Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 43 (2014) 32–40

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

Trenchless Technology Research

Reliability based life cycle cost optimization for underground pipeline

networks
Kong Fah Tee ⇑, Lutfor Rahman Khan, Hua Peng Chen, Amir M. Alani
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Greenwich, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The safety of underground pipelines is the primary focus of water and wastewater industry. Due to low
Received 8 November 2012 visibility and lack of proper information regarding the condition of underground pipes, assessment and
Received in revised form 5 April 2014 maintenance are frequently neglected until a disastrous failure occurs. The reduction of pipe thickness
Accepted 9 April 2014
due to corrosion undermines the pipe resistance capacity which in turn reduces the factor of safety of
the whole distribution system. Providing an acceptable level of service and overcoming practical difficul-
ties, the concerned industry has to plan how to operate, maintain and renew (repair or replace) the sys-
Keywords:
tem under the budget constraints. This paper is concerned with estimating reliability of non-pressure
Risk and cost optimization
Probability of failure
flexible underground pipes subjected to externally applied loading and material corrosion during the
Genetic Algorithm whole service life. The reliability with respect to time due to corrosion induced deflection, buckling, wall
Pipe renewal methods thrust, bending stress is estimated. Then the study is extended to determine intervention year for main-
Life cycle cost tenance and to identify the most appropriate renewal solution by minimizing the risk of failure and
Failure cost whole life cycle cost using Genetic Algorithm (GA). An example is presented to validate the proposed
Condition index method with a view to prevent unexpected failure of flexible pipes at the minimal cost by prioritizing
maintenance based on failure severity and system reliability.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction will result in excessive costs, risks or losses. Optimization models

