel n in
sectio section require truck (lb/ft/in
(ft) and the truck truck consumpti (lb/ft)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de los Andes on 09/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

n (lb/ft) d trailer .)
jobsite trailer trailers on (lb)
(in.) (each) (gal)
(miles) (each) (gal)
24 156.2 50 10 6 18 1.69 31 694 0.13 0.0055
42 330.7 50 10 2 53 1.69 90 2,015 0.38 0.0091
66 53.1 50 10 1 106 1.69 180 4,029 0.76 0.0116
78 619.4 50 10 1 106 1.69 180 4,029 0.76 0.0098
Average CO2 Emission for Transporting Steel Pipe 0.0090

Table 7. Total CO2 Emissions for Transportation of Concrete Pressure Pipe

Numbe
Assume
r of Total
d Total
Weig pipe Total diesel
Diamete Lengt Distanc numbe Total CO2 Total
ht of section diesel gallons Total
r of h of e r of emission CO2
each s consumpti require CO2
each each betwee truck from diesel Emissio
pipe carried on for each d for Emissio
pipe pipe n the trailer fuel n in
sectio by truck all n in
section sectio plant require consumpti (lb/ft/in
n each trailer truck (lb/ft)
(in.) n (ft) and the d on (lb) .)
(lb/ft) truck (gal) trailers
jobsite (each)
trailer (gal)
(miles)
(each)

24 255 20 10 8 33 1.7 57 1,276 0.242 0.0101

42 650 20 10 4 66 1.7 113 2,529 0.479 0.0114
66 1505 20 10 1 264 1.7 449 10,049 1.903 0.0288
78 2062 20 10 1 264 1.7 449 10,049 1.903 0.0244
Average CO2 Emission for Transporting Concrete Pressure Pipe 0.0187

Sustainability of the Pipeline

Recycling reduces the need for resource extraction and typically requires less energy than
when processing raw materials. This results in lower emissions and other environmental impacts
(Bowyer, 2015). Other studies show that 86% of the steel is reusable (Steel Recycling, 2014),
while another study shows that approximately 92% of steel is recycled in United States (Steel
Tank, 2013). In this study, approximately 80% of the steel is considered to be recyclable for SP.
In case of recycling CPP, the steel wires can be separated from the aggregate material and the
resultants aggregates can only be used as filling materials at job site or in laying pavements.

© ASCE

Pipelines 2019
 Pipelines 2019 71

Table 8. CO2 Emission for Installation of Steel Pipe

(Adapted from Chilana et al. 2016)
CO2
Emissio Total Total
Diesel Total
n CO2 Total CO2
Consu Diesel
Durati Release Emission CO2 Emiss
S.N Activit Product mptio Consu
Unit Quantity on d Per in 147 Emissi ion
o. y ivity n mptio
(hour) Gallon miles on Per Per
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de los Andes on 09/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(gal/h n
of Project (lb/ft) (lb/ft/
our) (gal)
Diesel (lb) in.)
(lb)
Excavat bcy/ho 6,484,29 953,15 12,105,0
1 68.03 95,315 10 12.7 15.55 0.17
ion ur 3 2 30
Trench
2 30.5 ft/ hour 778,242 25,516 2.5 63,790 12.7 810,137 1.04 0.01
Support
Pipe
3 138.37 ft/ hour 778,242 5,624 10 56,244 12.7 714,293 0.92 0.01
Laying
Backfill lcy/ 6,762,88 701,03 8,903,14
4 96.47 70,104 10 12.7 11.44 0.12
ing hour 8 5 9
Compac 3,024.1 lcy/ 6,762,88
5 2,236 1.5 3,354 12.7 42,601 0.05 0.00
tion 9 hour 8
Materia
l lcy/ 6,762,88
6 310.7 21,767 3 65,300 12.7 829,308 1.07 0.01
Handlin hour 8
g
Materia
l lcy/ 6,762,88
7 321.59 21,030 1 21,030 12.7 267,075 0.34 0.00
Screeni hour 8
ng
Water
lcy/ 6,082,08
8 Sprinkli 228.69 26,595 2 53,191 12.7 675,521 0.87 0.01
hour 6
ng
Sweepi 5,604.0 sq.ft/ 116,736,
9 20,831 1.8 37,495 12.7 476,186 0.61 0.01
ng 9 hour 300
Sum 0.340

