Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Implementation Phase
The Integration of Water and Road Infrastructures from a System of Systems
Perspectives
Project Team:
Majed Al inizzi
Mujahed Thneibat
Hamed Zamenian
Spring
2014
Purdue University
The main author(s) of each section of the report is provided in the following table.
Section
1. Introduction on infrastructures
2.1.1 Status Quo
2.1.2 Operational Context
2.1.3 Barriers
2.1.4 Traits of The Current SoS
2.1.5 Lexicon of the Current SoS
2.1.6 Taxonomy
2.2.1 Identifying the Main Entities
2.2.2 Paper Model
2.2.3 Hypothesis
2.2.4 Design Variables
2.2.5 Abstract Metrics
2.3.1 Modelling Approach: Discrete Event
Simulation
2.3.2 Results
2.3.2.1 Overall SoS Performance
2.3.3 Model Validation and Verification
2.3.4 Emergent Properties
2.3.5 Answers to Questions (2&3)
2.3.6 System Exchange
3. Conclusion
Author
Hamed Zamenian
Hamed Zamenian
Hamed Zamenian
Hamed Zamenian
Mujahed Thneibat
All
Hamed Zamenian
Mujahed Thneibat
All
Mujahed Thneibat
Majed Al inizzi
Mujahed & Majed
Mujahed & Majed
Majed Al inizzi
Mujahed & Majed
Majed Al inizzi
Mujahed & Majed
Mujahed & Majed
Majed Al inizzi
Mujahed Thneibat
Status Quo
This research is directed to uncover the possible interaction between road and water infrastructures in
an attempt to enhance decision makers capabilities. Currently, agencies in charge of managing and
operating such infrastructures lack a common framework that promotes their collaboration while
considering the impact of different policies on stakeholders.
2.1.2
Operational Context
Since critical infrastructures serve nations, various stakeholders (e.g. governments; public and private
agencies; and end users) are involved in the decision making processes, let alone the impact of
stakeholders on infrastructures through supply demand relations. The boundaries of this research are
restricted to include the interaction between water supply network and road network.
2.1.3
Barriers
Barriers to the possible coordination between road and water infrastructures may be attributed to the
fact that decision makers and entities in each infrastructure system speak different language and lack
the sharing of common understanding of the problem (DeLaurentis and Callaway, 2004). Moreover,
complexities embedded in such infrastructures and the use of different tools to describe such
complexities, impede the abilities of stakeholders and policy makers to coordinate and shape effective
policies to manage their infrastructural systems that are substantially affecting each other.
2.1.4
Reflecting the traits of SoS provided by Maier (1998) on the current problem, table 1 applies these traits
on both water and road infrastructures. Later, DeLaurentis (2005) added three more traits, which are:
heterogeneity, networks, and trans-domain.
Table 1: Traits Of The SoS for the Urban Road and Water Pipe Line Networks
Trait
Description
Operational
& Water agency operates to fulfill its own purposes (water supply).
managerial
Road agency also operates on its own intention and have its
Independence
objectives defined. Moreover, each system is managed for its own
purpose rather than the purpose of the whole.
Geographic
Clearly, water and road infrastructures are characterized by their
Distribution
large scale geographic distribution.
Evolutionary
Water infrastructure has never been static and set in the final form.
behavior
So does road infrastructure.
Emergent
Interaction between water pipeline network and road network will
Behavior
result in an unexpected behavior.
Heterogeneity
Water and road networks include systems that are of different nature
with different dynamics that operate on different time scales.
Networks
Interaction between road and water systems result from the
connectivity between them. Connectivity highlights the nature of
interaction.
Trans-domain
Including stakeholders and different policies will require different
disciplines to be emerged in decision making; such as policies,
engineering, and economic aspects.
2.1.5
As Bellman stated The right problem is always so much harder than a good solution. On a par with
finding the right problem, the ability to communicate the problem is crucial to finding the right solution.
The inefficiency and lack of a common language can result in using inappropriate modeling techniques
and thus, misleading results. Therefore, the use of a unified lexicon can bridge the gap between
engineers, politicians, and decision makers (DeLaurentis and Callaway, 2004).
to ensure that every aspect of this problem is articulated from the SoS approach, The ROPE table shown
in table 2 is developed based on DeLaurentis and Callaway (2004) along with figure 1 proposed by
Thissen and Herder (2008).
Consumer
Decision
The bottom layer represents the physical infrastructure
Maker
(water pipeline, pavement section). This layer forms
the basis of the second layer, which is the operation and
(3) Products & services on
management. This second layer is concerned in network
infrastructures
management (capacity and routing) and actors. The third layer
presents the supply and use of the services provided by the
(2) Operation &
infrastructures. At this level, consumers seek to meet their
management
demands. Finally, a decision maker entity is introduced
infrastructures
(1) Physical Infrastructure
at each layer.
