Sie sind auf Seite 1von 30

AAE 560: III.

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

1. Introduction on Infrastructures: Concept and Definition


The term infrastructure took its meaning and importance after declaring the Presidents Commission on
Critical Infrastructure Protection (PCCIP, 1997). In October 1997, the Commissions report submitted to
the U.S. president defined infrastructure as a network of independent, mostly privately-owned, manmade systems and processes that function collaboratively and synergistically to produce and distribute a
continuous flow of essential goods and services. The commission stated that eight infrastructures are
classified as critical due to the fact that their incapacity or disruption would ripple to affect other
infrastructures, ending up with threatening the nations security. These eight are telecommunications,
electric power systems, natural gas and oil, banking and finance, transportation, water supply systems,
government services, and emergency services.
2. Problem Formulation
The model was developed over three main phases as follows: (1) definition; (2) abstraction; and (3)
implementation. In the forthcoming paragraphs, a discussion on each of the three phases is provided to
highlight the purpose of each phase as well as the processes and tasks conducted within each phase.
2.1 Definition Phase
The first step in formulating an SoS problem starts by the definition phase. This phase aims at ensuring
that the current problem fits within the SoS characteristics by defining the status quo, operational
context and barriers. In fact, these are crucial in examining the traits of the problem and compare them
with the standard SoS traits.
2.1.1

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

Traits of The Current SoS

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

Lexicon of the Current SoS

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

Water Pipe, Vehicle,


Road Pavement

Operating a
Resource (Water
Distribution
Pipeline, Road )

Policy Relating to Single


Resource use ( e.g.
Minimize Traffic Disruption,
water pipe, pavement type)

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

Policy of Adding New Lane,


policy relating coordinate
maintenance and
rehabilitation.

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

Identifying The Main Entities

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.

Figure 3: Paper Model for the Current SoS problem


This paper model shows the interaction between two systems, namely water and road infrastructures.
Once a disaster hits the area, some water pipelines will break. This breakage causes disruption to the
road segment above this pipe. The time needed to fix the pipe is measured as the duration of activities
at this zone (work zone duration). Meanwhile, as this work zone will not be available for traffic users,
the capacity of the road will decrease creating congestion. This congestion will negatively impact the
satisfaction of traffic users since their travel time will increase. Travel time increase means that traffic
users need to pay more, as time can be translated into monetary terms.
It should be noted that road network consists of segments with different characteristics such as average
annual daily traffic (AADT) and number of lanes and directions. Thus each segment carries different user
cost. Furthermore, under the normal operation of such infrastructures, there will be maintenance and
rehabilitation activities to maintain these infrastructures at certain levels of service. However, in case of
delaying the maintenance, the performance of these systems will deteriorate causing dissatisfaction in
end users.
2.2.3

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

WU: Water Users

TU: Traffic Users

a) Partially Connected SoS

WA: Water Agency

TA: Transportation Agency

b) Substantially Connected SoS

CM: City Manager

c) Fully Connected SoS

(+) Operational Independences


Figure 4: Three SoS Alternatives Introduced for the Integration of Road and Water Infrastructures
Considering the first scenario (i.e. partially connected), this architecture represents the least amount of
information sharing between constituent systems. The information flow is circulated among entities and
their beneficiaries. For instant, water agency is more concerned in increasing water users satisfaction by
increasing its serviceability through assuring rapid recovery when system fails. However, this recovery
requires on-site practices (i.e. work zone activities to perform maintenance and rehabilitation M&R
practices) might heavily impact traffic users assuming there is geographical interdependency between
water and road systems. Similarly, transportation agency focuses on improving its network (e.g.
maintain pavement condition, minimizing traffic congestion) which aimed to increase traffic users
satisfaction. Likewise, its decision could possibly impact water network by assigning more traffic to
streets where possible pipes are located underneath them. In this phase, each agency will perform its
activities with least amount of collaboration (i.e, least amount of information sharing).
The second scenario is the substantial connected SoS where the amount of information sharing between
constituent systems increased from the partial scenario. Transportation agency and water agency share
more detailed information such as the state of their networks; number of traffic users possibly impacted
and water users. The incentive for these entities to participate relies on the possible return for each
individual system under the supervision of the city manager. An example of possible collaboration is the
coordination of activities between both parties when applying M&R activities. Each system shares the
state of their infrastructure so that each party would know in advance the condition of the other partys
network. This would help in planning ahead of time for M&R activities, possibly M&R at the same time
for both infrastructures. The incentive for the water agency is the avoidance of lane rental fees (i.e. fees
paid for closing a lane). For the transportation agency, the incentive is the avoidance of having rapid
pavement deterioration caused by the cut and patch performed by water agency. This would be harmful
in case of a pavement in good condition. The complexities that preclude collaboration are the difficulty
of having mutually suitable time for both parties, and the ability to capture the real impact of each one
on the other.

