Performance Modeling and Simulation for Water Distribution Networks

Abstract

This study develops an implementation framework for asset management strategic planning of water distribution networks to meet sustainable infrastructure, socio-political, and financial targets over the life cycle of the infrastructure. The proposed framework is comprised of three decision-making layers: (1) Visions and Values, (2) Function, and (3) Performance. The asset management strategy framework is implemented and validated by demonstrating functionality and value by using data from three water utilities in Canada. The Visions and Values layer is set to meet the needs of the water utilities' stakeholders. The Function layer uses an advanced system dynamics model to simulate and forecast the system's future behavior. The Performance layer benchmarks, compares, and graphically illustrates the situation and performance of water utilities against each other regardless of their size. Benchmarking results indicate that all three water utilities can sustainably meet the strategic targets established in the Visions and Values layer of the asset management strategy over the benchmarking period. The impact of the desired cash reserve on infrastructure and financial benchmarking performance indicators is also investigated to explore the “optimal” combination of allowable fee-hike and rehabilitation rates using the contour plots developed over the benchmarking period. The results indicate that the optimal combinations of allowable fee-hike of ~8% per year and rehabilitation rate of 1.3% per year along with a 1–4% cash reserve, depends on the network condition, will allow water utilities to have sufficient funds to meet their strategic targets. The performance modeling and simulation approach presented in this study represents a powerful tool for other utilities to develop optimal strategic and operational plans for their networks and thus better service to their stakeholders.

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

“…As a result, the utility needs to plan yearly budgets for the metallic mains in risk tiers 2, 3, and 4. Table 3 summarizes the unit cost of metallic mains assessment in each tier based on historical projects conducted by some water utilities in the US (Ganjidoost, Daly, et al, 2021; Ganjidoost, Knight, et al, 2021). It should be noted that all numeric values and planning horizon length obtained or assumed for in this study can be updated based on the utility's desire to test the impact of changing inputs on the modeling outcomes.…”

“…Efforts have been made to develop DSS using SD for financially sustainable asset management of water infrastructure systems to understand and simulate their longterm behavior and performance, and to explore the impact of complex interconnections and feedback loops among infrastructure, financial and sociopolitical sectors (Ganjidoost et al, 2015(Ganjidoost et al, , 2018Ganjidoost, Knight, et al, 2021;Rehan et al, 2013Rehan et al, , 2015. However, none of these studies considered the risk of asset failure in their models when planning for operational and capital works.…”

Sustainability assessment of strategic asset management decisions on municipal water infrastructure systems: Framework and application

“…System boundary defines the temporal and spatial boundaries of the system and where the upstream and downstream processes should be cut-off from the assessment. The system boundary can also extend to include both the affected, as well as, affecting cross-boundary systems for example, leakages from water distribution system can affect WWC system (Ganjidoost, 2016), or infiltrations into WWC systems affecting Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) systems (Mohammadifardi et al, 2019a(Mohammadifardi et al, , 2019b. The temporal boundary needs to take into account the life of the asset that will exhibit the greatest longevity within the system for example, 100 years for the WWC network system to capture the life cycle of the pipes.…”

Performance Modeling and Simulation for Wastewater Collection Networks

“…The statements as and standards provide general, but not asset-specific, guidelines to generally implement a good asset management practice. Ganjidoost et al (2021a) defines a good asset management practice as the utility engage their stakeholders in the three interconnected decision-making layers defined by Lloyd (2010): (1) the outer circle (to find out "Where do we want to go? "); (2) the inner circle (to find out "How do we get there?…”

“…Decision-making models have been developed to assess the consequence and risk of sewer pipe failure using risk matrix and a weighted sum multi-criteria decision-matrix (Baah et al, 2015) or artificial intelligence-based techniques (Mashford et al, 2010), and evaluate data-driven and risk-based decisions to prioritize inspection, rehabilitation, or replacement of the sewer pipe (Tran et al, 2010;Syachrani et al, 2011;Elsawah et al, 2016;Ganjidoost et al, 2021b). Rehan et al (2011Rehan et al ( , 2014, Ganjidoost et al (2015Ganjidoost et al ( , 2018Ganjidoost et al ( , 2021a and Mohammadifardi et al (2019) developed sustainable management strategies models for the wastewater collection infrastructure using system dynamics to help the water utility find out "Where do we want to go?" and "How do we get there."…”