G Model

RECYCL-3322; No. of Pages 12 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Resources, Conservation and Recycling xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

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

Full length article

LCA comparison of traditional open cut and pipe bursting systems for
relining water pipelines
Andrea Loss, Sara Toniolo, Anna Mazzi, Alessandro Manzardo, Antonio Scipioni ∗
CESQA University of Padua, Department of Industrial Engineering, Via Marzolo 9, 35131 Padua, Italy

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

Article history: Water supply pipelines in urban areas need to be relined every few decades. Recently, new trenchless
Received 24 March 2016 technologies have emerged that are more cost-effective than traditional open cut systems. Among the
Received in revised form 28 June 2016 new technologies, the pipe bursting technique has been used the most. A life cycle assessment (LCA)
Accepted 1 August 2016
environmental impact analysis has not yet been performed to compare the traditional relining system
Available online xxx
and the no-dig techniques. This paper presents a comparative LCA of the traditional and the pipe bursting
relining systems. The analysis considered two different pipes diameters (DN200 mm and DN500 mm)
Keywords:
and two different pipe materials that must be replaced (asbestos cement and pig iron). To determine the
Water pipeline relining
Life cycle assessment
eco-profile of the alternatives, the ReCiPe 2008 H/H Europe impact assessment method was applied and
Pipe bursting integrated with three new inventory indicators related to asbestos and pig iron dispersion in the air and
Trenchless soil to overcome the lack of specific impact assessment methods. The results demonstrate that the pipe
Urban infrastructures bursting technology generates lower environmental impacts in most of the impact categories. The gap
Urban area between the environmental performances of the two technologies increases with increasing diameter of
Asbestos cement the replaced pipe. For the same pipe diameter, the impacts are higher for the asbestos cement pipe than
the pig iron pipe for both relining systems.
© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction congestion has increased, making traditional open cut construction

In many developed countries, the engineered urban water
supply infrastructure is in crisis due to various factors, such as
increasing urban populations and insufficient attention to main-
tenance and replacement planning (VanBriesen et al., 2014).
Moreover, many parts of the distribution systems are near their end
of life. Infrastructure reinvestment is inevitable and requires critical
decisions about the operations and processes that can be applied to
the technological renovation of urban infrastructure (VanBriesen
et al., 2014). Traditionally, underground pipe rehabilitation was
accomplished using an open cut method in which the old pipe is
totally removed and replaced with new pipe. This technique has
generally adverse impacts on the daily life and activities of peo-
ple and businesses around the rehabilitation project (Lueke and
Ariaratnam, 2001; Rameil, 2007); these adverse impacts include
breaking of the road paving (Fröling and Svanström, 2005), road
closures, traffic delays (Rameil, 2007; Chirulli, 2011), loss of access
to businesses and homes and undesirable noise and sight pollu-
tion (Rameil, 2007). Furthermore, with urbanization, underground
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: scipioni@unipd.it (A. Scipioni).
interventions more expensive and even impossible in some situa-
tions (Lueke and Ariaratnam, 2001). For these reasons, to face the
new challenges related to relining the urban pipeline network, new
technology solutions have been born in the last 20 years. In this
specific sector, the new trenchless solutions have become a popu-
lar and viable alternative to the traditional relining system (Lueke
and Ariaratnam, 2001). One of the most common technologies
for relining old pipe is the pipe bursting system (Zaneldin, 2007;
Bennett et al., 2011; Ariaratnam, 2011 and Ariaratnem et al., 2014),
especially because this system reduces the excavation process and
simultaneously allows the installation of larger diameter pipes,
increasing the water pipeline capacity and addressing increased
urban water consumption. In fact, this technique permits replacing
a portion of tubing through the creation of two pits: the traction
pit and the insertion pit. The new pipe is anchored to the burst-
ing head that is pulled through the host pipe from the insertion
pit to the traction pit. The old pipe is broken into fragments that
remain in the soil (Simicevic and Sterling, 2001; ISTT, 2011; Chirulli,
2011). The comparison and analysis of the advantages and disad-
vantages between the traditional and the pipe bursting relining
systems have been fully explored economically and logistically
(Lueke and Ariaratnam, 2001; Rameil, 2007; Chirulli, 2011) but
not environmentally (Bottero and Peila, 2005). In fact, the no-dig

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.08.001
0921-3449/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Loss, A., et al., LCA comparison of traditional open cut and pipe bursting systems for relining water
pipelines. Resour Conserv Recy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.08.001
G Model
RECYCL-3322; No. of Pages 12 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 A. Loss et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
relining systems are often presented as more environmentally sus-
tainable (Ariaratnam, 2011), but this assertion is limited to certain
environmental aspects such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
(Ariaratnem and Sihabuddin, 2009; Sihabuddin and Ariaratnam
et al., 2009) and limited construction activities without a life cycle
perspective (Ariaratnam, 2011).
The life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology (ISO, 2006a,b) is an
effective tool to compare different products or services and identify
their impacts on the environment (Clune and Lockrey, 2014; Russo
and Rizzi, 2014). In the LCA scientific literature, there are no studies
on trenchless pipe bursting technology, only a few studies on the
traditional system of pipe relining, and no studies comparing the
two relining techniques. The available studies examine the creation
of a new pipe network using the open cut trench method. Most of
the studies consider the new pipe network in a qualitative way and
do not focus on the trench construction stage (Windsperger et al.,
1999), often introducing estimates and not using primary data (Fei
et al., 2012). Other studies that are more detailed with regard to the
construction stage consider the fuel consumption, landfill disposal
of the excavated materials and the production of the backfill mate-
rials including the transport operations (Fröling and Svanström,
2005; Perzon et al., 2007). However, these studies focus only on
specific environmental impact categories and exclude some envi-
ronmental aspects related to water consumption, human toxicity,
particulate matter formation and others from the assessment.
In the present paper, the environmental impacts of the pipe
relining operations conducted using the traditional system and the
pipe bursting technique are considered. This research aims to quan-
tify and compare the environmental impacts of these two relining
systems using the LCA methodology to extend the analysis to all
of the environmental impact categories beyond just the GHG emis-
sions and include all of the life cycle stages, not just the construction
site activities. To enlarge the comparative framework of the two
relining systems, relative to the old replaced pipes, two different
materials and two different diameters are considered. This research
also aims to characterize the contributions of the construction site
activities for both of the relining systems.
2. Materials and methods
This research applies the LCA methodology to the comparative
evaluation of the environmental impacts of two alternative tech-
Fig. 1. Description of system boundaries and construction site.
Please cite this article in press as: Loss, A., et al., LCA comparison of traditional open cut and pipe bursting systems for relining water
pipelines. Resour Conserv Recy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.08.001
niques for relining old pipelines: the traditional relining system
and the pipe bursting relining system. Different typologies of pipe
bursting exist, and this study focuses on the static pipe bursting
system (Atalah et al., 1997). The LCA methodology was applied fol-
lowing the requirements of ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044:2006.
The life cycle modelling used the SimaPro 7.3.2 software and the
primary data integrated with the Ecoinvent v2.2 databases. The
chosen research method is a specific case study in northeast Italy
in the first months of the year 2014. The case study examines a
leading Italian company in the field of relining piping subservient
to network services with no-dig technologies. The study considers
the urban context where the open cut trenching operations often
result in high user costs (McKim, 1997; Arends et al., 2004). In the
first part of the study, multiple life cycle analyses were performed to
compare the environmental performance in different cases charac-
terized by different project parameters (Piratla et al., 2012), such as
the diameter of the new pipe and the material of the old pipe. In the
second part of the study, the most impactful processes were investi-
gated for both of the two relining systems. Finally, three sensitivity
analyses were performed (ISO, 2006a) to assess the variations in the
results regarding the soil end of life modelling, the impact assess-
ment method and relining a gas pipeline instead of a water pipeline.
Furthermore, an uncertainty analysis was performed for each envi-
ronmental performance comparison to quantify the uncertainty
introduced in the results of a life cycle inventory analysis due to
the cumulative effects of model imprecision, input uncertainty and
variability (ISO, 2006a).
2.1. Goal and scope
The goal of the study was to compare the environmental impacts
associated with the life cycle effects of replacing a linear water
pipeline built using the traditional system and the pipe bursting
system. The time horizon was assumed to be 50 years (Fei et al.,
2012). The functional unit is the substitution of 150 m of rectilinear
pipeline. A rectilinear pipeline with a maximum curvature of 3–4◦
every 70 cm of pipeline was assumed because static pipe bursting
is not applicable for higher curvatures (Rameil, 2007).
The life cycle stages of new plastic pipe production, transporta-
tion and the end of life stage are included in the system boundaries,
as shown in Fig. 1, which represents the most relevant stages.
The usage and maintenance stage is excluded because it is the
G Model
RECYCL-3322; No. of Pages 12 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Loss et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 3