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

The amount of disruption to the


traffic and water users along with
out of pocket costs associated with
improper service provided by water
and road agency.
The state of a system is determined
by the condition of its assets (e.g.
pipe condition, pavement
performance). These conditions, on
the other hand, reflect the amount of
money the agencies need to maintain
these networks.
Time and cost required for water and
road agencies to recover in case of an
earthquake takes place.

Quantify the benefits resulting from the


decisions made by agencies; to provide
insight to the decision makers regarding
the outcome of their decisions on the
users.
Knowing the condition of the pavement
helps in formulating effective decisions and
to develop realistic schedules and budgets
for the short and long term.

Serviceability

Robustness

Determine the vulnerability of the


networks to help decision makers in
quantifying the potential for losses and
thus, take appropriate action

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

Figure5: Costs Spent by Users

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

Figure 6: Costs Spent by Agencies

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

Figure 7: SoS Robustness

Servesability

partially substantially fully


satisfaction
robustness

Figure 8: Overall SoS Performance

2.3.2.1 Overall SoS Performance-(in answering Question 1)


Figure (8) shows how well did the initial and final SoS architecture perform. This figure shows the sum of
the abstract metrics under each scenario.
Starting by the initial SoS architecture, the partial collaboration between road and water agencies, the
highest costs (i.e. lowest abstract metrics) for serviceability and satisfaction are recorded here. Overall
robustness of the partial SoS architect is the highest among other architects.
Secondly, for the substantial SoS scenario, the abstract metrics show different behavior than the partial
case. This can be clearly seen when measuring the satisfaction level. In fact, this SoS architecture has the
highest satisfaction level of end users (i.e, lowest cost). Serviceability under this scenario is the highest
(lowest cost). Interestingly, the highest robustness (lowest cost) over all scenarios has been found under
the substantial case.
Thirdly, for the fully connected architecture (i.e. highest level of information sharing) it has been found
that two metrics lie between the partial and substantial scenarios. These metrics are serviceability and
satisfaction. On the other hand, and unexpectedly, the worst robustness level is recorded for the fully
connected architect.
Assuming an equivalent weight for each metric, might not be realistic. It has been argued that whether
one dollar spent by agencies is equivalent to one dollar spent by users. As a conclusion, due to the time
limitation, the team project would leave this issue without further discussion.
2.3.3

Model Validation and Verification

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

User Cost ($)

120000

User Cost ($)

120000

80000
60000
40000

60000
40000
20000

20000
0

80000

Orgiginal Network
Add Lane

Figure 9: Traffic User Costs (without pipe failure)

0
Original Network
Add Lane
Add Lane (Impact of Traffic on Pipe Condition)

Figure 10: Traffic User Costs (considering pipe failure)

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.

Overall SoS Performance + Sewer System


20000000

Cost ($)

15000000
10000000
5000000
0

partially

substantially

fully

Servesability

satisfaction

robustness

Figure 11: Measures of Abstract Metrics after System Exchange


The overall SoS performance after adding sewer system exemplifies that the desirable alternative is the
fully connected scenario since it has the highest satisfaction (low cost) while other metrics remain same
as compared to the substantial connected scenario. The possible explanation, however the team project
is less confident about it, is the possible reduction of the AADT per lane would increase satisfaction to
the users.
3. Conclusion
In conclusion, it has been found that complex problems where different entities interact with each other
can best be solved by SoS approach (as long as they meet its traits). That being said does not guarantee
that SoS provide a final solution. Instead, it is used to provide a set of outcomes and scenarios were
decision makers can clearly estimate the tradeoffs between scenarios. In this study, SoS was used to
better understand the interactions between road and water pipeline infrastructures. Interestingly, we
found that both infrastructures are rich in how they can have interactions. In fact this is hard to grasp
with traditional systems thinking that are rigorous when designing systems with single products and
focus, which is clearly not the case in this project.
Identifying systems and stakeholders is of no use if we do not consider different SoS architectures and
shape them using design variables along with abstract metrics. These should be used to facilitate
building the model in the implementation phase.