Underground pipeline network is a complex infrastructure sys-
tem that has significant impact on the economic, environmental
and social aspects of all modern societies. The world is moving
towards adopting more proactive and optimized approaches to
manage underground pipeline systems for their short and long term
renewal planning in a more sustainable way. These approaches
mostly aim to maximize return on investment by optimizing the
allocated budget. Return on investment includes higher asset per-
formance, lower risk of failure and lower life cycle costs. Such deci-
sions can range from determining the optimal maintenance or
inspection interval to evaluating a proposed design change. The
decisions involve deliberate expenditure in order to achieve reli-
ability, performance and other benefits. Costs involved are known
but it is often difficult to quantify the potential impact of risks, the
efficiency or safety and structural life expectancy. Guice and Li
(1994) suggested that not only are the benefits difficult to quantify
but also the objectives often conflict with each other. Finding the
optimal strategy is difficult and the wrong maintenance strategy
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1634883141.
E-mail address: K.F.Tee@gre.ac.uk (K.F. Tee).
for pipeline maintenance methodologies are still in their infancy
condition when compared to those in bridges, buildings and other
civil engineering structures although optimum design approaches
for pipe structural systems are continuously evolving and improv-
ing (McDonald and Zhao, 2001; Tee and Li, 2011).
Davies et al. (2001) pointed out that the Water Services Regula-
tion Authority in England and Wales or OFWAT spent a huge amount
of money every year on sewer replacement in the UK. According to
Concrete Pipeline Systems Association (CPSA, 2008), OFWAT esti-
mated that replacing or renovating the UK’s 309,000 km sewerage
and drainage network required £200 billion. The consequences of
failure are multiple and may include loss of life, injury, excessive
maintenance costs, user costs, environmental impacts etc. It is clear
that some of these consequences are incommensurable and cannot
be evaluated in monetary terms. The concept that needs to clarify
is the meaning of ‘optimum’. The word is often used in phrases such
as the optimum maintenance strategy or the optimum performance.
Woodhouse (2001) stated that in areas where there are conflicting
interests, such as pressures to reduce costs at the same time as the
desire to increase reliability or performance or safety, an optimum
represents some sort of compromise between the demand and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2014.04.007
0886-7798/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 K.F. Tee et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 43 (2014) 32–40
performance. It is quite impossible to achieve the ideal – zero cost
and at the same time total 100% reliability or safety.
Structural reliability analysis of buried pipeline systems is one
of the fundamental issues for water and wastewater asset manag-
ers. Methods of reliability analysis such as first order reliability
method, second-order reliability method, point estimate method,
Monte Carlo simulation, subset simulation, gamma process, proba-
bility density evolution method, etc. are available in literature
(Baecher and Christian, 2003; Sivakumar Babu and Srivastava,
2010; Tee et al., 2013b; Mahmoodian et al., 2012; Fang et al.,
2013a, 2013b). Recently, considerable amount of attention has
been given to reliability of underground pipeline networks in con-
junction with the optimization to achieve maximum benefits with
the minimum cost (Moneim, 2011). The prediction of structural
reliability throughout its life cycle depends on probabilistic model-
ling of load and strength of the system and on the use of appropri-
ate analytical or numerical methods (Estes and Frangopol, 2001;
Tee et al., 2013a).
Knowing the age of a pipeline segment, the condition of the pipe
and how a pipe of that type deteriorates over time makes it possible
to estimate the remaining service life of specific pipe. Unfortunately
few municipalities have sufficient historical data to model the
actual deterioration of underground pipes. Mailhot et al. (2000)
used data from a Quebec municipality to simulate the deterioration
of a sewer network from a good to poor state; Wirahadikusumah
and Abraham (2003) modelled the deterioration of combined sew-
ers using data from the city of Indianapolis; Ariaratnam et al. (2001)
used data from the City of Edmonton to model sewer pipe deterio-
ration and Micevski et al. (2002) modelled the deterioration of
storm sewers for the Newcastle City Council in Australia. All the
four models have predicted the pipe service life which is approxi-
mately 100–125 years. However, according to Newton and Vanier
(2006), the estimated service life can range from 50 to 125 years
depending upon the material and pipe diameter. In fact, the service
life of a pipe can also be affected by other factors such as type of
embedment soil, pipe thickness, pipe depth, pipe class (combined,
sanitary, storm), level of maintenance, overburden, soil type, etc.
(Ana et al., 2008; Wirahadikusumah et al., 2001). These elements
are inherently conflicting, so an integrated multi-criteria approach
is needed to develop renewal plans that satisfy these criteria in a
balanced and optimized manner.
The sustainable management and renewal of underground
pipeline networks pose a wide range of difficulties due to increas-
ing fear of failure risk and requirements to comply with environ-
ment and accounting regulations as well as limited renewal
budgets. Many challenges have been faced by water industry dur-
ing installation and maintenance of underground pipeline net-
works. Frequent change of weather, corrosion, shrinkage and
crack may reduce the pipe service life even if repair is done and