Fig. 2. Main stages that characterize the traditional relining system.

same for both of the relining systems and is outside the scope of
this study (Sanjuan et al., 2014). In addition, this study focuses on
pipe relining to clearly visualize the variations in the environmen-
tal impacts from only different relining techniques; therefore, the
future replacement of the new plastic pipes is excluded (Sanjuan
et al., 2014). The definition of the system boundaries includes the
following inputs: the new plastic pipes, water, auxiliary materials,
energy consumption, backfill materials and asphalt for the pave-
ment restoration. For the outputs, all of the generated wastes are
analyzed: the excavated materials, old pipe segments, wastewater
and air and soil emissions. The transport processes were consid-
ered for all of the material fluxes in both the inputs and outputs to
the system boundaries.
All of the phases of the relining process considered inside
the system boundaries are included for both relining systems in
Figs. 2 and 3. The pipe laying stage is often excluded or consid-
ered in a simplified way (Windsperger et al., 1999). However, in
this study, to achieve a comprehensive evaluation framework for
the LCA comparison of the two relining systems, a fully detailed
analysis of the pipe laying stages was performed (Ariaratnem and
Sihabuddin, 2009; Ariaratnam, 2011). All of the energy and mate-
rial inputs and outputs were included, including the production and
transportation processes of the input materials and the transporta-
tion and disposal processes of the output waste materials.
Old pipes made of pig iron and asbestos cement were considered
because they are the most common materials (Ariaratnem et al.,
2014) for water pipe networks built immediately after the second
world war (VanBriesen et al., 2014). These two materials are also
very common in Italy (ARPA Veneto, 2010). The two different pipe
diameters considered are DN200 mm and DN500 mm. The diame-
ter DN200 mm is more frequently replaced (Ariaratnem et al., 2014;
Italian Leading Company, 2014). The diameter DN500 mm is often
the upper technical limit of applicability of the pipe bursting system
(Rameil, 2007). All of the possible combinations between the two
techniques, the two old pipe materials and the two old pipe diam-
eters were studied for a total of eight different life cycles for four
comparisons of the environmental performance of the two relining
techniques (Table 1).
2.2. Inventory data
The comparison of the two relining techniques required the col-
lection of the primary data for each process of the two relining
systems. Furthermore, the data collection phase involved eight dif-

Please cite this article in press as: Loss, A., et al., LCA comparison of traditional open cut and pipe bursting systems for relining water
pipelines. Resour Conserv Recy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.08.001
G Model
RECYCL-3322; No. of Pages 12 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 A. Loss et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Fig. 3. Main stages that characterize the pipe bursting relining system.

ferent life cycles for the two techniques, two materials and two an old DN200 pipe because no users are usually connected along
diameters (Table 1). the DN500 pipe. Relining the DN500 pipe requires the creation of
Based on the two detailed flow diagrams of the two relining a dedicated small trench.
systems (Figs. 2 and 3), the data were collected for each material The excavation and backfill operations are carried out using a
and energy flux for the different processes. All of the data regard- medium diesel digger, while the lifting and laying of the pipes and
ing the construction site activities was primary data; the data were the pull machine are carried out using a diesel truck-crane. The
collected through construction site visits and interviews with the electricity consumed by the machines and by the other electric
workers. The Ecoinvent database v2.2 (Frischknecht et al., 2005) tools (equipment) is provided by 2 generators, one diesel powered
were used for the processes for which collecting primary data was (generator A) and one petrol powered (generator B). The fuel con-
not possible, such as the pipe production, waste disposal and trans- sumption for the traditional relining system is reported in Table 3,
port processes that characterize the input and output fluxes to the while Table 4 reports the fuel consumption for the pipe bursting
construction site where the old pipe is replaced. relining technique. In the case of both relining systems, the fuel
Three different types of pipes are used during relining opera- consumption varies with the diameter of the old pipe; the material
tions: the new pipe that will replace the old pipe, the bypass pipe of the old pipe does not influence the fuel consumption.
that serves the users during the replacement operations and the In addition to the fuel consumption due to the use of the digger
reconnection pipe that connects the users to the new pipe (Table 2). and the generators, the oil consumption and the direct air emissions
The bypass and the reconnection pipes are used only for relining produced from the fuel combustion were also considered.
The two relining techniques generate very different quantities
of excavated materials during the digging operations, causing dif-
Table 1
Synthesis of the life cycle analysis and the life cycle comparisons conducted.
ferent requests of backfill materials and asphalt for the pavement
restoration, as reported in Table 5.
Diameter Materials Relining technique None of the excavated urban materials can be used for the back-
200 mm Asbestos Cement Traditional system fill operations due to a legal restriction and must be transported to
Pipe Bursting a landfill by heavy trucks. In fact, urban soil is often characterized
200 mm Pig Iron Traditional system by high concentrations of pollutants (Nannoni et al., 2014). Differ-
Pipe Bursting ent landfill disposal scenarios were used for the excavated asphalt
500 mm Asbestos cement Traditional system earth. The backfill operations were conducted by creating a layer
Pipe Bursting of sand that cushions the stresses during the usage stage, a layer
500 mm Traditional system
of gravel that fills the rest of the excavation and asphalt pavement.
Pig Iron
Pipe Bursting

Please cite this article in press as: Loss, A., et al., LCA comparison of traditional open cut and pipe bursting systems for relining water
pipelines. Resour Conserv Recy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.08.001
G Model
RECYCL-3322; No. of Pages 12 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Loss et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 5

Table 2
Characteristics of the pipes used during the relining operations (both relining techniques) (Primary data).