Table 10 shows that 25% of energy is required for fabrication of steel pipe using recycled
steel as compared to production and fabrication from raw material already shown in Table 3.
Figure 2 illustrates the overall percentages of CO2 emission for different phases of pipeline
installation. The CO2-eq emissions from transportation of the pipeline depends upon the distance
between the manufacturing plant and the jobsite. This paper assumes the distance pipe plant to
jobsite to be 10 miles and the emission for transportation is 0.9% of the overall CO2 emissions, as
shown in Figure 2.

© ASCE

Pipelines 2019
 Pipelines 2019 72

Table 9. CO2 Emission for Installation of Concrete Pressure Pipe (Adapted from Chilana et
al. 2016)
CO2 Tota
Total
Emissio l Total
Diesel Total CO2
Pro Dura n CO2 CO2
Consu Diesel Emissio
S.N duc tion Released Emis Emissi
Activity Unit Quantity mption Consu n in 147
o. tivit (hour Per sion on Per
(gal/ho mption miles
y ) Gallon Per (lb/ft/in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de los Andes on 09/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ur) (gal) Project

of Diesel (lb/ft .)
(lb)
(lb) )
Excavati 68.0bcy/hou 90,54 11,498,9 14.7
1 6,159,634 10 905,429 12.7 0.16
on 3 r 3 49 8
Trench 48,64 1,544,32
2 16 ft/ hour 778,242 2.5 121,600 12.7 1.98 0.02
Support 0 4
Pipe 11,11 1,411,95
3 70 ft/ hour 778,242 10 111,177 12.7 1.81 0.02
Laying 8 3
Backfilli 96.4 lcy/ 60,26 7,653,09
4 5,813,336 10 602,606 12.7 9.83 0.10
ng 7 hour 1 1
Compact 3,02 lcy/
5 5,813,336 1,922 1.5 2,883 12.7 36,619 0.05 0.00
ion 4.19 hour
Material 310. lcy/ 18,71
6 5,813,336 3 56,131 12.7 712,868 0.92 0.01
Handling 7 hour 0
Material
321. lcy/ 18,07
7 Screenin 5,813,336 1 18,077 12.7 229,576 0.29 0.00
59 hour 7
g
Water
228. lcy/ 22,18
8 Sprinklin 5,074,435 2 44,378 12.7 563,604 0.72 0.01
69 hour 9
g
Sweepin 5,60 sq.ft/ 116,736,3 20,83
9 1.8 37,495 12.7 476,186 0.61 0.01
g 4.09 hour 00 1
Sum 0.331

CONCLUSIONS
It is a challenging task to compare CO2 emissions for production and fabrication,
transportation, installation, operation and sustainability for two different types of pipe materials,
such as, SP and CPP. A lot depends on specific project and site locations. The conclusions of this
paper can be summarized as the following:
 Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE) database was used to calculate the embodied
energy coefficients, and thereby, the total CO2 emissions in weight of the pipe section
/length/diameter (lb/ft/in.) of each pipe material was calculated. It is expected that the
emissions for SP produced from raw materials are more than CPP production and
fabrication. However, SP is not commonly produced from raw materials, and is actually
produced from recycled steel. In this case, the CO2 emissions from SP production is less
than that of CPP.
 The total fuel consumption during the transportation of pipe sections from the
manufacturing plant to the jobsite is relative to the unit weight of the pipe carried and the

© ASCE

Pipelines 2019
 Pipelines 2019 73

distance of travel. A comparison shows that the CO2 emissions released for transportation
of CPP is more than SP based on lb/ft/in. Based on the location of the manufacturing
plant and the distance to the jobsite, the CO2 emissions for transportation of pipe sections
can be more or less as discussed earlier and this may impact results of this paper.
 The installation of pipe sections is dependent on various job factors. Chilana et al. 2016
case study, which is used in this study, stated that the CO2 emissions during the
installation process for SP is slightly higher than CPP; however, this case study did not
consider all the factors, such as, pipe dimension ratio (DR) for the same internal
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de los Andes on 09/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

diameter.
 The inner lining for SP and CPP is usually made of cement mortar. As such, the inner
surface is the same for both SP and CPP, so the energy consumption for operation of both
types of pipes is assumed to be same.