the initial strength may not be achieved. A vital failure criterion
of pipelines subjected to both internal and external corrosion is
that the loss of structural strength which is influenced by localized
or overall reduction in pipe wall thickness. Ahammed and
Melchers (1994) assumed that the loss of wall thickness through
general corrosion which affects much of the circumferential wall
thickness is uniform or near so. The size of the resulting pipe wall
thickness undermines the pipe resistance capacity which in turn
reduces the factor of safety of the whole pipeline distribution sys-
tem. The decision to repair or replace existing pipes is typically
based on past performance indicators such as annual number of
failure in a given section of a pipe network. This approach is not
robust because it depends largely on what has happened in the
past and what is expected to happen in the future. A better
approach to scheduling pipe maintenance is based on performance
indicators such as structural integrity, hydraulic efficiency and
system reliability (Khan et al., 2013).
33
The main objective of this study is to analyse the reliability of
non-pressure flexible underground pipes using First Order Reliabil-
ity Method (FORM) and to present a reliability-based model of life
cycle cost optimization in Genetic Algorithm (GA). Given the
importance and high consequences of pipe collapse, a risk-based
maintenance management methodology can be more effective by
considering not only the probability of failure but also the conse-
quences of failure. The optimization objective function of this
study is the value of life cycle cost (LCC) which represents all the
costs incurred throughout the life cycle of an underground pipe
network, including the costs of design, construction, maintenance,
repair, rehabilitation, replacement and expected costs of failure.
The proposed maintenance strategy enables decision maker to
decide when and how to renew the pipes (i.e. the most effective
maintenance strategy, which could be replacement, structural,
semi structural and non structural lining methods) at the mini-
mum cost.
2. Corrosion of metal pipes
Buried pipes are made of plastic, concrete or metal, e.g. steel,
galvanized steel, ductile iron, cast iron or copper. Plastic pipes tend
to be resistant to corrosion. Damage in concrete pipes can be
attributed to biogenous sulphuric acid attack (Tee et al., 2011).
On the other hand, metal pipes are susceptible to corrosion. Metal
pipe corrosion is a continuous and time variable process. Under
certain environmental conditions, metal pipes can become cor-
roded based on the properties of pipe materials, soil surrounding
pipe wall, water or wastewater properties and stray electric cur-
rents. The corrosion pit depth (DT) with respect to time can be
modelled as shown in Eq. (1) or Eq. (2). Kucera and Mattsson
(1987) first proposed a widely accepted model, a power law equa-
tion to measure DT for atmospheric corrosion which can be
expressed as follows.
n
DT ¼ kT ð1Þ
where k is multiplying constant (typical value 2.0), n is exponential
constant (typical value 0.3) (Sadiq et al., 2004) and T is exposure
time. Rajani et al. (2000) proposed a two-phase modified corrosion
model to accommodate the self-inhibiting process as follows.
DT ¼ aT þ bð1  ecT Þ ð2Þ
where a is final pitting rate constant (typical value 0.009 mm/year),
b is pitting depth scaling constant (6.27 mm) and c is corrosion rate
inhibition factor (0.14 per year). Eq. (1) is normally used to predict
DT for steel pipe whereas Eq. (2) is used for cast iron pipe. Due to
reduction of pipe wall thickness caused by corrosion, the moment
of inertia per unit length, I and cross-sectional area per unit length,
As can be defined as shown in Eqs. (3) and (4), respectively (Watkins
and Anderson, 2000; Tee and Khan, 2012).
I ¼ ðt  DT Þ3 =12 ð3Þ
As ¼ t  D T ð4Þ
where t is thickness of pipe. Eqs. (1)–(4) show that DT, I and As are
time dependent variables.
3. Flexible pipe failure modes
The dominating failure criteria of flexible pipes are character-
ized by limit states as follows
(a) Excessive deflection.
(b) Actual buckling pressure greater than the critical buckling
pressure.
34 K.F. Tee et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 43 (2014) 32–40
(c) Actual wall thrust greater than critical wall thrust.
(d) Actual bending stress greater than the allowable stress.
3.1. Deflection
The performance of flexible pipe in its ability to support load is
typically assessed by measuring the deflection from its initial
shape. Deflection can be defined as the change in inside diameter
that results when a load is applied to a flexible pipe. According
to BS EN 1295:1 (1997) and BS 9295 (2010), deflection Dy can be
calculated as
KðDL W c þ P s ÞD
Dy ¼
ð8EI
D3
þ 0:061E0 Þ
where K is deflection coefficient, DL is deflection lag factor, D is
mean diameter, E is modulus of elasticity of pipe material and E
0
is modulus of soil reaction. The loads acting on the pipe are gov-
erned by the term DLWC + PS where WC is soil load and PS is live load.
Deflection is quantified in terms of the ratio of the horizontal
increase in diameter (or vertical decrease in diameter) to the pipe
diameter. The critical deflection for flexible pipe, Dycr is determined
as 5% of inside diameter of pipe (Hancor, 2009).
3.2. Buckling
Buckling is a premature failure in which the structure becomes
unstable at a stress level that is well below the yield strength of the
structural material (Babu and Srivastava, 2010). The actual buck-
ling pressure should be less than the critical buckling pressure
for the safety of the structure. The actual buckling pressure, p
can be calculated as follows (AWWA, 1999):
p ¼ Rw cs þ cw Hw þ PS
where Rw is water buoyancy factor, cw is unit weight of water, Hw is
height of groundwater above the pipe. The critical buckling pres-
sure, pcr is calculated as follows (AWWA, 1999):