Elements DN200 DN500

Material Mass (kg) Number of pieces Material Mass (kg) Number of pieces

New pipe HDPE 8,9 25 HDPE 44,26 25

Bypass pipe HDPE 2,2 25 – – –
Reconnection pipes HDPE 0,67 10 – – –

Table 3
Fuel consumption data of the processes characterizing the traditional relining system (Primary data).

Traditional system process stages Fuel consumption (liters) DN200 Fuel consumption (liters) DN500 Unit type

Creating the bypass 160 – Digger

Purifying the bypass pipe – – –
Excavating the trench 200 800 Digger
Cutting the old pipe – – Manual
Removing the cut segments 40 80 Truck-crane
Heat sealing the new HDPE pipes 60 250 Generators A
Laying the new pipes 100 200 Digger
Testing (gas case) 5 20 Generators A
Testing (water case) 10 30 Generators A
Reconnecting the users – – Manual
Purifying the new pipe – – –
Backfilling and restoring pavement 200 800 Digger
Total fuel consumption 775 2180 –

Table 4
Fuel consumption data of the processes characterizing the pipe bursting relining system (Primary data).

Pipe bursting technique process stages Fuel consumption (liters) DN200 Fuel consumption (liters) DN500 Unit type

Creating the bypass 160 – Digger

Purifying the bypass pipe – – –
Excavating the threading pit 40 150 Digger
Excavating the pull pit 40 150 Digger
Cutting the old pipes’ heads – – Manual
Positioning the pull machine 5 20 Truck-crane
Threading the pull elements 15 25 Truck-crane
Mounting the grinding tool 5 25 Truck-crane
Heat sealing the new HDPE pipes 60 250 Generators A
Hooking the new pipe-grinding tool – – Manual
Traction 25 300 Generators B
Dismantling equipment 5 50 Truck-crane
Testing (gas case) 5 20 Generators A
Testing (water case) 10 30 Generators A
Purifying the new pipe – – –
Backfilling and restoring pavement 160 300 Digger
Total fuel consumption 530 1320 –

Table 5
Quantities of materials excavated during the digging operations and the materials used during the backfill and pavement restoration operations (both relining techniques)
(Primary data).

Operations Materials Bypass Trench Pull pit Threading pit

DN200 DN500 DN200 DN500 DN200 DN500 DN200 DN500

Digging operations Earth and rock (kg) 19326 – 256500 570000 21375 38000 21375 38000
Asphalt (kg) 13000 – 11700 19500 975 1300 975 1300
Backfill and pavement restoration Gravel (kg) 15800 – 209700 477000 17475 31800 17475 31800
Sand (kg) 8500 – 76500 255000 6375 17000 6375 17000
Asphalt (kg) 13000 – 11700 19500 975 1300 975 1300

The asphalt was produced at the construction site by mixing 63%
sand, 22% gravel, 9% limestone and 6% bitumen.
Auxiliary materials were used for different purposes. For old
pipes made of asbestos cement, the pipe surface is treated with a
chemical resin with an encapsulation action that prevents the air-
borne dispersal of asbestos fibers. The pipes that are treated with
the surface chemical are wrapped with a nylon film. Tap water
and sodium hypochlorite were used for the hygienic treatment that
the water pipeline undergoes before being connected to the main
pipe network. The mass consumption of each auxiliary material is
reported in Table 6.
The construction site activities produce various minor fluxes
of waste materials related to the packaging of the materials used
during the relining processes, such as PVC straps for the pipes, con-
tainers for the chemical additive used for the surface treatment
of the asbestos cement and cardboard boxes for the reconnection
pipes. Some of these materials are transported with wooden pal-
lets. A reutilization factor of 20 was used to calculate the mass of
disposed wooden pallets (Gasol et al., 2008). All of these materials
were considered.
For each waste materials a specific disposal scenario was con-
sidered, as reported in Table 7. During the relining operations, the

Please cite this article in press as: Loss, A., et al., LCA comparison of traditional open cut and pipe bursting systems for relining water
pipelines. Resour Conserv Recy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.08.001
G Model
RECYCL-3322; No. of Pages 12 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 A. Loss et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Table 6
Consumption of auxiliary materials (Primary data).

Auxiliary materials Process Traditional system Pipe bursting

Mass (kg) DN200 Mass (kg) DN500 Mass (kg) DN200 Mass (kg) DN500

Resin based chemical additive Asbestos cement surface treatment 22,5 113 3 7,5
Nylon Asbestos cement encapsulation 37,5 180 5 12,5
NaClO Pipes purification 0,451 1,8 0,451 1,8
Tap water Pipes purification 5,73E3 2,29E4 5,73E3 2,29E4

Table 7
Disposal scenarios for the different waste material fluxes produced by the road construction site (both relining techniques).

Materials Source Landfill Incineration Recovery

Treated asbestos cement pipe segments Primary data 100% – –

Pig iron pipe segments Primary data – – 100%
Excavated soil materials Primary data 100% – –
PVC ISPRA (2014) 29,6% 35,9% 34,5%
PET ISPRA (2014) 61,6% 19,5% 18,9%
Cardboard ISPRA (2014) 79,5% 8,0% 12,5%
Wooded pallet ISPRA (2014) – 40% 60%
HDPE ISPRA (2014) 5% 45% 50%

