Leveraging risk and data analytics for sustainable management of buried water infrastructure

Abstract

A proactive and sustainable asset management program is vital for utilities to maintain their capital assets at the required level of service, while ensuring that adequate funds are available for intervening when needed on their riskiest assets. One of the most popular methods for building such programs is by prioritizing capital investments based on the asset's risk of failure, which evaluates its likelihood or probability of failure and impact, or consequence of failure. This paper presents the application of a financial planning analysis using system dynamics to provide insights into quantifying more practical risk avoidance. This is exemplified through a 5-year budgetary planning scenario analysis for a large-sized US water utility to help the utility best plan for short and long-term capital operations and show the value of a data-driven and riskbased decision-making.

Multi‐objective optimization models for the renewal planning of multiple asset classes

“…For example, previous works have implemented analyses where every distribution main is ranked based on the future likelihood and consequence of failure, and asset management programs are designed to address the highest risk assets first (Chen, Riley, et al, 2020; Chen, Washington, et al, 2020). See other examples in Ganjidoost et al (2022), Vladeanu and Matthews (2019), Fontanazza et al (2015), and Puleo et al (2014) focusing on distribution mains, valves, and water meters.…”

Integrated asset management of urban water and wastewater systems

“…Ganjidoost et al (2018) developed three categories of infrastructure, socio‐political, and financial benchmarking performance indicators for water distribution and wastewater collection networks. They used SD to demonstrate how water utilities can utilize the proposed normalized and time‐integrated performance indicators to benchmark and compare their networks' short and long‐term performance against one another and their own strategic targets (Ganjidoost et al, 2018; Ganjidoost, Daly, & Baird, 2021; Ganjidoost, Knight, et al, 2021; Ganjidoost, Knight, et al, 2022; Ganjidoost, Vladeanu, & Daly, 2022a, 2022b).…”

“…Katko et al (2010) suggested that the concept of integrating the management of water and wastewater infrastructure systems is familiar, but the idea as a whole has not been fully embraced. Many studies, including, but not limited to, Ganjidoost (2016), Ganjidoost et al (2017, 2018), Ganjidoost, Daly, and Baird (2021), Ganjidoost, Haas, et al (2015a, 2015b), Ganjidoost, Knight, et al (2021), Ganjidoost, Knight, et al (2022), Ganjidoost, Vladeanu, and Daly (2022a, 2022b), Ganjidoost, Younis, and Knight (2015), Mohammadifardi, Knight, and Unger (2019), Rehan et al (2011, 2013, 2015), Rehan, Knight, et al (2014), Rehan, Unger, et al (2014) along (Baah et al, 2015; Duchesne et al, 2013; Elsawah et al, 2016; Hawari et al, 2016; Kleiner et al, 1998a, 1998b; Mashford et al, 2010; Mazumder et al, 2021; Park et al, 2015; Roshani & Filion, 2013; Scheidegger et al, 2011; Scholten et al, 2014; Syachrani et al, 2011; Tran et al, 2010) have developed distinct and separate management models for water and wastewater infrastructure systems. The evaluation of these models indicates that the current management models and tools are applied to either water distribution or wastewater collection systems.…”