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
s ffi
1 EI
pcr ¼ 32Rw B0 Es 3
Sf D i¼1
0
where Sf is safety factor and B is empirical coefficient of elastic
support.
3.3. Wall thrust
Thrust or stress on the pipe wall is determined by the total load
acting on the pipe including soil, traffic and hydrostatic loads. The
actual wall thrust can be calculated as follows
T ¼ 1:3ð1:5W A þ 1:67PS C L þ P w ÞðDo =2Þ
where Do is outside diameter and CL is live load distribution coeffi-
cient. The loads acting on the pipe considered in wall thrust analysis
are soil arch load WA, live load PS and hydrostatic pressure Pw. The
critical wall thrust is calculated as follows
T cr ¼ F y As /p
where Fy is the minimum tensile strength of pipe and /p is capacity
modification factor for pipe.
3.4. Bending stress
For the safety of pipe, the bending stress should not exceed the
long term tensile strength of the pipe material. Therefore, checking
the bending stress is important to ensure that the value is within
material capability. Bending stress rb can be calculated as follows
(Gabriel, 2011)
rb ¼ 2Df EDy y0 Sf =D2 ð10Þ
where Df is shape factor and y0 is distance from centroid of pipe
wall to the furthest surface of the pipe.
4. Risk and reliability analysis
For acceptable value of probability of failure, USA Army Corps of
Engineers suggested that the estimated reliability index should be
at least 3.0 for above average performance and 4.0 for good perfor-
mance (Babu and Srivastava, 2010). FORM is used in this study for
estimating structural reliability of underground flexible pipes. The
ð5Þ limit state functions Z(X) for the aforementioned failure modes
(deflection, buckling, wall thrust and bending stress) are defined
as the difference between actual and critical values. Z(X), with
mean Z and standard deviation, r(Z) is a function of the random
variables which are soil and pipe properties. The probability of fail-
ure for each limit state function can be evaluated by
# "
0Z
Pf ¼ P½ZðXÞ < 0 ¼ U ¼ UðbÞ ð11Þ
rðZÞ
where U is the cumulative standard normal distribution function
(zero mean and unit variance) and b ¼ Z=rðZÞ is known as safety
index or reliability index.
There are basically two models of system reliability. One is
known as series system in which the occurrence of one failure
mode constitutes the failure of the whole system. The other is
known as parallel system in which the system fails only when all
failure modes occur. For a pipe, the occurrence of either failure
mode will constitute its failure. Therefore a series system (also
called a weakest link system) is more appropriate for its assess-
ð6Þ ment of failures. The correlation between the failures events is esti-
mated and the value is within the range from 0 to 1. Thus, the
probability of failure for a series system, Pf,s can be estimated as
follows (Fetz and Tonon, 2008)
Y
n
Max½Pf ;i  6 P f ;s 6 1  ½1  Pf ;i  ð12Þ
ð7Þ
where Pf,i is the probability of failure due to ith failure mode of pipe
and n is the number of failure modes considered in the system.
5. Reliability based LCC optimization
Evolutionary strategies, such as Genetic Algorithm (GA), Ant
Colony Optimization Algorithm and Particle Swarm Optimization
Algorithm have received considerable attention in many areas of
ð8Þ water resource management including pipeline network design
problems. This paper proposes a new step-wise integrated
approach in developing optimized plans using GA that would iden-
tify the most appropriate compromise of renewal solutions while
simultaneously optimizing life cycle cost, condition state and risk
of failure of pipeline networks. The proposed approach defines a
ð9Þ systematic procedure to quantitatively assess the risk, optimise life
cycle cost and evaluate renewal options which help to reduce the
subjectivity typically involved in decision-making process. The
problem is treated as a multi-objective problem characterized by
a technical objective defined by risk measure and an economic
objective defined by total life cycle cost. In this paper, GA has been
selected as an optimization technique in maintenance strategy
because GA has been proven to be a robust and powerful algorithm
for arriving at the global optimum. There are no mathematical lim-
itations on the type and number of decision variables, formulation
of objective functions and constraints, which is an important factor
considering the complexity of optimization process.
 K.F. Tee et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 43 (2014) 32–40
The implementation of a quantitative assessment and risk-
based life cycle maintenance is a very complex task due to the dif-
ficulties of assessing quantitatively the probability and the conse-
quences of failure, especially for a large network of pipe
structures. For a given pipeline distribution network, huge number
of solutions can be selected through a range of decision variables
and in such cases, probabilistic methods are used instead of math-
ematical models to search for the best solution. The whole life
cycle cost (LCC) has been used as an objective function in mainte-
nance optimization. The effects of corrosion are included in the
pipe failure models. In this study, the LCC consists of initial cost
or installation cost, maintenance cost and expected cost of failure.
The total life cycle cost CLCC can be presented as follows (Hinow
et al., 2008)
X
T X
T
C LCC ðTÞ ¼ C A þ C M ðiÞ þ C f ðiÞ  Pf ;s
i¼1 i¼1
where CA is capital cost, CM is maintenance cost, Cf is system failure
cost and i = 1, 2, 3 . . . T year. Failure probability of series system, Pf,s
is determined using Eq. (12).
The cost terms in the right-hand side of the Eq. (13) are the
costs in the year they actually occur. The (1 + r)T factor is used to
convert the cost into its present value discounted by the discount
rate of r, for the T year period. The discount rate depends on the
prevailing interest rate and the depreciation of the currency or