Figure 1: SoS Perspective on Critical Infrastructures (Thissen and Herder, 2008)
Table 2: SoS Lexicon and ROPE For The Integration of Road and Water Infrastructures
Resources
Operations
Economics
Policy
Operating a
Resource (Water
Distribution
Pipeline, Road )
Collection of
Resources for a
Common Function
(Network of Water
Pipelines, and Urban
Roads)
Operating Resource
Network for a
Common Function
(Supply Water and
Urban Roads)
Economic of
Construct/ Replace a
Single Resource
(water pipe, user
cost, agency cost,
pavement, lost
water)
Economy of User
Cost Saving and
Agency Cost, lost
water
Resources in
Infrastructures Area
(Water Supply
System, Road
Network System)
Operating
Collection of
Infrastructure
Resources (Water
Supply System,
Road Network
System)
Economic of
Infrastructure Area
(Water Supply
System, Road
Network System)
Policy Relating to
Infrastructure Assets Using
Multiple Resources (Volume
of water supplied, Road
Network Condition, Budget
for Rehabilitation)
2.1.6
Taxonomy
To better understand the structure of the systems, DeLaurentis and et al (2011) developed a taxonomic
scheme to support the incorporation of stakeholders. Taxonomy is used to identify the autonomy,
system type, and connectivity at a given time of analysis. As DeLaurentis et al (2011) stated The
location of an SOS problem in this three-axis space indicates how the problem might cast and which
method(s) might be best suited for use. Figure 2 depicts the taxonomy for this problem.
Figure 2: Three Dimensions of Taxonomy for the Current SoS Problem (DeLaurentis et al., 2011)
System Type; includes the technological and the human enterprise system. It is believed that this
problem is best suited between the technological and human enterprise systems. This is attributed to
the fact that the role of technology in operating water and road systems cannot be overstated.
Meanwhile, human enterprises such as decision makers do have impact on both infrastructural systems.
Control; having examined the current SoS problem from its traits and lexicon, the research team
concludes that the current problem is best suited under acknowledged SoS taxonomic structure. This is
attributed to the fact that water and road infrastructures each have its own management authority (i.e,
no central management authority controlling both). Moreover, water has different purpose than road
network which makes this SoS far from having a directed taxonomy. Acknowledged SoS implies that the
funding and operation of each system is handled separately, yet, a minimum degree of collaboration
should be maintained to achieve the purpose of the SoS.
Connectivity; In this project, represents different degrees of information sharing between SoS entities.
2.2 Abstraction Phase
The purpose of abstraction phase is to define the key entities and their roles. Moreover; drivers,
disruptors, and resource networks will be defined. The research team used this phase as guidance in
highlighting the inter-relations among the aforementioned entities to bridge between the definition and
the implementation of the SoS.
2.2.1
Four main entities can be defined in this phase which can be grouped under two entity-descriptors;
explicit-implicit, and endogenous-exogenous. To elaborate more, the four entities that are addressed in
this phase are: resources, stakeholders, drivers, and disruptors.
Infrastructure Resources are the physical entities which are managed, operated and maintained by
agencies/utilities and acquired by end users. These resources for this research include roads, vehicles,
and water pipes on the Alpha level; water pipelines network and roads network on the Beta level which
is the main focus of this study. These resources have an impact on stakeholders.
Stakeholders are those who are impacting on or impacted by decisions. Stakeholders include
public/private agencies (i.e. Department of Transportations and Water Utilities), and users (i.e. water
consumers and traffic users).
Drivers are considered to be users satisfaction, and the level of service of each infrastructure (water
pipeline, and road network). Drivers influence agencies decisions to maintain the infrastructure to a
certain level of performance. In order to improve end user satisfaction from the infrastructure, certain
objective measurements have to be determined to allow possible evaluation of candidate alternatives
which help agencies to improve the robustness of their decision making process.
Disruptors are the harsh entities that will reduce the efficiency of the system. For this project, disruptors
are categorized under two groups:
1. Possible natural hazards negatively affecting both networks; and
2. Loss of systems efficiency due to aging. If the system reaches its end of life this will result in
degrading the level of service, thus impacting stakeholders.
2.2.2 Paper Model
Once the main entities with their interactions and classes of systems are avowed, the paper model is
shown in figure 3.
Hypothesis
Our hypothesis is that by increasing the collaboration between entities in charge of SoS, the overall
performance will increase. This hypothesis is tested over three different scenarios (architects) and
evaluated based on a set of abstract metrics. The following section discusses the development of the
architectures used for this research along with the design variable tested. More importantly, incentives
for collaboration are discussed.
2.2.4
Design Variables
Two design variables are studied: (1) level of connectivity between constituent systems with respect to
amount of information flow, and (2) Incentives for collaboration (control). In other words, different
degrees of operational independency are tested with different incentives strategies. Three levels of
connectivity have been investigated scaling form partially, substantially and fully connected SOS. Figure
4 shows graphical illustration of the interfaces exist among constituent systems concerning the three
scenarios (i.e. partially, substantially and fully connected SOS).
Complexity (+)
C: Community
The fully connected scenario is characterized by the highest amount of information sharing among
constituent systems. The city manager is seeking to improve the overall SoS performance while
achieving the desired satisfaction level for each entity. More investigation needed to be done by each
party considering the overall SoS architecture. An example of improving SoS while satisfying other
participants is the possible reduction of M&R spending for both parties. The expansion of the
transportation network could reduce the annual maintenance cost (AMC) for water and transportation
agency through the reduction of number of traffic per lane. Adding one lane (as an example) for each
section in the network would reduce the number of traffic per lane and therefore the deterioration of
the transportation network decreases. Possibly, reducing traffic might result in reducing the failure
probability of water pipeline which results in reducing AMC. The rule of the city manager is to convince
both parties by sharing the cost of constructing extra lane considering the amount of return for each
party. The level of complexity increases in this phase since the decision of participating relies heavily on
money spending.
