Scheduling Inspection and Renewal of Large Infrastructure Assets
Publication: Journal of Infrastructure Systems
Volume 7, Issue 4
Abstract
A decision framework is introduced to assist municipal engineers and planners to optimize decisions regarding the renewal of large infrastructure assets such as water transmission pipes, trunk sewers, or other assets with high costs of failure, inspection, and condition assessment. The proposed decision framework identifies a need for immediate intervention or, alternatively, enables optimization of the scheduling of the next inspection and condition assessment. The deterioration of the asset is modeled as a semi-Markov process and is thereby discretized into condition states. The waiting times in each state are assumed to be random variables with “known” probability distributions. If pertinent data are scarce (as is typical in most municipalities) these probability distributions can be initially derived based on expert opinion. These distributions will then be continually updated as observed deterioration data are collected over time. Monte Carlo simulation is used to calculate the distributions of the cumulative waiting times. Conditional survival probabilities are used to compile age-dependent transition probability matrices in the various states. The expected discounted total cost associated with an asset (including cost of intervention, inspection, and failure) is computed as a function of time. The time to schedule the next inspection/condition assessment is when the total expected discounted cost is minimum. Immediate intervention should be planned if the time of minimum cost is less than a threshold period (2 to 3 years) away. A computer program is prepared for demonstration and proof of concept. The decision framework lends itself to a computer application fairly easily. Although usable in its current form, this paper identifies some issues that require as yet unavailable data as well as more research in order to develop the framework into a comprehensive application tool.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Aaseth, L. I., and Hovde, P. J. ( 1999). “A stochastic approach to the factor method for estimating service life.” Proc., 8th Conf. Durability of Build. Mat. and Components, M. A. Lacasse and D. J. Vanier, eds., National Research Council (Canada), Ottawa, 1247–1256.
2.
Abraham, D. M., and Wirahadikusumah, R. ( 1999). “Development of prediction model for sewer deterioration.” Proc., 8th Conf. Durability of Build. Mat. and Components, M. A. Lacasse and D. J. Vanier, eds., National Research Council (Canada), Ottawa, 1257–1267.
3.
Ariaratnam, S. T., El-Assaly, A., and Yang, Y. ( 1999). “Sewer infrastructure assessment using logit statistical models.” Proc., Annu. Conf. Can. Soc. for Civ. Engrg., 330–338.
4.
City of Edmonton. ( 1996). “Standard sewer condition rating system report.” City of Edmonton Transportation Department, Edmonton, Alta., Canada.
5.
Flourentzou, F., Brandt, E., and Wetzel, C. ( 1999). “MEDIC—A method for predicting residual service life and refurbishment investment budgets.” Proc., 8th Conf. Durability of Build. Mat. and Components, M. A. Lacasse and D. J. Vanier, eds., National Research Council (Canada), Ottawa, 1280–1288.
6.
Guignier, F., and Madanat, S. M. (1999). “Optimization of infrastructure systems maintenance and improvement policies.”J. Infrastruct. Sys., ASCE, 5(4), 124–134.
7.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ( 1997). “Buildings: Service life planning, part 1—General principles.” ISO/TC59/SC3.
8.
Jiang, Y., Saito, M., and Sinha, K. C. ( 1989). “Bridge performance prediction model using Markov chain.” Transp. Res. Rec. 1180, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 25–32.
9.
Kathuls, V. S., and McKim, R. ( 1999). “Sewer deterioration prediction.” Proc., Infra 99 Int. Convention.
10.
Madanat, S. M., Karlaftis, M. G., and McCarthy, P. S. (1997). “Probabilistic infrastructure deterioration models with panel data.”J. Infrastruct. Sys., ASCE, 3(1), 4–9.
11.
Madanat, S. M., Mishalani, R., and Wan Ibrahim, W. H. (1995). “Estimation of infrastructure transition probabilities from condition rating data.”J. Infrastruct. Sys., ASCE, 1(2), 120–125.
12.
Manual of sewer condition classification. (1993). 3rd Ed., Water Research Centre, U.K.
13.
Moser, K. ( 1999). “Towards the practical evaluation of service life—Illustrative application of the probabilistic approach.” Proc., 8th Conf. Durability of Build. Mat. and Components, M. A. Lacasse and D. J. Vanier, eds., National Research Council (Canada), Ottawa, 1319–1329.
14.
Ningyuan, L., Haas, R., and Xie, W.-C. ( 1997). “Development of a new asphalt pavement performance prediction model.” Can. J. Civ. Engrg., Ottawa, 24, 547–559.
15.
Parzen, E. ( 1962). “Stochastic processes.” Holden-Day series in probability and statistics, Holden-Day, Oakland, Calif.
16.
Sewer rehabilitation manual. (1994). 3rd Ed., Water Research Centre, U.K.
17.
Zhao, J. K., and McDonald, S. E. ( 2000). “Development of guidelines for condition assessment and rehabilitation of large sewers.” Client Final Rep., Inst. for Res. in Constr., National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Received: Feb 26, 2001
Published online: Dec 1, 2001
Published in print: Dec 2001
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.