inflation rate. This rate is not a constant term and may vary over
the life of the pipeline structure. From an economical point of view,
the ideal goal of risk and cost management of pipe network should
be minimizing the total LCC of the network. In this study, the prob-
lem of identifying the optimal intervention year is transformed
into minimization of total LCC (Eq. (13)). A poor maintenance pol-
icy often leads to early failure. On the other hand, a conservative
maintenance policy may result in excessive costs. The under-
ground pipeline network will require rehabilitation or replacement
several times during the system design life.
6. Selection of renewal methods
The pipeline renewal technologies are growing rapidly and
becoming more efficient and cost-effective. Different renewal
methods exhibit different capabilities, limitations, costs and bene-
fits. The particular characteristics of the pipe (e.g., material, diam-
eter, etc.) and site conditions (e.g., soil, water table, traffic etc.),
along with other operational, social and environmental factors
determine the applicability of different renewal methods in a par-
ticular situation. In any given scenario, applicable and cost effec-
tive renewal methods should be determined based on a
systematic procedure.
The renewal methods are grouped into four main categories:
replacement, structural, semi structural and non-structural lining
methods. Structural liners are defined to be capable of carrying
hydrostatic, soil and live loads on their own. Structural liners are
expected to be independent i.e., bonding with original pipelines
is not required. Semi structural liners are designed to withstand
hydrostatic pressure or perform as a composite with the existing
pipelines. Semi structural liners could be designed as interactive
or independent (Halfawy et al., 2008). Semi structural liners typi-
cally are not used for gravity pipelines. Non-structural liners are
used mainly to improve flow, resist corrosion, or to seal minor
cracks in gravity pipelines (Heavens, 1997).
In this study, the proposed underground pipeline maintenance
strategy complements the aforementioned life cycle cost optimiza-
tion by identifying applicable renewal categories based on condi-
tion index and the possibility of surrounding soil loss as shown
in Table 1. The possibility of surrounding soil loss is assessed on
35
a high, medium, or low scale according to soil type and groundwa-
ter level as shown in Table 2 (Halfawy et al., 2008). The condition
index (CI) can be calculated from the regression model (Newton
and Vanier, 2006) as follows:
CI ¼ 0:0003T 2  0:0003T þ 1 ð14Þ
where T = age of pipe (in year) which corresponds to the interven-
tion year obtained from the life-cycle cost optimization. Once the
condition index and possible scenarios of soil loss have been deter-
mined, renewal methods can be selected. For example, a pipe with
condition index 3 and high possibility of soil loss will require
replacement or the use of a structural liner to carry loads and stabi-
lize deformation. At a minimum, a semi structural liner that can
withstand hydrostatic pressure is required.
ð13Þ 7. Worked example
An underground pipeline network under a heavy roadway sub-
jected to hypothetical operating conditions is taken as a numerical
example to validate the proposed life cycle cost optimization main-
tenance strategy. The pipeline network consists of approximately
860 km of sanitary pipes and 755 km of storm pipes. The sanitary
pipes of length 500 km and 360 km were constructed in 1989
and 1994, respectively whereas the storm pipes of length 255 km
and 500 km were constructed in 1999 and 2003, respectively. A
schematic layout of the whole network is shown in Fig. 1. The san-
itary pipes were constructed on clay whereas the storm pipes were
built on sand and the whole underground pipes were above the
groundwater level.
For simplifying the problem, all the pipes in the network (both
sanitary and storm) are presumed as large size steel pipes with an
outside diameter of 1.21 m and initial wall thickness of 0.021 m.
The pipeline network is subjected to corrosion and its corrosion
rate is modelled using Eq. (1). The pipe and soil parameters are
listed in Table 3. There are 9 random variables (elastic modulus
of pipe, soil modulus, soil density, live load, deflection coefficient,
corrosion coefficients, pipe wall thickness and height of the back-
fill) where the mean and coefficient of variation (COV) are listed
in Table 4 (Ahammed and Melchers, 1994; Sadiq et al., 2004;
Sivakumar Babu et al., 2006). All of them are considered as nor-
mally distributed, except deflection coefficient which is log-normal
distributed. It is assumed that the capital cost or initial cost is
£1.2 million ($1.98 m), maintenance cost is £0.15 million
($0.25 m), expected failure consequence cost is £2 billion
($3.3 m) and discount rate is 4.2%.
8. Results and discussion
The structural reliability of the underground pipeline network is
first estimated and then life cycle cost optimization is performed to
predict the optimal maintenance or renewal time which takes into
account the reliability analysis and total cost. The proposed main-
tenance strategy enables decision maker to choose a feasible
renewal method based on the calculated optimal renewal time.
8.1. Probability of failure
The probabilities of failure due to corrosion induced deflection,
buckling, wall thrust and bending stress with respect to time are
estimated based on the parameters and basic variables given in
Tables 3 and 4. The occurrence of either failure mode of the pipe
will constitute its failure. Therefore the probability of failure of
the underground pipeline network is determined using Eq. (12)
and the result is shown in Fig. 2. As all the random variables are
considered as normally distributed, except deflection coefficient
36 K.F. Tee et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 43 (2014) 32–40