Table 10. CO2 Emissions for Fabrication of Recycled Steel

Total
Unit weight Unit weight of Embodied energy Total CO2 CO2
Diameter
of steel (lb Cement of recycled steel Emission emission
(in.)
/ft) Mortar (lb/ft) Pipe (KWh/ft) (lb/ft) in
(lb/ft/in.)
24 120 38 132 12 0.48
42 160 64 177 16 0.37
66 220 102 244 21 0.33
80 270 121 299 26 0.33
Average of the Region 0.38
Actual Usage 80%
Average Energy Used for Recycled Steel 0.47

Figure 2. Overall Percentage of CO2 Emissions

This paper focused on CO2 emissions only; however, for a comprehensive sustainability
analysis of pipeline installation and other environmental impacts, such as, SF6, N2O and CH4
emissions must be considered.
Due to variations in a specific pipeline projects, such as, method of installation (open-cut and
trenchless technology), life cycle cost analysis, design life, pipe dimension ratio, dead and live

© ASCE

Pipelines 2019
 Pipelines 2019 74

loadings in the pipeline, internal pressure and number of surges per day, soil conditions, ground
topography, surface and subsurface congestions, and other similar factors, it is recommended
that a sustainability review be conducted on the case by case basis for each project. However,
result of this study and the methodology used can be utilized as a guide to perform a specific
project study.

REFERENCES
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de los Andes on 09/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Bowyer, J., Bratkovich, S., Fernholz, K., Frank, M., Groot, H., Howe, J., Pepke, E. (2015).
“Understanding Steel Recovery and Recycling Rates and Limitations to Recycling.” Dovetail
Partners Inc.
Chilana, L., Bhatt, A.H., Najafi, M., and Sattler, M. (2016). “Comparison of Carbon Footprints
of Steel versus Concrete Pipelines for Water Transmission.” Journal of the Air & Waste
Management Association.
Davis, S.C., Diegel, S., (2015). “Transportation energy data book. Edition 34, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory U.S. Department of Energy Center for Transportation Analysis
Engineering Science & Technology Division.”
Decast: Concrete Pressure Pipe Installation Guide http://decastltd.com/wp-
content/uploads/DECAST-CPP-Install-Guide-Web-2017.10.23.pdf
Hammond, G. P., and Jones, C. I. (2008). Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE). Version 1.6a.
University of Bath, United Kingdom.
Kim, D., Yi, S., and Lee, W. (2012). “Life Cycle Assessment of Sewer System: Comparison of
Pipe Materials.” Proc. Advances in Civil, Environmental, and Materials Research
Najafi M. (2005). “Trenchless Technology: Pipeline and Utility Design, Construction and
Renewal,” McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
National Inventory Report, (1990-2015). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change. Retrieved from:
http://unfccc.int/files/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inventories_submis
sions/application/zip/can-2017-nir-13apr17.zip
Roghani, B., Amrollahi, M., Tabesh, M., and Venkatesh, G. (2017). “Estimation and Evaluation
of Greenhouse gas Emissions during the Life-Cycle of Wastewater Pipelines: Case Study of
Tehran, Iran.” Civil engineering Infrastructures Journal.
Steel Recycling Institute, (2014). Steel is the World's Most Recycled Material. Retrieved from:
https://www.steelsustainability.org/recycling
Steel Tank, (2013). Sustainable Steel. Retrieved from:
https://www.steeltank.com/Portals/0/media/Steel%20Facts%20No.%205-
Sustainable%20Steel.pdf
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2014). Retrieved from:
https://nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nnsa/08-14-multiplefiles/DOE%202012.pdf
Visited January 16, 2018.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), (2010). “eGRID2010 Version 1.0 Year 2007
GHG Annual Output Emissions Rates.” Retrieved from:
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/egridzips/eGRID2010V1_0_year07_GHGOutpu
tRates.pdf.
Venkatesh, G., Hammervold, J., and Brattebo, H. (2009). “Combined MFA-LCA for Analysis of
Wastewater Pipeline Networks.” Journal of Industrial Ecology.

© ASCE

Pipelines 2019