old pipe was completely removed in the case of the traditional sys-
tem and partially removed in the case of the pipe bursting system.
The segments of old asbestos cement pipe that have undergone the
inerting surface treatment, according to Italian environmental law
(Decreto Legislativo n.152, 2006), are disposed of in the landfill as
an inert waste (code CER 170605). If the replaced pipe is pig iron,
the removed pipe was sent to the recovery process. The information
regarding the disposal scenarios of the old pipes and the excavated
materials is primary data; the other information is secondary.
In the case of the pipe bursting technique, the rest of the pipe
remains in the soil in the form of fragments. The mass of the under-
ground deposition is the difference between the total pipe mass and
the mass of the removed pipe. Table 8 reports the masses of the old
pipes removed and the masses of pipes that remain in the soil in
the form of fragments for the two relining systems.
Primary data were collected regarding each transport process
of the materials that are used in the road construction site and
for the transportation of all of the wastes generated. This informa-
tion regards the vehicle typology, the euro class, the vehicle size
and the travelled distance. The transportation of the workers was
considered negligible according to Fröling and Svanström (2005).
2.3. Impact assessment
The ReCiPe 2008 H/H Europe (Goedkoop et al., 2013) method
was selected for impact characterization at the midpoint level. The
impact assessment was conducted until the classification step. The
impact was not normalized or weighted, as these phases introduce
subjective values (Reap et al., 2008).
Particular attention was paid to the underground deposition of
pipe fragments, which was modelled as a soil emission. In fact,
the ReCiPe 2008 H/H Europe impact assessment method does not
attribute impacts to the soil emissions determined from pig iron or
asbestos cement pipe fragments. Furthermore, no impact assess-
ment method for exists asbestos emissions in terrain, air or water.
This limitation did not allow for assessing the impacts associated
with this key aspect that distinguishes the two relining systems.
To achieve a more precise and transparent comparison of the two
relining systems, the assessment includes three inventory indica-
tors that count the air dispersion of the asbestos fibers and the
underground deposition of the asbestos cement or pig iron pipe
fragments based on mass. The “Asbestos C., soil” and “Pig iron, soil”
inventory indicators measure the underground deposition entity
associated with the soil emission as the total mass of asbestos
cement or pig iron that remains in the soil. The soil emissions were
evaluated using the data reported in Table 8. Another important
aspect is the quantity of airborne asbestos fibers generated from
the cutting processes, which were measured with the inventory
indicator “Asbestos, air.” The calculation was performed consider-
ing the air volumes affected by the dispersion of asbestos fibers, and
the relative concentration of fibers was determined through spe-
cific instrumental analysis. The work areas where the pipe was cut
were delimited to avoid the fibers being transported by the wind.
These delimitations were arranged according to the construction
site operations at a distance of 2 m from the edge of the excavation
and a height of 2 m above the countryside plane. The instrumental
analysis of the air gave a result of 3.1 fibers/liter, which is much
lower than the legal limit of 20 fibers/l. To calculate the total mass
of the airborne asbestos fibers, a factor of 0.003 ␮g asbestos = 100
asbestos fibers was used, which was derived from the U.S. EPA
(1986).
Three sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the influ-
ence of the modelling choices and to consolidate the study results:
• Different disposal scenarios for the excavated soil: In the base
case, the soil was deposited in a sanitary landfill; the Ecoinvent
data entry closest to the most likely destination for the urban
excavated soil characterized by high concentrations of pollutants
such as Cd, Cu, Pb, Sb and Zn that derived mainly from vehic-
ular traffic was “Disposal, inert material, 0% water, to sanitary
landfill/CH S” (Nannoni et al., 2014). In this sensitivity analysis,
a sanitary landfill was replaced with an inert landfill (Disposal,
inert waste, 5% water, to inert landfill/CH);
• Different impact assessment methods: In this sensitivity analysis,
the IMPACT 2002+ method (Humbert et al., 2014) was used for
the impact assessment stage.
• Replacement of a gas pipeline instead of a water pipeline: The
base case considers the replacement of water pipeline; this sen-
sitivity analysis assesses the variation of the results for replacing
a gas pipeline.
The uncertainty analysis was performed using Monte Carlo anal-
ysis as a casual sampling method (Weidema and Wesnaes, 1996;
Steen, 1997; Heijungs et al., 2005) to verify the effects on the results.
All of the processes with a relative impact greater than 1% at the
level of characterization were included in the uncertainty analysis,
and a stop criteria of 1000 interactions was used.

Please cite this article in press as: Loss, A., et al., LCA comparison of traditional open cut and pipe bursting systems for relining water
pipelines. Resour Conserv Recy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.08.001
G Model
RECYCL-3322; No. of Pages 12 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Loss et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Table 8
Data on the mass of old pipe removed for both relining systems (Primary data).
Elements Traditional
Mass (kg) DN200
Removed asbestos cement(kg) 3750
Removed pig iron(kg) 5070
Underground deposit of asbestos cement – –
Underground deposit of pig iron – –
3. Results
3.1. Contribution analysis
Table 9 shows the impact assessment results for each life cycle
reported in Table 1 in absolute terms. Table 11 shows the results of
the comparisons between the Pipe Bursting technique and the tra-
ditional relining system (relative terms). Tables 10 and 12 report
the inventory indicators in absolute and percentage terms. All of
the impact categories were used to give a full framework for the
comparison and interpretation of the results including the three
inventory indicators related to asbestos cement and pig iron under-
ground deposition and to the asbestos air dispersion.
In all four comparisons, the pipe bursting system showed
smaller impacts than the traditional system in almost all of the
impact categories. However, for the asbestos cement pipe case,
the pipe bursting technique generated impacts for the “Asbestos
Cement, soil” indicator, while the traditional system did not
because the latter completely removes the old pipe. The same con-
sideration can be performed for the “Pig iron, soil” indicator for
the pig iron pipe case. The difference in the environmental per-
formance of the two relining systems increases from the DN200
pipe to the DN500 pipe regardless of the old pipe material. The tra-
ditional system involves the most impacts for the “Asbestos, air”
indicator because this system involves more cut operations than
the pipe bursting system. Both of the relining techniques generate
lower environmental impacts for the DN200 pipes than the DN500
pipes because the fuel consumption, the excavated materials and
the refilling materials decrease. This behavior of the environmental
impacts is in accordance with the findings of Fei et al. (2012). To
identify the more impactful processes that characterize each relin-
ing system, the processes have been grouped as shown in Table 13.
The processes have been aggregated so that no important informa-
tion is lost.
Figs. 4 and 5 show the group analysis results for both relining
systems for relining an asbestos cement pipe with DN500, which
was selected as the representative case study.
Fig. 4 shows that the most impactful stages are the excava-
tion operation and the backfill operation. In fact, most of the
impacts from the excavation stage were generated from dispos-
ing of the excavated materials at the sanitary landfill and from the
fuel consumption. The disposal of the excavated earth is especially
relevant for the “Human toxicity,” “Ionising radiation,” “Freshwa-
ter eutrophication,” “Freshwater ecotoxicity,” “Marine ecotoxicity,”
“Urban land occupation,” “Natural land transformation” and “Metal
depletion” categories. The asphalt disposal to the landfill is the most
impactful process in the “Marine eutrophication” category. The fuel
consumption for the excavation process is relevant for the “Photo-
chemical oxidant formation,” “Particulate matter formation” and
“Terrestrial acidification” categories. The environmental impacts
of the backfill stage are related to the request of refilling materials.
The main sources of these impacts are the processes of the gravel
and sand mineral extraction and the asphalt production, and the
most influenced categories are “Water depletion,” “Ozone deple-
tion,” “Agricultural land occupation” and “Fossil depletion.” The
transport operations of the backfill materials and of the excavated
Please cite this article in press as: Loss, A., et al., LCA comparison of traditional open cut and pipe bursting systems for relining water
pipelines. Resour Conserv Recy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.08.001
7
Pipe bursting
Mass (kg) DN500 Mass (kg) DN200 Mass (kg) DN500
19650 500 1310
17400 676 1160
3250 18340
4394 16240
materials have small impacts. Therefore, an important measure for
reducing the environmental impacts of a relining pipe operation is
to minimize the excavation work. In reference to the “Natural land
transformation” category, the results are strongly related to the
ReCiPe 2008 H/H Europe method that gives greater impact avoided
to the greater volume of soil disposed of in a landfill. No impacts for
the bypass creation are shown because the bypass is not installed
for relining a DN500 pipe. The inventory indicator “Asbestos C, soil”
has no impact because the entire pipe is removed and taken to the
landfill after the stabilization surface treatment. Instead, the impact
on the “Asbestos, air” is the result of cutting the pipe into segments.
The cutting operations produce small impacts on almost all of the
categories due to the subsequent stabilization surface treatment.
The impacts of the new HDPE pipe, considering the production and
the transport of the pipe, are small. Both of the impacts of the lay-
ing process are small because the relative fuel consumption is small.
Finally, the end of life of the new HDPE pipe is the stage with the
smallest contribution.
In the case of the pipe bursting technique, the most impact-
ful stages are the excavation of the threading and pull pits and
the relative backfill operations (Fig. 5). The excavation and backfill
operations are very impactful in the same categories as determined
for the traditional relining system. Fig. 5 shows that laying the new
pipe is relevant because the fuel consumption is higher, especially
for the traction stage. Laying the new pipe produces an impact for
the “Asbestos C, soil” category because during this stage the old pipe
is crushed and the fragments remain in the soil. The “Asbestos, air”
category presented the impact generated from cutting the pipes’
heads; this stage does not produce relevant impacts in the other
categories because the stabilization surface treatment is performed
only for the cutting heads. The new HDPE pipe has higher relative
impacts than that of the traditional relining system. The other six
life cycles analyzed present similar impact distributions.
3.2. Sensitivity analysis
In the first sensitivity analysis, the sanitary landfill was replaced
with an inert landfill. The inert landfill presents smaller environ-
mental impacts, especially with regard to the impact categories of
“Human toxicity,” “Freshwater ecotoxicity,” “Marine ecotoxicity”
and “Urban land occupation.” In fact, a sanitary landfill requires
more resources for drainage, geotextiles and treatment of leaching
water; the increased control over the waste causes more environ-
mental impacts (Suer and Andersson-Sköld, 2011). The increased
control is related to higher concentrations of metallic pollutants
such as nickel, manganese, arsenic and zinc. The traditional relin-
ing system was more environmentally costly than the pipe bursting
relining system (see Table S1 in Supporting materials (SM)). The
second sensitivity analysis assessed the sensitivity of the results
to the impact assessment method. Using the impact assessment
method “IMPACT 2002+,” the results reported in Table S2 (see SM)
show that the pipe bursting technique generates lower impacts for
all of the impact categories than the traditional relining system. The
third sensitivity analysis assessed the variation of the environmen-
tal impacts when replacing a pipeline that transports gas instead
of water. In this case, the pipe bursting technique showed the best
G Model
RECYCL-3322; No. of Pages 12 ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 A. Loss et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Table 9
Impact assessment results at the midpoint level for the eight life cycles studied (absolute results).