Table 1
Selection of renewal categories based on condition index and soil loss possibility (Halfawy et al., 2008).

Condition Index Possibility of soil loss

Low Medium High
2 Non-structural or semi-structural Non-structural or semi-structural Semi-structural, structural or replacement
3 Non-structural or semi-structural Semi-structural or structural Semi-structural, structural or replacement
4 and 5 Structural or replacement Structural or replacement Structural or replacement

Table 2
Possibility of soil loss based on soil type and groundwater level (Halfawy et al., 2008).

Soil Type Groundwater level

Below pipe Same line with pipe Above pipe
Clay Low Medium High
Gravels and low plasticity clay Low Medium High
Silt and sand High High High

Fig. 1. Layout of pipeline network (not to scale).

Table 3 The study shows that the probability of pipe failure at the
Parameter values of worked example. beginning is zero and it remains unchanged until about 40 years
Symbol description Value of service life, then it gradually changes as time increases and after
Buoyancy factor, Rw 1.00
50 years, the probability of failure rises drastically. When the
Trench width, Bd 2.00 m thickness of the pipe is reduced due to corrosion, the moment of
Outside pipe diameter, Do 1.231 m inertia and the cross-sectional area of pipe wall are decreased with
Inside pipe diameter, DI 1.189 m a resulting reduction in pipe strength as shown in Eqs. (3) and (4).
x-Sectional area of pipe wall per unit length, As 0.021 m2/m
The upper limit of the failure probability obtained from Eq. (12)
Shape factor, Df 4.0
Capacity modification factor for pipe, /p 1.00 has been used for the subsequent total life cycle cost optimization
Safety factor for bending, Sf 1.5 as the worst case scenario.
Tensile strength of pipe, Fy 450 MPa
Safety factor for buckling, Sf 2.5
8.2. Optimal cost and time to renew
Poisson ratio, t 0.3
Allowable strain, ecr 0.2%
As shown in Eq. (13), the expected cost of failure is calculated
by multiplying system failure cost with the probability of failure.
Once the probability of failure has been calculated, the optimal
Table 4
Statistical properties of random variables. time to repair or replace and the associated life cycle cost can be
obtained from life-cycle cost optimization using GA. Fig. 3 shows
Material properties Mean (l) COV (%) Distribution
the convergence of total LCC obtained from life-cycle cost optimi-
Elastic modulus of pipe, E 213.74  106 kPa 1.0 Normal zation and the optimal value is about £25 billion ($41.25b). The
Backfill soil modulus, Es 103 kPa 5.0 Normal
optimal LCC cost is associated with the first maintenance after
Unit of weight of soil, cs 18.0 kN/m3 2.5 Normal
Wheel load (live load), Ps 80.0 kPa 3.0 Normal
62 years of service. The maintenance cost and expected cost of fail-
Deflection coefficient, K 0.11 1.0 Lognormal ure for the whole underground pipeline network are shown in Figs.
Multiplying constant, k 2.0 10.0 Normal 4 and 5. Based on the given data, the sanitary pipe of 500 km is
Exponential constant, n 0.3 5.0 Normal required to renew in 2051, while 360 km in 2056. Similarly, the
Thickness of pipe, t 0.021 m 1.0 Normal
storm pipe of 255 km is required to renew in 2061 and 500 km
Height of the backfill, H 3.75 m 1.0 Normal
in 2065 in order to achieve the minimum life cycle cost which
takes into account the reliability of the underground pipe network.
which is log-normal distributed. Thus Rackwitz–Fiessler algorithm Next, the proposed maintenance strategy is extended to deter-
has been applied to transform its distribution from log-normal to mine an applicable and feasible renewal method using Tables 1
normal in this study. and 2. The recorded database shows that the sanitary pipes are
 K.F. Tee et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 43 (2014) 32–40 37

Fig. 2. Probability of failure for underground pipelines.

11
x 10
3.5

Best: 25055561526.833, Mean: 25061454916.4899

3
Life Cycle Cost (Present Value), £

2.5
Best values
2 Mean values

1.5

0.5

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Generation

Fig. 3. Convergence of total life cycle cost for pipeline network from GA.

Fig. 4. Maintenance cost for pipeline network.

38 K.F. Tee et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 43 (2014) 32–40

Fig. 5. Expected cost of failure for pipeline network.

Fig. 6. Life cycle cost with different soil densities.

built on clay and the soil type of the storm pipes is sand. In possibility of surrounding soil loss is high. The condition index
addition, both types of pipes are above the groundwater level. (CI) for the pipe network is estimated as 2.13 using Eq. (14) by
Based on this information and according to Table 2, the possibility substituting the identified optimal time to renew (62 years) from
of soil loss for sanitary pipes is low whereas for storm pipes, the the life-cycle cost optimization. Applicable renewal categories are

Fig. 7. Life cycle cost with different soil heights.

