Advanced searchCitation search
Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Free access
Corrections
Mar 10, 2016

Erratum for “Evaluating Flexibility in Water Distribution System Design under Future Demand Uncertainty” by Innocent Basupi and Zoran Kapelan

You are viewing the correction.
VIEW THE CORRECTED ARTICLE
Authors: Innocent Basupi [email protected] and Zoran Kapelan [email protected]Author Affiliations
Publication: Journal of Infrastructure Systems
Volume 22, Issue 2
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000288
PDF
The captions and images of Figs. 4–14 were inadvertently interchanged in the final published paper. The figures with the correct images and captions are included herewith. This correction affects some in-text references to the figures.
The first paragraph of the “Case Studies” section should reference Figs. 4–10 and 13. The “Results and Discussion” section of the New York Tunnels case study references Figs. 4, 5, 8, and 13. The Note to Table 1 should refer to Figs. 4–7. On page 04014034-10, the reference to Figs. 6–10 should be replaced with Figs. 6, 7, 9, and 10.
ASCE regrets the errors.
Fig. 4. Comparative (cost equivalent) flexible and deterministic designs for the New York Tunnels network (Case 2)
Fig. 5. Comparative (resilience equivalent) flexible and deterministic designs for the New York Tunnels network (Case 2)
Fig. 6. Comparative (cost equivalent) flexible and deterministic designs for the Anytown network (Case 2); note: pipes that are not reinforced/rehabilitated in any of the three designs presented are not shown
Fig. 7. Comparative (resilience equivalent) flexible and deterministic designs for the Anytown network (Case 2); note: pipes that are not reinforced/rehabilitated in any of the three designs presented are not shown
Fig. 8. New York Tunnels average cumulative cost profiles of three design plans (Case 2)
Fig. 9. Anytown network average resilience index profiles of three design plans (Case 2)
Fig. 10. Anytown network average cumulative cost profiles of three design plans (Case 2)
Fig. 11. Three demand standard deviation cases for intervention plan evaluation
Fig. 12. The New York Tunnels network (Babayan et al. 2005, © ASCE)
Fig. 13. New York Tunnels average resilience index profiles of three design plans (Case 2)
Fig. 14. The Anytown network (Farmani et al. 2005, © ASCE)

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Journal of Infrastructure Systems
Journal of Infrastructure Systems
Volume 22 • Issue 2 • June 2016

Copyright

© 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.

History

Received: Oct 28, 2015
Accepted: Oct 28, 2015
Published online: Mar 10, 2016
Published in print: Jun 1, 2016
Discussion open until: Aug 10, 2016

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Innocent Basupi [email protected]
Ph.D. Student, Centre for Water Systems, College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, Univ. of Exeter, North Park Rd., Harrison Bldg., Exeter EX4 4QF, U.K. (corresponding author). E-mail: [email protected]
View all articles by this author
Zoran Kapelan [email protected]
Professor, Centre for Water Systems, College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, Univ. of Exeter, North Park Rd., Harrison Bldg., Exeter EX4 4QF, U.K. E-mail: [email protected]
View all articles by this author

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.

View Options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share