Impact Categories Units Traditional system Pipe Bursting technique

Asbestos Cement Pig Iron Asbestos Cement Pig Iron

DN200 DN500 DN200 DN500 DN200 DN500 DN200 DN500

Climate Change kg CO2 eq 1,29E + 04 2,71E + 04 1,23E + 04 2,44E + 04 6,00E+ 03 9,46E + 03 5,93E + 03 9,28E + 03
Ozone depletion kg CFC-11 eq 2,56E-03 4,22E-03 2,55E-03 4,13E-03 1,15E-03 1,02E-03 1,15E-03 1,01E-03
Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 5,58E + 04 1,18E + 05 5,50E + 04 1,14E + 05 1,29E + 04 1,63E + 04 1,28E + 04 1,60E + 04
Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC 1,12E + 02 2,35E + 02 1,09E + 02 2,25E + 02 5,11E + 01 8,35E + 01 5,09E + 01 8,28E + 01
Particulate matter formation kg PM10 eq 3,34E + 01 7,05E + 01 3,27E + 01 6,72E + 01 1,57E + 01 2,62E + 01 1,56E + 01 2,60E + 01
Ionising radiation kg U235 eq 1,45E + 03 2,76E + 03 1,42E + 03 2,63E + 03 6,02E + 02 7,75E + 02 5,99E + 02 7,66E + 02
Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq 7,50E + 01 1,56E + 02 7,31E + 01 1,47E + 02 3,55E + 01 5,74E + 01 3,53E + 01 5,67E + 01
Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 1,90E + 00 3,90E + 00 1,86E + 00 3,68E + 00 7,83E-01 1,17E + 00 7,77E-01 1,16E + 00
Marine eutrophication kg N eq 1,09E + 01 1,56E + 01 1,05E + 01 1,36E + 01 5,92E + 00 4,34E + 00 5,87E + 00 4,20E + 00
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 1,77E + 00 2,95E + 00 1,75E + 00 2,82E + 00 8,60E-01 8,38E-01 8,57E-01 8,29E-01
Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 1,12E + 03 2,34E + 03 1,10E + 03 2,26E 2,73E + 02 3,54E + 02 2,71E + 02 3,49E + 02
Marine ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 1,06E + 03 2,22E + 03 1,05E + 03 2,15E + 03 2,62E + 02 3,40E + 02 2,60E + 02 3,35E + 02
Agricultural land occupation m2*year 4,42E + 02 4,86E + 02 4,34E + 02 4,47E + 02 3,01E + 02 1,68E + 02 3,00E + 02 1,65E + 02
Urban land occupation m2*year 1,31E + 03 2,59E + 03 1,30E + 03 2,51E + 03 3,52E + 02 3,59E + 02 3,50E + 02 3,54E + 02
Natural land occupation m2 −5,91E + 00 −1,52E + 01 −5,75E + 00 −1,43E + 01 2,92E-01 −2,67E-01 3,13E-01 −2,12E-01
Water depletion m3 4,69E + 02 9,46E + 02 4,66E + 02 9,35E + 02 1,35E + 02 1,64E + 02 1,34E + 02 1,63E + 02
Metal depletion kg Fe eq 9,11E + 02 1,97E + 03 9,06E + 02 1,94E + 03 4,35E + 02 7,38E + 02 4,34E + 02 7,36E + 02
Fossil depletion kg oil eq 7,20E + 03 1,34E + 04 7,00E + 03 1,24E + 04 3,55E + 03 4,72E + 03 3,52E + 03 4,65E + 03

Table 10
Inventory indicators results for the eight life cycles studied (absolute results).