 K.F. Tee et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 43 (2014) 32–40
Fig. 8. Life cycle cost with different discount rates.
then selected from Table 1 based on the pipe CI and the possible
scenario of soil loss. The sanitary pipes of 500 km and 360 km
are required to renew using non-structural or semi-structural lin-
ing method based on the estimated CI of 2 and low possibility of
soil loss. On the contrary, due to high possibility of soil loss and
the pipe CI of 2, the storm pipes of 225 km and 500 km are renewed
using semi-structural or structural liners. Alternatively replace-
ment is recommended when the repair cost is greater than the cost
of replacing the pipes.
8.3. Parametric study
A parametric study has been carried out to analyse the effects of
different parameters on reliability and life cycle cost of the under-
ground pipeline network. For example, if soil properties (such as
soil modulus or soil density) changes, this will affect probability
of failure and hence reliability and life cycle cost of the pipeline
network. As shown in Fig. 6, the life cycle cost increases drastically
when soil density is increased from 16 kPa to 20 kPa. The paramet-
ric study also demonstrates that with increasing soil height above
pipeline decreases service life and increases life cycle cost of the
pipeline network as illustrated in Fig. 7 for soil height from 3.0 m
to 3.75 m. Due to increment of soil height, overburden pressure
is increased and therefore failure probability is also increased
which leads to higher total life cycle cost with respect to time.
Fig. 8 shows that when discount rate varies from 5% to 7%, the
whole life cycle cost also varies significantly. Similarly, other fac-
tors such as pipe dimension including pipe thickness and diameter,
live load, influence pipe failure probability and consequently affect
its life cycle cost.
9. Conclusions
This paper presents a novel integrated approach for systematiz-
ing the maintenance of underground pipeline networks. The
approach integrates two main criteria in the planning process:
structural reliability and whole life cycle cost. The probability of
failure due to corrosion induced deflection, buckling, wall thrust
and bending stress is estimated and then the study is extended
to minimize the risk and life cycle cost optimization using GA. It
follows that a rigorous decision process should find a balance
between the risk of failure and the cost to mitigate it. The proposed
maintenance strategy also enables decision maker to select appro-
priate renewal method based on the identified optimal time to
renew, pipe condition index and the possibility of surrounding soil
loss. A numerical example is presented to validate the proposed
39
maintenance strategy with a view to prevent the unexpected fail-
ure of underground flexible pipes by prioritizing the maintenance
options based on the failure severity and structural reliability. Thus
the proposed technique can help in making the appropriate deci-
sions concerning the intervention to ensure the reliable and ser-
viceable operation of the underground pipes. This will, in turn,
result in better asset and capital utilization.
References
Ahammed, M., Melchers, R.E., 1994. Reliability of underground pipelines subject to
corrosion. J. Transport. Eng. ASCE 120 (6), 989–1002.
Ana, E.B.W., Pessemier, M., Thoeye, C., Smolders, S., Boonen, I., Gueldre, G.D., 2008.
Investigating the effects of specific sewer attributes on sewer ageing – a Belgian
case study. In: 11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh,
Scotland, UK.
Ariaratnam, S.T., El-Assaly, A., Yang, Y., 2001. Assessment of infrastructure
inspection needs using logistic models. J. Infrastruct. Syst. ASCE 7 (4), 160–165.
AWWA (American Water Works Association). 1999. Fiberglass Pipe Design, AWWA
Manual M45, USA, pp. 35–53.
Babu, S.G.L., Srivastava, A., 2010. Reliability analysis of buried flexible pipe-soil
systems. J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Practice ASCE 1 (1), 33–41.
Baecher, G.B., Christian, J.T., 2003. Reliability and Statistics in Geotechnical
Engineering. Wiley, New York, USA.
BS 9295, 2010. Guide to the Structural Design of Buried Pipelines. British Standards
Institution, UK.
BS EN 1295:1, 1997. Structural Design of Buried Pipelines Under Various Conditions
of Loading – General Requirements. British Standards Institution, UK.
CPSA (Concrete Pipeline Systems Association). 2008. Charles Street, Leicester, UK.
Davies, J.P., Clarke, B.A., Whiter, J.T., Cunningham, R.J., 2001. Factors influencing the
structural deterioration and collapse of rigid sewer pipes. Urban Water 3 (1),
73–89.
Estes, A.C., Frangopol, D.M., 2001. Bridge lifetime system reliability under multiple
limit states. J. Bridge Eng. ASCE 6 (6), 523–528.
Fang, Y., Chen, J., Tee, K.F., 2013a. Analysis of structural dynamic reliability based on
the probability density evolution method. Struct. Eng. Mech. 45 (2), 201–209.
Fang, Y., Tao, W., Tee, K.F., 2013b. Repairable k-out-of n system work model analysis