2.2.5
Abstract Metrics
The abstract metrics help in evaluating SoS alternatives (i.e. partially, substantially and fully connected
SOS). Three metrics are considered: (1) serviceability, (2) satisfaction, and (3) robustness. Table 3
displays the abstract metrics, their determination and rational.
Table 3: Abstract Metrics Used in Evaluating Different SoS Architectures.
Metric
Determination
Rational
Satisfaction
Serviceability
Robustness
Having determined the abstract metrics, the approach to quantify these metrics is presented in this
section.
Satisfaction: This metric have two components: (1) Vehicle operation cost (VOC), and (2) Traffic User
Cost (TUC). VOC is a method of quantifying benefits gained by users in monetized terms. VOCS results
from improvements on pavement condition. Such improvements can include, increased road capacity
which reduces travel time and thus less spending on fuel. The worse the pavement condition is, the
more likely users are to spend money on operating their vehicles due to the accelerated vehicle
deterioration. A study in New Zealand (Opus 1999) developed the relationship between pavement
performance and VOC is provided in appendix A
Serviceability: This metric composes of Water Agency Cost (WAC), Transportation Agency Cost (TAC)
and Annual Maintenance Cost (AMC). Whereas the TAC and WAC consist of the initial construction
costs, AMC encompasses the subsequent M&R costs to preserve the state of the networks in a good
condition.
(TAC) & (TUC): Irfan (2010) developed cost models based on historical contract costs for several
pavement M&R activities in order to estimate agency cost as a function of asset attributes. That cost
model is presented in equation (1) along with its estimated parameters in table B.1-Appendix B. (TUC) is
estimated using delay time of traffic users as shown in equation (2)-Appendix B.
(WAC): cost models were developed by Clark et al (2002) and are employed in the present study to
calculate the direct cost of water pipe M&R activities. The general form of the model is shown in
equation (1)-Appendix C. The estimated parameters of the model are presented in table: C.1, C.2, C.3,
and C.4 in Appendix C.
(AMC): the Average Annual Maintenance Expenditure (AAMEX) model was developed by Al-Mansour
and Sinha (1994). The general function of the model is presented in equation (1) - Appendix D. The
model is a function of pavement performance in terms of the PSI at the time of treatment application.
Table D.1-appendix D presents the model parameters and their associated statistical values.
Robustness: this metric calculates the probability of failure of water and urban road systems in case of a
disaster (earthquake). The likelihood of those systems to partially or fully collapse is mainly determined
by the state of their networks when a disaster takes place. Costs and time needed for restoring each
system is a measurement that reflects systems robustness level. The state of the systems are measured
based on its assets conditions. Water and urban road systems conditions are estimated based on a
probability and performance models which determine pipe and pavement performance, respectively.
Equation 1 & 2- Appendix E presents the probability and performance models for water pipelines and
Pavements, respectively. Tables E.1 and E.2 presents the parameters for water pipeline failure. Table E.3
shows the parameters for the pavement performance model.
2.3 Implementation Phase
2.3.1 Modeling Approach: Discrete Event Simulation
To assess the impact of integrating the infrastructures of water pipeline networks and urban road
networks, a number of mathematical models (e.g., agency cost models, user cost models, etc.) are
needed to be integrated. Due to the difficulty of integrating these mathematical models and the
uncertainty represented by the stochastic nature of the problem, simulation was chosen for conducting
the study. Simulation techniques have been proven to be very capable of modeling real-world complex
problems.
Why using Discrete Event Simulation?
There exists many simulation and modeling approaches. The major schools for simulation modeling
include: (1) System Dynamics (SD), (2) Agent Based (AB), and (3) Discrete Event (DE). According to
Borshchev and Filippov (2004) agent based modeling is best suited for situations where active objects
(people, business units, stocks and products) within time frame and clear individual behavior interact.
On the other hand, system dynamics are efficient for cases where information feedbacks mechanisms
dominate the behavior of the systems, where the model is only applicable to the aggregates rather than
individual elements. Discrete event simulation is best suited for modeling entities, resources, flow chart
and resource sharing. Entities are treated as passive objects representing people, vehicles, documents,
and the like.
Therefore and due to the nature of this research problem, discrete event simulation is seen as the most
suitable model for tackling this problem. In line with the above, this is attributed to two main facts: (1)
there is no live, active agents. In fact, the current problem deals with physical and static infrastructures
that do not adapt and change their behavior; and (2) it is believed that the nature of this problem is rich
with sequential events. For instance, if earthquake hits the area, a pipe may fail. As a result, this pipe
failure will damage the nearest road section. The research team used a software developed by Martinez
(1996) using EZstrobe presented in Appendix G.
2.3.2
Results
The main goal of this project is to develop and evaluate SoS alternatives (i.e. partially, substantially and
fully connected SOS) based on three main abstract metrics (i.e. satisfaction, serviceability and
robustness) in order to increase decision makers (i.e. transportation and water agencies) capability in
finding the best alternative.
2000000
1500000
1000000
500000
0
1
9 10
substantially
1200000
1000000
800000
600000
400000
200000
0
1
9 10
substantially
fully
Roads Network
Roads Network
partially
TUC+VOC
Satisfaction Level
2500000
WAG+TAG+AMC
Serviceability Level
Figures 5 and 6 show the results of SoS alternatives with respect to serviceability and satisfaction;
respectively.
fully
partially
In view of Figure 5, the partially connected alternatives has the highest agencies costs due to the
decreases in the pavement conditions caused by water agencies through the cut and patching to the
asphalt when performing their M&R. When the level of communication increases (i.e. substantially
scenario) and possible coordination between the entities is performed, utility cut and patching impact
could be eliminated and therefore, pavement condition increases while agency cost decreases.