Inventory indicators Units Traditional system Pipe Bursting technique

Asbestos Cement Pig Iron Asbestos Cement Pig Iron

DN200 DN500 DN200 DN500 DN200 DN500 DN200 DN500

Asbestos, air kg asbestos 2,17E-07 2,79E-07 0,00E + 00 0,00E + 00 1,32E-07 4,59E-08 0,00E + 00 0,00E + 00
Asbestos C., soil kg asbestos C. 0,00E + 00 0,00E + 00 0,00E + 00 0,00E + 00 3,25E + 03 1,83E + 04 0,00E + 00 0,00E + 00
Pig iron, soil kg pig iron 0,00E + 00 0,00E + 00 0,00E + 00 0,00E + 00 0,00E + 00 0,00E + 00 4,39E + 03 1,62E + 04

Table 11
Impact assessment results at the midpoint level for the four life cycles comparisons (relative results) Pipe Bursting technique vs Traditional system).

Impact Categories Units Pipe Bursting technique vs Traditional system

Asbestos Cement Pig Iron

DN200 DN500 DN200 DN500

Climate Change % −53,5% −65,1% −51,8% −62,0%

Ozone depletion % −55,1% −75,8% −54,9% −75,5%
Human toxicity % −76,9% −86,2% −76,7% −86,0%
Photochemical oxidant formation % −54,4% −64,5% −53,3% −63,2%
Particulate matter formation % −53,0% −62,8% −52,3% −61,3%
Ionising radiation % −58,5% −71,9% −57,8% −70,9%
Terrestrial acidification % −52,7% −63,2% −51,7% −61,4%
Freshwater eutrophication % −58,8% −70,0% −58,2% −68,5%
Marine eutrophication % −45,7% −72,2% −44,1% −69,1%
Terrestrial ecotoxicity % −51,4% −71,6% −51,0% −70,6%
Freshwater ecotoxicity % −75,6% −84,9% −75,4% −84,6%
Marine ecotoxicity % −75,3% −84,7% −75,2% −84,4%
Agricultural land occupation % −31,9% −65,4% −30,9% −63,1%
Urban land occupation % −73,1% −86,1% −73,1% −85,9%
Natural land occupation % −104,9% −98,2% −105,4% −98,5%
Water depletion % −71,2% −82,7% −71,2% −82,6%
Metal depletion % −52,3% −62,5% −52,1% −62,1%
Fossil depletion % −50,7% −64,8% −49,7% −62,5%

Table 12
Inventory indicators results for the four life cycles comparisons (relative results) Pipe Bursting technique vs Traditional system).

Inventory Indicators Units Pipe Bursting technique vs Traditional system

Asbestos Cement Pig Iron

DN200 DN500 DN200 DN500

Asbestos, air % −39,2% −83,5% Not applicable Not applicable

Asbestos C., soil % 100,0% 100,0% Not applicable Not applicable
Pig iron, soil % Not applicable Not applicable 100,0% 100,0%

Please cite this article in press as: Loss, A., et al., LCA comparison of traditional open cut and pipe bursting systems for relining water
pipelines. Resour Conserv Recy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.08.001
G Model
RECYCL-3322; No. of Pages 12 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Loss et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 9

Table 13
Definition of the groups of processes utilized for the impact assessment LCA stage.

Traditional system processes Pipe bursting technique processes Defined group

Creating the bypass Creating the bypass Bypass creation

Purifying the bypass pipe Purifying the bypass pipe
Heat sealing the new HDPE pipes Heat sealing the new HDPE pipes New plastic pipe heat sealing
Excavating the trench Excavating the threading pit Excavation
Excavating the pull pit
Cutting the old pipe Cutting the old pipes’ heads Old pipe removal
Removing the cut segments Removing the cut segments
Laying the new pipes Positioning the pull machine New plastic pipe laying
Threading the pull elements
Mounting the grinding tool
Hooking the new pipe-grinding tool
Traction
Dismantling the equipment
Testing (gas case) Testing (gas case) Services restoration
Testing (water case) Testing (water case)
Reconnecting the users Reconnecting the users
Purifying the new pipe Purifying the new pipe
Backfilling and restoring pavement Backfilling and restoring pavement Backfilling
Disposing of the new plastic pipe Disposing of the new plastic pipe New plastic pipe end of life

Fig. 4. LCA results for the traditional system of relining an asbestos cement DN500 water pipeline.

environmental performance in all of the impact categories. Com-
pared to replacing a water pipeline, the water depletion category
was the only category that showed a significant variation produced
by not using water for the final purification stage (see Table 3 in SM).
3.3. Uncertainty analysis
The uncertainty analysis was performed using the Monte Carlo
method considering the base case of the relining of a water pipeline
for all four comparative cases, and the statistical results are given