from time response. Comput. Concr. 12 (6), 775–783.
Fetz, T., Tonon, F., 2008. Probability bounds for series systems with variables
constrained by sets of probability measures. Int. J. Reliab. Saf. 2 (4), 309–339.
Gabriel, L.H., 2011. Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe Design Manual and Installation
Guide. Plastic Pipe Institute, USA.
Guice, L.K., Li, J.Y., 1994. A buckling models and influencing factors for pipe
rehabilitation design. In: Proceedings of the North American NO-DIG, Dallas,
Texas, USA.
Halfawy, M.R., Dridi, L., Baker, S., 2008. Integrated decision support system for
optimal renewal planning of sewer networks. J. Comput. Civil Eng. ASCE 22 (6),
360–372.
Hancor Inc., 2009. HDPE Pipe design. Drainage Handbook, Chapter 2. USA.
Heavens, J.W., 1997. The trenchless renovation of potable water pipelines. In:
Annual Conference of the America Water Works Association, Atlanta, GA.
Hinow, M., Waldron, M., Müller, L., Aeschbach, H., Pohlink, K., 2008. Substation Life
Cycle Cost Management Supported by Stochastic Optimization Algorithm. Cigre,
Paris, France.
Khan, L.R., Tee, K.F., Alani, A.M., 2013. Reliability-based management of
underground pipeline network using genetic algorithm. In: Proc. of the 11th
International Probabilistic Workshop, Brno, Czech Republic, November 6–8, pp.
159–170.
40 K.F. Tee et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 43 (2014) 32–40
Kucera, V., Mattsson, E., 1987. In: Mansfeld, F. (Ed.), Atmospheric Corrosion in
Corrosion Mechanics. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York.
Mailhot, A., Pelletier, G., Noël, J., Villeneuve, J., 2000. Modelling the evolution of the
structural state of water pipe networks with brief recorded pipe break histories:
methodology and application. Water Resour. Res. 36 (10), 3053–3062.
McDonald, S., Zhao, J., 2001. Condition assessment and rehabilitation of large
sewers. In: Proc. International Conference on Underground Infrastructure
Research, Univ. of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada, pp. 361–369.
Micevski, T., Kuczera, G., Coombes, P.J., 2002. Markov model for stormwater pipe
deterioration. J. Infrastruct. Syst. ASCE 8 (2), 49–56.
Mahmoodian, M., Alani, A.M., Tee, K.F., 2012. Stochastic failure analysis of the
gusset plates in the Mississippi river bridge. Int. J. Forensic Eng. 1 (2), 153–166.
Moneim, M.A., 2011. Modelling reliability based optimization design for water
distribution networks. Scientific and Engineering Applications Using MATLAB,
Chapter 6, InTech, pp. 87–104.
Newton, L.A., Vanier, D.J., 2006. MIIP Report: The state of Canadian sewers –
analysis of asset inventory and condition. National Research Council, Institution
for Research in Construction, Ottawa, Canada.
Rajani, B., Makar, J., McDonald, S., Zhan, C., Kuraoka, S., Jen, C.K., Viens, M., 2000.
Investigation of Grey Cast Iron Water Mains to Develop a Methodology for
Estimating Service Life. American Water Works Association Research
Foundation, Denver, Colo.
Sadiq, R., Rajani, B., Kleiner, Y., 2004. Probabilistic risk analysis of corrosion
associated failures in cast iron water mains. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 86 (1), 1–10.
Sivakumar Babu, S.G.L., Srinivasa, M.B.R., Rao, R.S., 2006. Reliability analysis of
deflection of Buried flexible pipes. J. Transport Eng. 132 (10), 829–836.
Sivakumar Babu, G.L., Srivastava, A., 2010. Reliability analysis of buried flexible
pipe-soil systems. J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Practice ASCE 1 (1), 33–41.
Tee, K.F., Khan, L.R., 2012. Risk-cost optimization and reliability analysis of
underground pipelines. In: Proc. of the 6th International ASRANet Conference,
London, UK, July 2–4, Paper 49.
Tee, K.F., Khan, L.R., Chen, H.P., 2013a. Probabilistic failure analysis of underground
flexible pipes. Struct. Eng. Mech. 47 (2), 167–183.
Tee, K.F., Khan, L.R., Li, H.S., 2013b. Reliability analysis of underground pipelines
using subset simulation. Int. J. Civ. Architect. Sci. Eng. 7 (11), 356–362.
Tee, K.F., Li, C.Q., 2011. A numerical study of maintenance strategy for concrete
structures in marine environment. In: Proc. of the 11th International
Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering,
Zurich, Switzerland, August 1–4, pp. 618–625.
Tee, K.F., Li, C.Q., Mahmoodian, M., 2011. Prediction of time-variant probability of
failure for concrete sewer pipes. In: Proc. of the 12th International Conference
on Durability of Building Materials and Components, Porto, Portugal, April 12–
15.
Watkins, R.K., Anderson, L.R., 2000. Structural Mechanics of Buried Pipes. CRC Press,
Washington, USA.
Wirahadikusumah, R., Abraham, D.M., 2003. Application of dynamic programming
and simulation for sewer management. Eng. Construct. Architect. Manage. 10
(3), 193–208.
Wirahadikusumah, R., Abraham, D., Iseley, T., 2001. Challenging issues in modeling
deterioration of combined sewers. J. Infrastruct. Syst. ASCE 7 (2), 77–84.
Woodhouse, J., 2001. Cost/risk Optimization. The Woodhouse Partnership Ltd.