Abouhamad, M and Zayed, T (2019) Risk-based asset management framework for subway systems. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 145(11): 04019071, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The 2017 report card for America's infrastructure assigned a grade D to transit systems indicating they are in a poor condition with strong risk of failure. A possible solution proposed is adopting a comprehensive asset management system to maximize investments in light of the fund scarcity dilemma. This research develops a risk-based asset management framework for subway networks. A generic subway hierarchy is proposed, and risk is assessed using three submodels: failure index, consequences of failure, and criticality index (CI). The Failure Index is predicted using inspection reports and the Weibull reliability function. Consequences of failure are assessed based on seven criteria along financial, social, and, operational perspectives. The CI is introduced to assess the functional importance of a station in its location using seven attributes along three main criteria. The Fuzzy Analytical Network Process is employed to analyze experts' knowledge used in the two functional submodels. The real case study assessment indicates two stations with high risk indices showing the necessity of an intervention action. This research presents a basis for evaluating subway infrastructure on a structural and functional basis. It assists authorities to derive an informed rehabilitation decision using a generic and consistent framework.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | inspection, case study, asset management |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, quality assurance, asset management |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Research Practice, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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