Considering the fully connected alternative, the differences are insignificant, if there is, compared to the
substantial connected scenario. Adding one lane would reduce the traffic number per lane and thus
pavement and pipe deterioration pattern are reduced resulting in less AMC activities. However, the cost
of adding one lane and the AMC needed for that lane would balance the benefits obtained from
reduction in AMC on the network level. The variation from street to street (represented by the x-axis) is
heavily impacted by the length of those pipes and streets (longer pipes and lengthy streets cost more).
Reflecting on Figure 6, the partially connected SoS has the highest user costs compared to other
architectures. This is referred to the increased number of work zone activities performed by both
agencies (TA & WA) due to the need of maintaining their assets and therefore, results in TUC increase. In
addition, VOC might increase when less communication exists. As an example, WA could damage
pavement in a good condition through their M&R practices. Observing the results of substantially and
fully connected SoS alternatives, the substantially connected has lower user costs compared to the fully
connected. Sections 1,2,3,4 and 6 have the lowest Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) and therefore,
they have the least users costs since less traffic are subject to distributions.
Figure 7, shows the robustness of the SoS (measured as a percentage of the overall systems
functionality) with respect to partially, substantially and fully connected SoS alternatives. The SoS is
more robust under the fully connected SoS alternative and less robust when considering the
substantially and partially. The robustness, as mentioned before, is measured based on the state of the
SoS when a disaster takes place. Therefore, it is expected to have a robust SoS under the fully connected
SoS alternative. This is referred to the better condition compared with the partial and substantial
architectures as seen in Figures (1 &2). However, the robustness of the SoS for all scenarios is low (less
than 50%) which is difficult to judge and the team is not confident in providing explanations.
20000000
15000000
80.00%
Cost ($)
Percentage (%)
100.00%
60.00%
40.00%
10000000
5000000
20.00%
0
0.00%
partially
substantially
fully
Servesability
The simulation model was developed based on data obtained from literature. The simulation model was
validated based on testing its outputs for rationality. The validation of the resulting output can be
investigated by all input variables being fixed while an input variable of interest are tested
independently. For example, expanding urban road network would reduce the traffic share per lane and
thus, reducing traffic user cost as shown in figure 9. Another example, shown in figure 10, is considering
the impact of traffic on pipes condition would reduce traffic user cost since less traffic (in case of adding
lane) would have less impact on the probability of pipe to fail.
100000
100000
120000
120000
80000
60000
40000
60000
40000
20000
20000
0
80000
Orgiginal Network
Add Lane
0
Original Network
Add Lane
Add Lane (Impact of Traffic on Pipe Condition)
Verification is the process of assuring that the model is built as intended for. EZStrobe has a graphical
representation which allows the designer to visualize the simulated elements step-by-step and therefore
captures possible mistakes easily. Thus, this was considered to be kind of weak verification.
2.3.4
Emergent Properties
Through running the simulation model, the research team noticed a dramatic change in the traffic user
cost resulting from the impact of transportation system on water system in case of adding one lane. We
conclude that, not only the impact of other systems on a particular system needs to be recognized, but
also this particular systems impact on others should be recognized where possible indirect benefits
might be attained.
2.3.5 Answers to Questions (2 & 3)
For Question (2): The change from acknowledge to directed SoS where the city manager acts as a central
management authority. It is believed that this architecture would reduce the conflicting interests
between water and road agencies, since degree of control of each agency decreases. For example, in
case of adding new lane; the city manager will have a coercive power to do so, compared to the
conventional case. In the conventional case, road agency may want to add new lane; however water
agency may disagree with this option since they have to pay for the added lane.
For Question (3): Using a method discussed in class that has not been used in this method. To better
capture the behavior of traffic users in case of congestion, agent based modeling seems to hold a strong
potential in representing users behaviors. For example, if pipe fails, some road sections will be closed
causing congestion. The rational of a driver to choose specific road depends on his/her knowledge and
belief on best route that minimize his/her travel time. In other words, traffic users will adapt their
behavior and preferences if a road is closed so that they will choose the shortest path next time.
This distribution of the traffic users will change the AADT values which in turns change the rate of
pavement deterioration and the probability of pipe failure. In other words, using agent based to model
traffic users will increase the accuracy in calculating the abstract metrics in general, and user and agency
cost in particular.
2.3.6
System Exchange
We are supposed to exchange the water system, however, it turned out that each team has taken
different approach where we have modeled drinking water system and the other team has modeled
sewer system. Therefore, we were capable of adding the sewer system to our SoS and study its impact
on the overall SoS performance. Similarly, the sewer agency cost (SAC) and the condition of the sewer
pipes has to be quantified so as to be reflected on the abstract metrics (i.e. satisfaction, serviceability
and robustness) taking into consideration the three alternatives (i.e. partially, substantially and fully
connected SOS). The cost model and probability model for the sewer system can be found in Appendix
F. Figure 11 shows the results of SoS alternatives considering the abstract matrices after adding sewer
system.
