Salem, O M (1999) Infrastructure construction and rehabilitation: Risk-based life cycle cost analysis. PhD thesis, University of Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
The objective of this research is to provide a prediction model of life cycle costs for civil infrastructure construction and rehabilitation alternatives, taking into consideration the uncertainty involved in determining the service life of civil infrastructure units. The ability to determine the uncertainty values that accompany the predicted life-cycle costs allows decision-makers to select construction and rehabilitation alternatives with a knowledge of the inherent risks. This research utilizes a risk-based approach to predict probabilities of occurrence of total life cycle costs associated with the construction/rehabilitation of civil infrastructure unit. The uncertainty component of the model is introduced through the statistical probability distributions that represent the times-to-failure (i.e. , service life) of infrastructure units. In the developed risk-based life cycle cost model, the service life of each construction/rehabilitation alternative is input to the model using random variables sampled from the fitted statistical distributions that represent the service life of the infrastructure units. Computer simulation is used to generate the probability distribution of the model outcome (i.e. , life cycle costs of construction alternatives). The resulting life cycle cost distribution is then statistically analyzed to provide a measure of risk. As a result, decision-makers can determine the probabilities associated with various values of total life cycle costs. This enables them to make informed decisions regarding the construction/rehabilitation alternative that can be applied and the level of risk they wish to accept. This dissertation provides a detailed explanation of the process involved in developing the risk-based life cycle model for civil engineering infrastructure. These process include: (1) defining factors affecting infrastructure performance; (2) performing statistical stratification of infrastructure inventory and failure data; (3) developing reliability and statistical models; and (4) applying simulation and risk analysis techniques. The model concept and its applicability are demonstrated using highway pavement data in the province of Alberta, Canada.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | AbouRizk, S |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | failure; liability; reliability; uncertainty; highway; inventory; pavement; civil engineering; infrastructure construction; life cycle; rehabilitation; risk analysis; service life; civil engineer; Canada; life cycle cost; probability; risk analysis; simulation |
| Index terms: | life cycle cost, prediction model, civil engineer, computer simulation, liability, stratification, infrastructure construction, risk analysis, probability distribution, Canada, life cycle, life cycle cost analysis, service life, inventory, statistical model, dissertation |
| Subjects: | inventory management, Geography, research methods, civil engineering, economics, environmental hazards, liability law, statistical analysis, social justice, asset management, value management, research dissemination and communication, profession, prediction and forecasting, data science, modelling and simulation |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Project Management, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Digital Applications, Legal Issues, Supply Chain Management, Ethics |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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