Please cite this article in press as: Loss, A., et al., LCA comparison of traditional open cut and pipe bursting systems for relining water
pipelines. Resour Conserv Recy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.08.001
G Model
RECYCL-3322; No. of Pages 12 ARTICLE IN PRESS
10 A. Loss et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Fig. 5. LCA results for the pipe bursting technique of relining an asbestos cement DN500 water pipeline.
in Table S4 of the Supporting materials. The results of uncertainty
analysis show the probability that the traditional system gener-
ates more environmental impacts than the pipe bursting system
for each impact categories with a 95% confidence interval. In fact,
as shown in Table S4 the Pipe Bursting generates less environmen-
tal impacts than traditional relining system independently from
the pipe material and pipe dimeter except from the performance
in the impact category Natural Land Transformation. Results in
this specific impact category are influenced by the waste man-
agement practice adopted (landfilling of excavated materials). The
uncertainties associated with the data do not produce significant
uncertainty for the comparison results in the life cycle comparisons
performed. Therefore, it is possible to conclude that the results
obtained are robust.
4. Discussion
The results identified the traditional technique as more impact-
ful than the pipe bursting relining system in each category of the
ReCiPe 2008 H/H Europe Midpoint method. In these categories, the
pipe bursting method presented lower impacts than the traditional
relining system due to lower volumes of soil excavated and trans-
ported to the landfill, lower volumes of gravel and sand during the
backfill process and lower volumes of asphalt during the restoration
of the urban pavement. Moreover, the pipe bursting relining tech-
Please cite this article in press as: Loss, A., et al., LCA comparison of traditional open cut and pipe bursting systems for relining water
pipelines. Resour Conserv Recy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.08.001
nique requires less fuel consumption because there is less use of
the excavator for the excavation and backfill processes. The results
of the “Climate change” category confirm the results of other stud-
ies (Ariaratnam, 2011), specifically that the pipe bursting relining
technique generates lower GHG emissions. The process of exca-
vation is often very impactful due to the landfill disposal of the
earth and the fuel consumptions. The integration of the ReCiPe
2008 H/H Europe Midpoint method, with the introduction of the
“Asbestos, air,” “Asbestos C., soil” and “Pig iron, soil” inventory
indicators, highlighted two important differences between the two
relining techniques that the standard impact categories not would
have identified. In fact, the ReCiPe 2008 H/H Europe method does
not associate the impacts of the spread of asbestos to the ground
deposition of the asbestos cement or pig iron that occurs during
the traction stage of the pipe bursting relining technique. There-
fore, the “Asbestos C., soil” and “Pig iron, soil” inventory indicators
quantify the masses of asbestos cement and pig iron that remain
in the ground. Instead, the inventory indicator “Asbestos, air” esti-
mates and compares the mass of airborne asbestos fibers generated
from the cutting operations. The traditional system of relining does
not generate any impacts on the “Asbestos C., soil” and “Pig iron,
soil” categories because the pipe is completely removed. The con-
tributions relative to these inventory indicators were determined
during the traction stages for the laying the new HDPE pipe with
the pipe bursting system. The pipe bursting technique generates
G Model
RECYCL-3322; No. of Pages 12 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Loss et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
lower values of the “Asbestos, air” inventory indicator because it
provides only two cuts near the pipes’ heads, while the traditional
system requires cutting the pipe every 10 m. The contributions of
this inventory indicator were determined only from the cutting
stages. Considering two different diameters assessed the variation
of the results between the two extreme diameter values related
to the applicability of the pipe bursting technique. Considering two
different materials enlarged the results of these comparative analy-
ses. Considering the variation of old pipe material, the results show
the impacts are higher for the substitution of asbestos cement pipe
than for pig iron pipe for both relining systems. Regarding the vari-
ation of the substituted pipe diameter, the environmental impacts
generated by both relining systems increase with increasing diam-
eter. Furthermore, in a comparative perspective, the difference
between the two relining systems increases in favor of the pipe
bursting system with increasing diameter. In fact, the traditional
system is most affected by the increasing volumes of excavated
and backfill materials and increasing the related fuel consumption.
Obviously, in the case of relining a DN500 pipe with the pipe burst-
ing technique, the impacts on the “Asbestos C., soil” or “Pig iron,
soil” inventory indicators increase because of the increased mass of
pipe fragments deposited in the soil. The sensitivity analysis con-
firms that the dataset selected for modelling the landfill for the
excavated material associates more impacts with the “Human tox-
icity,” “Freshwater ecotoxicity” and “Marine ecotoxicity” categories
than the alternative dataset, but there are no relevant differences in
the impact comparison between the two relining techniques. Using
the IMPACT 2002+ assessment method, the impact comparison
between the two relining techniques does not change. Replacing
a gas pipeline varies the results only in the water depletion cate-
gory because water is not used for the final purification process.
Finally, the uncertainty analysis confirms the results of the impact
assessment stage regarding all of the impact categories. Regarding
the inventory indicators “Pig iron soil” and “Asbestos C. soil.” only
the pipe bursting technique provides any impact because only this
relining system produces the formation of an underground deposit.
5. Conclusions
The environmental performance of the pipe bursting and tra-
ditional relining systems were assessed and compared. While
the advantages and disadvantages of these two relining system
have been fully explored from the economically and logistically
in previous papers (Lueke and Ariaratnam, 2001; Rameil, 2007;
Chirulli, 2011), these systems have not been compared environ-
mentally (Bottero and Peila, 2005). LCA methodology has been
used to enlarge the comparative framework taking into account
different midpoint impact categories such as ozone depletion,
human toxicity and terrestrial acidification as well as the climate
change category from both Ariaratnem and Sihabuddin (2009)
and Sihabuddin and Ariaratnam (2009). Furthermore, the system
boundary has been defined in a life cycle perspective, including
such stages as pipe production, backfill material extraction and the
pipe end of life stage, and is not limited to only the construction
activities from (Ariaratnam, 2011). Taking into account two dif-
ferent materials and two different diameters allows assessing the
influence of these operative aspects on the environmental perfor-
mance of the two relining systems. The results of the comparative
LCA study shows that the pipe bursting technique presents smaller
impact than the traditional system of relining for all of the impact
categories of the ReCiPe 2008 H/H Europe method but produces
underground deposits of asbestos cement or pig iron. This find-
ing highlights that the ReCiPe 2008 H/H Europe method is not
able to associate impacts to deposits of these materials and that
they are not in the Ecoinvent datasets. Therefore, the integration of
Please cite this article in press as: Loss, A., et al., LCA comparison of traditional open cut and pipe bursting systems for relining water
pipelines. Resour Conserv Recy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.08.001
11
three inventory indicators of the ReCiPe 2008 H/H Europe method
underlines the aspects of the formation of underground deposits
produced only from the pipe bursting technique. However, it was
not possible to assess the impacts of these underground deposits;
it was only possible to quantify their entity on a mass base. In
the future, it will be interesting to develop a method to assess
the environmental impacts associated with these underground
deposits in agreement with the main development pathways iden-
tified by the scientific community, such as Rodriguez-Garcia et al.
(2014). Introduction the life cycle perspective and including the
production processes of the various materials used during relin-
ing could improve the completeness of the comparative analysis.
In fact, the impacts associated with some processes external to the
road construction site are relevant, such as the landfill disposal of
the excavated materials or the mineral extraction of the backfill