Cost ($)
15000000
10000000
5000000
0
partially
substantially
fully
Servesability
satisfaction
robustness
References
American Association of State Highways and Transportation Ofcials, AASHTO. 1981.
AASHO Interim Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures. AASHTO,
Washington, D.C.
Al-Mansour, A. I. and K. C. Sinha. 1994.Economic Analysis of Effectiveness of Pavement
Preventive Maintenance. Transportation Research Record 1442, Transportation
Research, Board, Washington, DC.
Bellman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bellman
Borshchev, A., & Filippov, A. (2004, July). From system dynamics and discrete event to practical agent
based modeling: reasons, techniques, tools. InProceedings of the 22nd international conference
of the system dynamics society (No. 22).
Chughtai, F., & Zayed, T. (2008). Infrastructure condition prediction models for sustainable sewer
pipelines. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 22(5), 333-341.
Clark, R., Sivaganesan, M., Selvakumar, A., and Sethi, V. 2002. Cost models for water
supply distribution systems. Journal of Water Resource Planning and Management.
128(5), 312321.
DeLaurentis, D. (2005). Understanding transportation as a system-of-systems design problem. In
43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit Vol. 1. Reno, NV. New York: AIAA.
DeLaurentis, D., & Callaway, R. K. (2004). A SystemofSystems Perspective for Public Policy Decisions.
Review of Policy Research, 21(6), 829-837.
DeLaurentis, D., Crossley, W., and Mane, M. 2011. Taxonomy to Guide Systems-of-Systems DecisionMaking in Air Transportation Problems, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 48, No. 3
Hashemi, B., Najafi, M., & Mohamed, R. (2008). Cost of Underground Infrastructure Renewal: A
Comparison of Open-Cut and Trenchless Methods. In Pipelines 2008@ sPipeline Asset
Management: Maximizing Performance of our Pipeline Infrastructure (pp. 1-11). ASCE.
Irfan, M., Khurshid, M. B., Labi S. 2009a. Service life of thin HMA overlay using different
performance indicators. Journal of Transportation Research Record 2108, 37-43.
Irfan M., Khurshid M. B., Anastasopoulos, P., Labi, S., Moavenzadeh, F. 2010a. Planning
stage estimation of highway project duration on the basis of anticipated project cost,
project type,and contract type. International Journal of Project Management.
Labi, S., Lamptey, G., and Kong, S. 2007. Effectiveness of microsurfacing treatments. ASCE
journal of transportation engineering, (133(5).
Maier, M. W. (1998). Architecting principles for systems-of-systems. Systems Engineering, 1(4), 267-284.
Mailhot, A., Pelletier, G., Noel, J.F., and Villeneuve, J.P. 2000. Modeling the evolution of the
structural state of water pipe networks with brief recorded pipe break histories: Methodology
and application. Water Resources Research, 36(10), 30533062.
Opus. Review of VOC-Pavement Roughness Relationships Contained in Transfund's Project
Evaluation Manual. Central Laboratories Report 529277.00, Opus Central
Laboratories, Lower Hutt, New Zealand, (1999).
Presidents Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection, Critical Foundations: Protecting
Americas Infrastructures (1997). [Online]. Available: http://www.ciao.gov (February 2014)
Thissen, W. A., & Herder, P. M. (2008). System of Systems Perspectives on Infrastructures. System of
Systems Engineering, 257-274.
Appendices
Appendix A: Estimated Vehicle Operation Cost
Figure A.1: Relationship between Pavement Performance and Vehicle Operation Cost (adopted from
Opus, 1999)
(1)
Where: TAC = the total agency cost of treatment, L = total length of construction (miles).
N = number of lanes, PItrrig = pre-treatmnet performance of the asset, and , , , and
= estimated
parameters
Table B.1 Cost Models (Irfan, 2010)
Treatment Type
Thin HMA overlay
Micro-surfacing
Model parameters
TAC = 0.106 * (L)0.814 * (N)1.334 *[ln (PItrrig)]4.261
Not Applicable
Traffic User Cost (TUC), typically, consists of the delay costs incurred by users during the time of an
M&R activities by water and transportation agency (i.e., work zone time). The work zone travel delay
cost can be estimated as shown in Equation (1) (AASHTO 2003; Labi et al 2007; Irfan et al 2009).
(2)
(1)
Where: AC = agency cost of a specific component ($/ft), x = design parameter (e.g. pipe diameter, soil
type), u = indicator variable, and a, b, c, d, e, and f = coefficients to be estimated.
Table C.1 Parameter for Base Installed Cost Equations (Clark et al, 2002)
Type of pipe
Pipe
Parameter Values
diameter
a
b
c
d
e
f
(in)
Ductile iron pipe
0.7
(4-36 )a,b
-44.0
0.33
1.72
2.87
0.0
4
0.7
(4-24)c,b
-36.0
0.62
1.54
2.04
0.0
8
0.005
1.5 0.004
Asbestos-cement pipe
(4-24)d
2.6
2.86 -0.0001
2
6
8
PVC Pressure pipe
0.000
1.0 0.006
(4-12)d
-1.0
3.59
0.011
8
0
7
Cement mortar lined and
(12-42)
14.2
0.19
1.66
0.0
0.0
0.0
coated steel pipe
Concrete cylinder pipe
(12-54)
11.7
0.51
1.38
0.0
0.0
0.0
Prestressed concrete
(60-44)
cylinder pipe
a With push on joint
b Indicatore Variable: 50, 52
c Mechanical joints.