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)

Appendix B: Estimated Costs Models Parameters for Pavement Treatments


Traffic agency cost
TAC = * (L) * (N) *[ln (PItrrig)]

(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

HMA overly functional

TAC = 24.446 * (L)0.662 * (N)0.243 *[ln (PItrrig)]1.736

HMA overlay structural


Resurfacing (Partial 3R
standards)

TAC = 0.026 * (L)0.624 * (N)0.818 *[ln (PItrrig)]5.946


TAC = 0.098 * (L)0.690 * (N)0.458 *[ln (PItrrig)]4.867

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)

Appendix C: Cost Model for Paremeters for Water Pipeline


Water agency cost
AC = a + b (xc) + d (ue) + f (x.u)

(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

Appendix D: Estimated Annual Maintenance Cost


Annual maintenance cost model
LogAMC = a + b. (PSI);
(1)
Where: AMC = Annual roadway or shoulder maintenance expenditure $/lane-mail. a, b = Estimated
regression parameters; PSI = Pavement Serviceability Index.

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

Appendix E: Failure Probability Model (water pipeline, and pavement)


P = 1 e-ktp

(1)

(Mailhot et al, 2000)


E.1: Estimated Models Parameter for the Exponential and Weibull Functions
Table E.1: Equations for the Different Functions of the Exponential and Weibull Distributions and
Estimated Parameters (Mailhot, 2000).
Probability Density
Survival
Destitution
Hazard Function
Function
Function
Exponential
K exp (- Kt)
exp (- Kt)
K
Weibull
K1p (Kt)p-1 exp[-(kt)p]
exp[-(kt)p]
Kp (Kt)p-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

Thin HMA overlay

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]

HMA overly functional

PI = e[ 4.097+0.093*AATA.t+0.113*.ANDX.t]

HMA overlay structural

PI = e[ 4.148+0.020*AATA.t+0.059*.ANDX.t]

Resurfacing (Partial 3R standards)

PI = e[ 4.183+0.015*AATA.t+0.101*.ANDX.t]

Appendix F: Estimated Cost of Swere Pipeline and Prediction Model


Sewer Pipeline Prediction Model
Structural_Grade = (20.9+542(Log Depth/Length) +0.207Age -0.742 Asbestos_Cement_Class 14.8
Diam^0.1)^0.5

(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

Accumulated Annual Truck Traffic Loading (Million)

2.5

AATA

ANDX

Frezing Index (Thousnds)

0.490

PI

Pavement Pysical Performance Threshold (IRI)

PergIndx+10

Figure 1: Screenshot of Pavement Performance Module

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

Figure 2: Screenshot of Pipe Failure Prediction Model

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

Percentage of Pavement life

Figure 3: Screenshot of the Coordination Module

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

Accumulated Annual Truck Traffic Loading (Million)

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

Figure 5: Screenshot of Vehicle Operation Cost Module

Cycl
YrsEva
PerfIndx1
PI

Input data

==0 , 0
SeqAg

>0 , 0

0
>0 , 1

NoLane

Number of Lanes To Be treated

PavLngh

Pavement Length To Be Treated (Mail)

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

Figure 6: Screenshot of Agency Cost Module - Pavement

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

Annual Average Daily Traffic (Thousnds)

22.831

NoOfDircton

Number of road's direction

NoOfLane

Number of lane for each direction

TrkTrafficShare

Truck traffic Share on the road %

0.3

PassCarTrfcShre

Passenger car traffic Share on the road %

0.7

FreeSpeed

Speed Limit before Intervintion (mile/hr)

65

SpeedWorkZone

Speed Limit after Intervintion (mile/hr)

45

CPIcurrent

Consumer Price Index for current Year

207.4

CarFulPrc

Fuel Price for Passenger Car ($/gal)

2.2

TrkFulPrc

Fuel Price for Truck ($/ga)

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))

Figure 7: Screenshot of Work Zone Travel Time Cost Module

-24+0.32*PipeDimtr^0.67+16.7*Depth^0.38
SndGrvlR
SndGrvl

>0 , 1
SandGravl

Input data

TrnchCst1

SoilCst

<=8 , 0
SndGrvl

Insert 1 for Sandy gravel soil with 1:1 side


slope,0 otherwise

SndGrvlVer

Insert 1 for Sandy gravel soil with vertical


walls,0 otherwise

SndCly

Insert 1 for Sandy clay soil with 3/4:1 side


slope,0 otherwise

PipeDimtrR
PipeDimtr
1

2.9+0.0018*PipeDimtr^1.9+0.13*Depth^1.77
SndGrvlR

SndClyVer

Insert 1 for Sandy clay soil with vertical walls,0 0


otherwise

PipeDimtr

Pipe Diameter (in) ; Between (4 -144 in)

