Integrated Asset Management Framework and Model for Water Distribution Networks
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Canadian Infrastructure Report Card (2012) estimates the replacement value of water assets to be $362 billion. Water distribution and wastewater collection networks have been in service for more than a century in the majority of the cities in Canada. Although “out of sight” infrastructure might often be “out of mind”, the functionality of these city arteries greatly influences public health. Lack of effective maintenance and proactive renewal plans increase the incurred costs of water infrastructure systems drastically until affordable water fees cannot cover them. The Sustainable Water and Sewage System Act (MEO, 2002) followed by the Water Opportunities and Water Conservation Act (MEO, 2010), both encourage public utilities to develop financially sustainable plans for water and wastewater systems. In addition, both Ontario Regulation 453/07 (MEO, 2007) and Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) Statement 3150 (CICA, 2007) require all public water utilities to prepare annual reports on the current and the future condition of their in-service assets. Managing aging water infrastructure systems with limited financial resources requires comprehensive asset management plans that help decision-makers minimize the total life-cycle cost of their assets while enhancing levels of service. A viable asset management plan should incorporate a Strategic plan (10+year), to set the policies and strategies; Tactical plan (2-10 years), to develop capital programs; and Operational plan (1-2 years), to establish capital projects. Effective dynamic communication among planning levels is critical to share and exchange information and, thus, promote alignment of their respective objectives. \nThis research develops an Integrated Water Infrastructure Asset Management (IWIAM) model comprised of strategic, tactical and operational plans to (1) align corresponding objectives; (2) share and exchange their information; and (3) optimize the allocation of financial resources. \nA novel hybrid Agent-Based and System Dynamics (AB-SD) modelling approach is employed to develop an IWIAM for water distribution networks. The SD and AB models are used to understand the complex dynamic behaviour of water infrastructure systems for network-level (i.e., strategic) and component-level (i.e., tactical-operational), respectively. A four-step Plan-Do-Check-Adjust (PDCA) iterative management process, along with an integrated Water Infrastructure Database (WIDB) is utilized to provide effective interaction and communication among all three planning levels. The research applies a bi-level heuristic optimization algorithm to find optimal solutions to group renewal activities in the development of capital programs. \nThe proposed research makes several noteworthy contributions to the body of knowledge for water distribution networks: \n(1) The development of an integrated decision-support system using Agent-Based and System Dynamics methods to aid water decision-makers in asset management planning; \n(2) The development of a platform for interactions between the network- and component-levels to align network-centric with component-centric decisions; \n(3) The development of an optimization model to select, group, and schedule optimal R&R activities; \n(4) the development of a bi-level heuristic optimization algorithm to find optimal solutions for group scheduling of capital works.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».