d Indicatore Variable: 150, 200
7.9
1.30
1.25
0.0
0.0
0.0
R2
0.9
9
0.9
9
0.9
9
0.9
9
0.9
9
0.9
9
0.9
9
n
24
20
19
10
9
10
7
Table C.2 Parameter for Trenching and Excavation Cost Equations (Clark et al, 2002)
Soil conditions
Pipe
Parameter Values
diameter
a
b
c
d
E
R
(in)
Sandy gravel soil with 1:1
0.3
(4-8 )
-24.0
0.32
0.67
16.7
0.99
side slope
8
1.7
(8-144)
2.9
0.0018 1.90
0.13
0.98
7
0.8
(4-8 )
-13.1
6.42
0.11
3.31
0.96
4
Sandy gravel soil with
vertical walls
1.2
(8-144)
1.5
0.0053 1.72
0.52
0.96
6
Sandy clay soil with
1.0
(4-8 )
-0.13
0.08
1.431
0.50
0.99
vertical walls
2
1.6
(8-144)
2.7
0.06
1.17
0.20
0.94
2
Sandy gravel soil with
0.9
(4-8 )
-.41
0.13
1.27
0.63
0.99
3/4:1 side slope
8
0.2
(8-144)
-2.0
0.07
1.18
4.2
0.85
1
n
15
90
15
90
15
90
15
90
Table C.3 Parameter for Embedment, Backfill, and Compaction Cost Equations (Clark et al, 2002)
Installation conditions
Parameter values
a
b
c
d
e
f
R2
n
a
Concrete arch
7.1
0.26
1.46 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.99 21
First clas and ordinaryb,d
1.6
0.0062 1.83 -0.20 1.00 0.07
0.99 42
b,d
Sandy native soil with 1:1 side slope
-0.094 -0.062 0.73 0.18 2.03 0.02
0.99 105
Sandy native soil with 3/4:1 side slopeb,d 1.4
-.84
0.42 0.32 1.99 0.0037 0.99 105
Imported soil for vertical trenchesb,d
-0.65 -0.21
0.73 1.06 1.00 0.064 0.99 105
a Embedment
b Backfill and compaction
c Indicatore varibles = 0 for ordinary and 1 for first class.
d Indicatore Variable = 4,6,8,10 and 12
Table C.4 Parameter for Dewatering, Sheeting and Shoring and Pavement Repair and Replacement Cost
Equations (Clark et al, 2002)
Parameter values
Installation
Pipe diameter
Frequency of installation
conditions
(in)
a
b
c
R2
n
b
Moderate
(4-96)
1.6 0.032 1.2 0.99 18
Dewatering
Severeb
(60-144)
32.1 0.049 1.3 0.94 7
Minimalb
(4-60)
8.9
0.0
0.0 0.94 Moderateb
(4-20)
41.0
0.0
0.0 0.99 b
Sheeting and Shoring
Moderate
(20-54)
59.0
0.0
0.0 0.99 Severeb
(4-30)
344.0 0.0
0.0 0.98 b
Severe
(36-84)
473.0 0.0
0.0 0.99 Severeb
(96-144)
684.0 0.0
0.0 0.99 Pavement removal and
(4-144)
-3.0
0.23 0.93 0.99 21
replacementc,d
a parameter value for d, e, and f are zero
b indicator value are zero
c Indicator variables are 1 for asphaltic concrete payment and 2 for concrete pavement.
d Value for d= 10.7, e= 1.0 and f= 0.080
Table D.1: Estimated Regression Parameters of Annual Basic Routine Maintenance [Adopted from AlMansour and Sinha, (1994)]
Maintenance Traffic level
Overall Model Statistics
Estimated
Type
Roadway
Maintenance
Shoulder
Maintenance
(AADT)
High Traffic
AADT>2000
Low Traffic
AADT<=2000
High Traffic
AADT>2000
Low Traffic
AADT<=2000
Parameters
No. of Observations
R2
p value
55
0.5193
0.0001
4.0283
-0.462
67
0.5887
0.0001
3.7781
-0.4621
14
0.4099
0.001
3.3221
-0.3547
27
0.5693
0.0001
3.5323
-0.4573
(1)
Table E.2: Results of the Weibull-Exponential (W-E) Model for Different Pipe Segment Installation Period
(Mailhot, 2000).
Installation
P
K1
K2
period
1976-1996
1.157
0.017
0.168
1970-1996
1.262
0.013
0.148
1965-1996
1.394
0.024
0.182
1960-1996
1.474
0.025
0.205
1949-1996
1.241
0.018
0.161
1991-1996
1.053
0.015
0.147
Where: k&P = Parameter to be estimated, t= time since pipe installation years.
E.2 Pavement Performance Model
PI = e[ +.AATA.t+.ANDX.t]
(2)
Where: PI = performance indicator measured in term of IRI (in in/mi), t = treatment service life (years),
AATA = accumulated annual truck traffic loadings (million-years), ANDX = accumulated annual freezing
index (thousands-years), = constant, and & = estimated parameters of the explanatory variables.
