Ackerman Jr., P J (2014) Condition assessment, indices, and risk-based decision-making for public school infrastructure management. PhD thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA.
Abstract
The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) requires public schools to manage asbestos containing materials. Twenty five years after AHERA was enacted public schools continue to struggle with documenting and managing asbestos containing material assets. In addition, the manufacturing of lead based paint (LBP) was banned over thirty years ago yet public schools continue to have to manage LBP assets with no guidelines specific to public schools. When compared to current civil infrastructure asset management systems, AHERA and the HUD guidelines lack a rating system based on visual inspection data. The development of a condition index algorithm and risk of failure model would provide school planners an efficient management tool to predict the future condition of asbestos containing material and lead based paint assets. As a result, school planners would be able to prioritize maintenance, repair, and abatement projects based on the risk to the indoor air quality of their facilities and more efficiently utilize their limited resources to mitigate such risks. This paper presents initial work toward the development of a visual condition index algorithm and a risk of failure model to support prioritization of maintenance, repair, and abatement projects. The condition assessment categories provided by AHERA and HUD were adapted and incorporated in an evaluation form created to assist in rating the various stages of accessibility, deterioration, and detection of typical ACM and LBP building components. The evaluation form can be utilized by inspection and school personnel when reclassifying ACM and LBP components during semi-annual inspections of their facilities and also ensure the repeatability of the condition assessment and risk of failure methodologies. A risk of failure model was developed utilizing the FMEA process, specifically the calculation of a risk priority number (RPN). Three schools were selected for a field pilot study to develop the accessibility, deterioration, detection, and RPN algorithms and evaluate for repeatability. The algorithms will provide a quantitative and consistent means for documenting the condition and RPN of asbestos containing material and lead based paint assets and allow the condition of these assets to be monitored and reclassified over a period of time.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | accessibility; failure; personnel; indoor air quality; schools; air quality; asset management; deterioration; infrastructure management; manufacturing; inspection |
| Index terms: | inspection, infrastructure management, accessibility, public school, planner, air quality, visual inspection, asset management, emergency response, deterioration, personnel, infrastructure asset management, building component, repair, methodology, decision-making, indoor air quality |
| Subjects: | profession, material degradation and durability, management, safety engineering, environmental health, educational institutions, decision analysis, climate science, professional practice, infrastructure engineering, architectural elements, inclusive design, research methods, maintenance engineering, quality assurance, asset management |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Human Resources, Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Construction Materials, Research Practice, Education, Quality Management, Risk Management, Sustainability, Health and Safety, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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