materials. This study focused on urban surroundings but the envi-
ronmental impact analysis could be expanded to the extra-urban
context without any asphalt and where some of the excavated
material might be left at the site and reused (Fröling and Svanström,
2005). Another development of this study could be to investigate
the indirect effects of the underground deposition of the old pipe,
especially in the case of the reclamation of asbestos cement piping.
In fact, in this case, future maintenance operations or the future
replacement of the new pipe through the traditional system will
require an eventual remediation of the soil that could change the
obtained results. Finally, future studies should integrate the envi-
ronmental impacts generated from the interactions between the
road construction site and the traffic.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found,
in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.
08.001.
References
ARPA Veneto, 2010. (Regional Agency for Environmental Prevention and
Protection of Veneto).
Arends, G., Bielecki, R., Castle, J., Drabek, S., Haack, A., Nedbal, F., Nordmark, A.,
Sterling, R., 2004. Risk budget management in progressing underground
works. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 19, 29–33.
Ariaratnam, T.S., 2011. Sustainable development through innovative underground
infrastructure construction practices. In: International Conference on
Structural Engineering Construction and Management, Zürich, Switzerland.
Ariaratnem, T.S., Sihabuddin, S.S., 2009. Comparison of emitted emissions between
trenchless pipe replacement and open cut utility construction. J. Green Build.
4, 126–140.
Ariaratnem, T.S., Lueke, S.J., Michael, K.J., 2014. Current trends in pipe bursting for
renewal of underground infrastructure systems in North America. Tunn.
Undergr. Space Technol. 39, 41–49.
Atalah, A., Sterling, R., Hadala, P., Akl, F., 1997. The Effect of Pipe Bursting on
Nearby Utilities, Pavement, and Structures, Trenchless Technology Center
Technical Report. Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, Louisiana.
Bennett, R.D., Ariaratnam, T.S., Wallin, K., 2011. Pipe Bursting Good Practise, 2nd
edition. North American Society for Trenchless Technology, Liverpoll, New
York, ISBN 978-1-928984-04-7.
Bottero, M., Peila, D., 2005. The use of the analytic hierarchy process for the
comparison between microtunneling and trench excavation. Tunn. Undergr.
Space Technol. 20, 501–513.
Chirulli, R., 2011. Manuale di Tecnologie No-dig Standard Edition. Nodig.it, Milan,
Italy, ISBN 978-88-906098-0-0.
Clune, J.S., Lockrey, S., 2014. Developing environmental sustainability strategies,
the double diamond method of LCA and design thinking: a case study from
aged care. J. Clean. Prod. 85, 67–82.
Decreto Legislativo n.152., 2006. Norme in materia ambientale. Gazzetta ufficiale
n.88,14 Aprile 2006–Supplemento ordinario n.96.
Fei, D., Gwendolyn, J.W., Doosun, K., Kevin, E.L., Robert, G.A., 2012. Life cycle
analysis for water and wastewater pipe materials. J. Environ. Eng. 139 (5),
703–711.
Fröling, M., Svanström, M., 2005. Life cycle assessment of the district heat
distribution system, part 2: network costruction. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 6,
425–435.
Frischknecht, R., Jungbluth, N., Althaus, H.J., Doka, G., Dones, R., Heck, T., Hellweg,
S., Hischer, R., Nemecek, T., Rebitzer, G., Spielmann, M., 2005. The ecoinvent
G Model
RECYCL-3322; No. of Pages 12 ARTICLE IN PRESS
12 A. Loss et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
database: overview and methodological framework. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 10,
3–9.
Gasol, C.M., Farreny, R., Gabarrell, X., Rieradevall, J., 2008. Life cycle assessment
comparison among different reuse intensities for industrial wooden container.
Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 13, 421–431.
Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., De Schryver, A., Struijs, J., Van Zelm, R.,
2013. ReCiPe 2008 Report I: Characterisation. Version 1.08.
Heijungs, R., Suh, S., Kleijn, R., 2005. Numerical approaches to life cycle
interpretation. the case of the ecoinvent ‘96 database. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
10 (2), 103–112.
Humbert, S., Schryver, A.D., Bengoa, X., Margni, M., Jolliet, O., 2014. IMPACT 2002+:
A user guide for the Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology IMPACT 2002+
(Jolliet et al., 2003).
ISO, 2006a. ISO 14040: Enviromental Management, Life Cycle
Assessment—Principle and Framework. International Organisation for
Standardisation (ISO), Ginevra, Switzerland.
ISO, 2006b. ISO 14044: Enviromental Management, Life Cycle
Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. International Organisation for
Standardisation (ISO), Ginevra, Switzerland.
ISPRA, 2014. Superior Institute for Protection and Environmental Research of Italy,
2014. Report on special waste, edition.
ISTT, 2011. Trenchless Technology Guidelines. International Society for Trenchless
Technology, London, United Kingdom.
Lueke, S.J., Ariaratnam, T.S., 2001. Rehabilitation of underground infrastructure
utilizing trenchless pipe replacement. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 6 (1),
25–34.
McKim, R., 1997. Bidding strategies for conventional and trenchless technologies
considering social costs. Can. J. Civil Eng. 24, 819–827.
Nannoni, F., Rossi, S., Protano, G., 2014. Soil properties and metal accumulation by
earthworms in the Siena urban area (Italy). Appl. Soil Ecol. 77, 9–17.
Perzon, M., Johansson, K., Fröling, M., 2007. Life cycle assessment of district heat
distribution in suburban areas using PEX pipes insulated with expanded
polystyrene. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 5, 317–327.
Piratla, R.K., Ariaratnam, T.S., Cohen, A., 2012. Estimation of CO2 emissions from
the life cycle of a PoTab. Water pipeline project. J. Manag. Eng. 28, 22–30.
Rameil, M., 2007. Handbook of Pipe Bursting Practice. Vulkan Verlag, Essen,
Germany, ISBN 978-3802727504.
Reap, J., Roman, F., Duncan, S., Bras, B., 2008. A survey of unresolved problems in
life cycle assessment. Part 2: impact assessment and interpretation. Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 13, 374–388.
Please cite this article in press as: Loss, A., et al., LCA comparison of traditional open cut and pipe bursting systems for relining water
pipelines. Resour Conserv Recy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.08.001
Rodriguez-Garcia, G., Zimmermann, B., Weil, M., 2014. Nanotoxicity and life cycle
assessment: first attempt towards the determination of characterization
factors for carbon nanotubes 2nd international conference on structural
composites (NANOSTRUC 2014, Madrid, Spain). IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng.
64, 012029, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/64/1/012029.
Russo, D., Rizzi, C., 2014. Structural optimization strategies to design green
products. Comput. Ind. 65, 470–479.
Sanjuan, D., Petit-Boix, A., Gasol, M.C., Villalba, G., Suárez-Ojeda, M.E., Gabarrell, X.,
Josa, A., Rieradeval, J., 2014. Environmental assessment of different pipelines
for drinking water transport and distribution network in small to medium
cities: a case from Betanzos, Spain. J. Clean. Prod. 66, 588–598.
Sihabuddin, S., Ariaratnam, T.S., 2009. Methodology for estimating emissions in
underground utility construction operations. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 7, 37–64.
Simicevic, J., Sterling, R.L., 2001. Guidelines for Pipe Bursting. US Army Corps of
Engineers Engineering Research and Development Center. Trenchless
Technology Center report, Ruston, Louisiana.
Steen, B., 1997. On uncertainty and sensitivity of LCA-based priority setting. J.
Clean. Prod. 5 (4), 255–262.
Suer, P., Andersson-Sköld, Y., 2011. Biofuel or excavation? Life cycle assessment
(LCA) of soil remediation options. Biomass Bioenergy 35, 969–981.
U.S. EPA, 1986. Airbone Asbestos Health Assessment Update. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Research and Development. National Center
For Environmental Assessment, Washington DC, USA, EPA/600/8-84/003F
(NTIS PB86242864).
VanBriesen, J.M., Dzombak, D.A., Zhang, L., 2014. Sustainable urban water supply
frastructure. In: Ahuja, Satinder (Ed.), Comprehensive Water Quality and
Purification. Elsevier, pp. 427–449.
Weidema, P., Wesnaes, M.S., 1996. Data quality management for life cycle
inventories—an example of using data quality indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 4 (3–4),
167–174.
Windsperger, A., Steinlechner, S., Schneider, F., 1999. Investigation of European
Life Cycle Assessment Studies of Pipes Cycle Assessment Studies of Pipes Made
of Different Materials for Water Supply and Sewer Systems—A Critical
Comparison. Final Report Contracted by TEPPFA. The European Plastic Pipe and
Fitting Association. Institute for Industrial Ecology, St. Polten, Austria.
Zaneldin, K.E., 2007. Trenchless construction: an emerging technology in United
Arab emirated. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 22, 96–105.