Table E.3: Performance Models (Irfan, 2010)
Treatment Type
Model parameters
PI = e[ 4.164+0.016*AATA.t+0.105*.ANDX.t]
Micro-surfacing
PI = e[ 4.117+0.016*AATA.t+0.151*.ANDX.t]
PI = e[ 4.097+0.093*AATA.t+0.113*.ANDX.t]
PI = e[ 4.148+0.020*AATA.t+0.059*.ANDX.t]
PI = e[ 4.183+0.015*AATA.t+0.101*.ANDX.t]
(1)
Table F.1: Diameter to Cost Ratio
Diameter (in)
Cost per Foot ($)
Cost Ratio
20
392
1.5
21
410
1.2
24
465
1.3
27
577
1.2
30
689
1.4
36
856
1.1
Appendix G: Illustration of EZstrobe: Screenshots of Simulation Model for SoS Alternatives Utilizing
EZStrobe Simulation
Exp[4.009+(0.024*AATA+0.020*ANDX)*PostPISrvcL.CurCount]
SeqPostPIA
1
PostPIca
>1 , 1
SeqPost
Post
PveServicelfe1.CurCount
PostPISrvcL
>0 , 1
>0 , 1
PostPIA
>0 , 0
Seqn
>0 , 0
NoCyc
PostPerfm
>0 , 1
1
PveServcLf
PveServicelfe
>0 , 0
(PerfInd.CurCount+PostPerfm.CurCount)/(PveServicelfe1.CurCount)
1
==0 , 0
Cycl
PerfInd
>0 , 0
YrsEva
PI
Round[(Ln[PerfInd.CurCount]-4.009)/(0.024*AATA+0.020*ANDX),0]
PostPrfmncA
Input Data
A
AATA
2.5
AATA
ANDX
0.490
PI
PergIndx+10
100
Clear
100
NoFaliure
==2 , 2
BrkOccr
>0 , Rand.CurCount
==1 , 1
Rand.CurCount<=Faluire.CurCount?1:2
100
>0 , Faluire.CurCount
100
Faliure
>0 , 0
Test
>0 , 1
SeqProp
Rand
1
>0 , 1
<1 , 0
ClassfyBrk
control
1
>0 , 0
Rnd[]
100
Cycl
>0 , 1
PropOfFalur
Faluire
YrsEva
1-Exp[-(K.CurCount*PropOfFalur.TotInst^Pe.CurCount)]
K
0.013
Pe
1.262
s1.CurCount*Perc<p1.CurCount?2:1
30
Seqs1less
Brk11is1
==1 , 1
Brk11
>0 , 1
s1.CurCount*Perc<(p1.CurCount+p2.CurCount)?2:1
30
>0 , 1
30
Brk12is1
Brk13
op1
==1 , 1
Brk12
CycNo2
>0 , 0
s1Lessp2p3p4
>0 , 0
s1.CurCount*Perc<(p1.CurCount+p2.CurCount+p3.CurCount)?2:1
Input data
Perc
s1
Sq1
PostPrfmncA
>0 , 0
>0 , 1
PavServcIndxA
9*Exp[-0.008747*PostPrfmncA.CurCount]
Sq
PSIpo
>0 , 1
AnnAgCostAv
>0 , 0
>2 , 0
A
AATA
(10^(4.0283-0.4621*PSIpo.CurCount))
>0 , 0
Sq83
MaintCosHgh
<=2 , 0
1
>0 , 1
AnnAgCostAv8
10^(3.7781-0.4252*PSIpo.CurCount)
Input data
AATA
2.5
MaintCstLow
Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.: Screenshot of Annual Maintenance Cost Module
PrePImore100
VOCsav1
==1 , 1
(((PreTretPI.CurCount-100)*5/100)+40)/100*365*AADT*1000*FctorOfDrctonN1.CurCount*FctrOfLaneNo.CurCount
VOCPrePI
SeqVOC
==2 , 2
>0 , 1
PreTretPI
>0 , 0
VOCsav2
0.4*365*AADT*1000*FctorOfDrctonN1.CurCount*FctrOfLaneNo.CurCount
VOC
PostPrfmncAv
PrePIless100
PreTretPI.CurCount<100?2:1
>0 , 0
VOCPostPI
PostPrfmncAve.CurCount<100?2:1
PosPImore100
==1 , 1
VOCsav3
(((PostPrfmncAve.CurCount-100)*5/100)+40)/100*365*AADT*1000*FctorOfDrctonN1.CurCount*FctrOfLaneNo.CurCount
==2 , 2
PostPIless100
VOCsav4
0.4*365*AADT*1000*FctorOfDrctonN1.CurCount*FctrOfLaneNo.CurCount
Cycl
YrsEva
PerfIndx1
PI
Input data
==0 , 0
SeqAg
>0 , 0
0
>0 , 1
NoLane
PavLngh
PavTrLgh1 >0 , 0
AgnceCost20071
PavLngh
>0 , 0
Luck
(((0.098*PavLngh^0.690)*(NoLane^0.458)*((Ln[PerfIndx1.CurCount])^4.867))*1000)/(NoLane*PavLngh)
>0 , 0
AgcyCost1
NoOfLanes1
NoLane
AADT*1000*TrkTrafficShare*FctorOfDrctonN1.CurCount*FctrOfLaneNo.CurCount
Input data
DelyTrkBySpe
d1
AADT*1000*PassCarTrfcShre*FctorOfDrctonN1.CurCount*FctrOfLaneNo.CurCount
>0 , 1
>0 , 0