12

Depth

Depth of cover of pipe is 4, 6, 8, 10 or 12 (ft)

10

SndGrvl

>0 , 1
SandGravl2

TrnchCst12

>8 , 0
PipeDimtrR
1
PipeDimtr

Figure 8: Screenshot of Excavation Cost Module Water Pipeline

SoilCst

Input data
7.1+0.26*PipeDimtr^1.46
ConcArch

Insert 1 if the embedment is concrete arch,0


otherwise

1
ConcArchR

FirsclsOrdnry Insert 1 if the embedment is first class and


ordinary,0 otherwise

PipeDimtr

12

Pipe Diameter (in) ; Between (4 -144 in)

ConcArch

>0 , 1

EmbedConc

EmbdCnCst

EmbedCst

Figure 9: Screenshot of Embedment Cost Module Water Pipeline

Input data

JontTyep2

DuctIron

Insert 1 for Ductile Iron pipe, 0 otherwise

AsbtsCmnt

Insert 1 for Asbestos cement pipe, 0 otherwise 0

PVC

Insert 1 for PVC pressure pipe, 0 otherwise

JointTyp2

-36+0.62*PipeDimtr^1.54+2.04*Class^0.78
>0 , 1

CmntMortLnd Insert 1 for Cement mortar lind and coated


0
steel pipe, 0 otherwise
CocrtCyndr
Insert 1 for Concrete Cylinder pipe, 0
0
otherwise
PrsConcCy
Insert 1 for Prestressed concete cylinder pipe, 0
0 otherwise

DuctIronR

PipeDimtr

Pipe Diameter (in) ; Between (4 -144 in)

12

JontTyep

Class

Thikness Class of Ductile Iron Pipe (50 or 52)

52

Press

Pressure Class of Asbestose Cement and


PVC Pipe (150 or 200)

>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

Figure 10: Screenshot of Pipe Material Cost Module Water Pipeline

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

Insert 1 for moderate dewatering,0 otherwis

DewtrSev

Insert 1 for Severe dewatering,0 otherwis

PipeDimtr

Pipe Diameter (in) ; Between (4 -144 in)

12

>0 , 1
DwteringModrt

DewtrModCst

<=96 , 0
PipeDimtrR
PipeDimtr

1
DewtrCst

Figure 11: Screenshot of Dewatering Cost Module Water Pipeline

59

ShetShongMo
R
ShetShongMo

>0 , 1
ShetShorMo2

ShorMoCst2

<=54 , 0
PipeDimtrR
1

PipeDimtr

Input data

ShetCst
41

ShetShongMo

ShetShongMi

R
ShetShongMo

Insert 1 for Minimal groundwater,0 otherwis

>0 , 1
ShetShorMo

ShetShongMo Insert 1 for Moderate groundwater,0 otherwis

ShetShongSv

Insert 1 for Severe groundwater,0 otherwis

PipeDimtr

Pipe Diameter (in) ; Between (4 -144 in)

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

Insert 1 if the backfill is Sandy native soil with


1:1 side slope,0 otherwise

SandNatvS

Insert 1 if the backfill is Sandy native soil with


3/4:1 side slope,0 otherwise

SandImprt

Insert 1 if the backfill is Imported soil for


vertical trenches,0 otherwise

Depth

Depth of cover of pipe is 4, 6, 8, 10 or 12 (ft)

10

PipeDimtr

Pipe Diameter (in) ; Between (4 -144 in)

12

SandNatvR
SandNatv

>0 , 1
BackfillSand

BackfillCst

BckflSndCst

Figure 13: Screenshot of Backfilling and Compaction Cost Module Water Pipeline

Input data
PavReplcA

Insert 1 when asphaltic concrete pavement are 1


removed and replaced,0 otherwis

PavReplcC

Insert 2 when asphaltic concrete pavement are 0


removed and replaced,0 otherwis

-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

Insert 1 for moderate Traffic Condition,0


1
otherwis
Insert 1 for Heavy Traffic Condition,0 otherwis 0

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

Figure 15: Screenshot of Traffic Control Cost Module Water Pipeline

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen