Ariaratnam, S T and MacLeod, C W (2002) Financial outlay modeling for a local sewer rehabilitation strategy. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 128(6), pp. 486-495. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Modern infrastructure systems are highly developed, with considerable capital funding invested in them. While capital is spent on new infrastructure initiatives, the maintenance of the present infrastructure must not be neglected. Increasingly, public agencies are being urged to develop improved systematic methodology for allotting their period budgets more appropriately so that the capacity of the installed infrastructure is more fully utilized and sustained. When planning the allocation of investment funds, multiple objectives may exist that are dependent on the constraints, resources available for construction, and the interrelationships and dependencies among all of the alternatives. This makes the task of planning, prioritizing, and allocating funds a complex exercise. This paper presents a financial outlay model called PRISM, Proactive Rehabilitative Sewer Infrastructure Management, which uses linear programming to optimize allocation of funding for the local sewer network maintained by the City of Edmonton, Canada. By grouping sewer pipes into categories based on parameters of age, diameter, material type, waste types, and average depth of cover, the model provides a mechanism for determining the most appropriate allocation or appropriation of funding given a planning horizon and budgetary constraints.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Canada; models; rehabilitation; sewers |
| Index terms: | funding, modelling, exercise, infrastructure management, prioritizing, linear programming, Canada, methodology, agency, sewer, strategy |
| Subjects: | infrastructure and transport systems, sociology, decision analysis, infrastructure engineering, Geography, algorithms, research methods, management, economic analysis, analytical methods, health behaviours and lifestyles |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Risk Management, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here