DirAndLanFactor
SqDALF1
DelyCarBySp
ed1
>0 , 0
0
>0 , 0
>0 , 0
SqDCFV1
>0 , 1
>0 , 0
EscltionFctor1
FctrOfLaneNo
FctorOfDrcton
CPIcurrent/
N1
207.4
22.831
NoOfDircton
NoOfLane
TrkTrafficShare
0.3
PassCarTrfcShre
0.7
FreeSpeed
65
SpeedWorkZone
45
CPIcurrent
207.4
CarFulPrc
2.2
TrkFulPrc
4.5
TTcV Travel time value of single vehicle ($/Veh) (at analysis year)
h
TTcTrk
Travel time value of single unit truck ($/Veh)
24
(at analysis year)
TTcVh
Travel time value of single passenger car ($/ 15
Veh) (at analysis year)
DelyCostForVch1
AADT
((1/SpeedWorkZone)-(1/FreeSpeed))*TTcVh*EscltionFctor1.CurCount
20
CarUnitTT1
((1/SpeedWorkZone)-(1/FreeSpeed))*TTcTrk*EscltionFctor1.CurCount
>0 , 0
UCttdely1
>0 , 1
SqUCTT1
UserCostTTdely1
>0 , 0
TrkUnitTT1
(ProjDurton1.CurCount*0.6*(CarUnitTT1.CurCount*DelyCarBySped1.CurCount+TrkUnitTT1.CurCount*DelyTrkBySped1.CurCount))
-24+0.32*PipeDimtr^0.67+16.7*Depth^0.38
SndGrvlR
SndGrvl
>0 , 1
SandGravl
Input data
TrnchCst1
SoilCst
<=8 , 0
SndGrvl
SndGrvlVer
SndCly
PipeDimtrR
PipeDimtr
1
2.9+0.0018*PipeDimtr^1.9+0.13*Depth^1.77
SndGrvlR
SndClyVer
PipeDimtr
12
Depth
10
SndGrvl
>0 , 1
SandGravl2
TrnchCst12
>8 , 0
PipeDimtrR
1
PipeDimtr
SoilCst
Input data
7.1+0.26*PipeDimtr^1.46
ConcArch
1
ConcArchR
PipeDimtr
12
ConcArch
>0 , 1
EmbedConc
EmbdCnCst
EmbedCst
Input data
JontTyep2
DuctIron
AsbtsCmnt
PVC
JointTyp2
-36+0.62*PipeDimtr^1.54+2.04*Class^0.78
>0 , 1
DuctIronR
PipeDimtr
12
JontTyep
Class
52
Press
>0 , 0
Duc2
BasCst12
TypCst
DuctIron
1
-44+0.33*PipeDimtr^1.72+2.87*Class^0.74
JointTyp1
>0 , 1
Duc
BasCst1
TypCst
>0 , 0
DuctIronR
DuctIron
1
2.6+0.0052*PipeDimtr^2.86-0.0001*Press^1.56
32.1+0.049*PipeDimtr^1.3
DewtrSevR
DewtrSev
>0 , 1
DwteringSever
DewtrSvrCst
<=144 , 0
PipeDimtrR
PipeDimtr
1.6+0.032*PipeDimtr^1.2
DewtrModR
DewtrMod
Input data
DewtrCst
DewtrMod
DewtrSev
PipeDimtr
12
>0 , 1
DwteringModrt
DewtrModCst
<=96 , 0
PipeDimtrR
PipeDimtr
1
DewtrCst
59
ShetShongMo
R
ShetShongMo
>0 , 1
ShetShorMo2
ShorMoCst2
<=54 , 0
PipeDimtrR
1
PipeDimtr
Input data
ShetCst
41
ShetShongMo
ShetShongMi
R
ShetShongMo
>0 , 1
ShetShorMo
ShetShongSv
PipeDimtr
12
ShorMoCst
<=20 , 0
PipeDimtrR
1
PipeDimtr
ShetCst
Figure 12: Screenshot of Sheeting and Shoring Cost Module Water Pipeline
Input data
-0.094-0.062*PipeDimtr^0.73+0.18*Depth^2.03+0.02*Depth*PipeDimtr
SandNatv
SandNatvS
SandImprt
Depth
10
PipeDimtr
12
SandNatvR
SandNatv
>0 , 1
BackfillSand
BackfillCst
BckflSndCst
Figure 13: Screenshot of Backfilling and Compaction Cost Module Water Pipeline
Input data
PavReplcA
PavReplcC
-3+0.23*PipeDimtr^0.93+10.7*1^1+0.08*1*PipeDimtr
PavReplcAR
PavReplcA
-3+0.23*PipeDimtr^0.93+10.7*2^1+0.08*2*PipeDimtr
PavReplcCR
>0 , 1
PavReplcC
PavAsphlt
>0 , 1
PavAsphCst
PavConc
PavConCst
<=144 , 0
<=144 , 0
PipeDimtrR
PipeDimtrR
PipeDimtr
1
PipeDimtr
PavCst
1
PavCst
Figure 14: Screenshot of Pavement Repair and Replacement Cost Module Water Pipeline
Input data
TraffcMod
TraffcHevy
0.088+0.0022*PipeDimtr^0.71
TraffcModR
TraffcMod
0.76+0.0031*PipeDimtr^1.4
TraffcHevyR
>0 , 1
TraffcHevy
TrafficModrt
TrfcModCst
>0 , 1
TrafficHevy
TrfcHevyCst
1
TrfCst
TrfCst