Pipe Efficiency Analysis at a Water Utility
This article has a reply.
VIEW THE REPLYThis article has a reply.
VIEW THE REPLYPublication: Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice
Volume 2, Issue 1
Abstract
A water utility company has many actions and decisions to take in order to run operations efficiently and effectively. One of them is to decide which types of pipe(s) to install as they do not all perform the same. Because these pipes may remain installed underground for more than 100 years, the decision to install is substantially binding. The pipe types considered here are ductile iron (DI), cast iron, PVC, and concrete cylinder (CC). The approach was to study cost and quality control measures and then apply data envelopment analysis in linear programming to determine the relative inefficiency of the specific pipe type in comparison to the rest of the pipe system. Data were taken from the main-break database and records and reports published by the Honolulu Board of Water Supply. Quality control measures evaluated included availability and reliability at the system and individual levels. It was determined that CC pipes were more inefficient than the others. Multiple scenarios of output measures were evaluated, such as combinations of system and individual levels, availability, and reliability. In all such evaluations, it was conclusively seen that CC pipes were relatively inefficient. Consequently, it is recommended the utility plan to replace CC pipes with corresponding DI and PVC piping.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The writers acknowledge Grant No. UNSPECIFIED6HQGR0081, MOD 4 of the United States Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.
References
Anderson, D. R., Sweeney, D. J., and Williams, T. A. (1991). An introduction to management science: Quantitative approaches to decision making, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn.
Dhillon, B. S., and Singh, C. (1981). Engineering reliability: New techniques and applications, Wiley, New York.
GAO. (2004). “Water infrastructure: Comprehensive asset management has potential to help utilities better identify needs and plan future investments.” Rep. to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Gautam, K. (2009). “Life cycle cost analysis of home ownership.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Hawaii, Hawaii.
Hadzilacos, T., et al. (2000). “UTILNETS: A water mains rehabilitation decision support system.” Urban Knowledge Engineering, 24, 215–232.
HBWS. (1988–2002). Annual Rep. and Statistical Summary, Honolulu Board of Water Supply, Honolulu.
Juran, J. M., and Gryna, S. M. (1993). Quality planning and analysis, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
MBreak. (2009). Excel data, Honolulu Board of Water Supply, Honolulu.
Moglia, M., Burn, S., and Meddlings, S. (2006). “Decision support system for water pipeline renewal prioritisation.” ITcon, 11, 237–256.
Norton, J. W., and Weber, W. J. (2009). “Water utility efficiency assessment using a data envelopment analysis procedure.” J. Infrastruct. Syst., 15(2), 80–87.
Rogers, P. D., and Grigg, N. S. (2009). “Failure assessment modeling to prioritize water pipe renewal: Two case studies.” J. Infrastruct. Syst., 15(3), 162–171.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2008). Asset management: A best practices guide, Washington, D.C.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice
Volume 2 • Issue 1 • February 2011
Pages: 23 - 34
Copyright
© 2011 ASCE.
History
Received: Apr 5, 2010
Accepted: Aug 24, 2010
Published online: Aug 31, 2010
Published in print: Feb 2011
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.