Additional Information
Book Details
Abstract
CARE-W was a joint European initiative to develop a framework for water network rehabilitation. The project was supported by the European Commission under the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Development. The aim of CARE-W was to support European water companies in their decisions on upgrading their water supply. The system has been developed for and tested by cities representing all parts of Europe. CARE-W consists of software dealing with fundamental instruments for estimating the current and future condition of water networks, including tools to assess performance indicators (PI), to predict pipe failures (FAIL) and to calculate water supply reliability (REL). Based on the results of these tools, annual rehabilitation projects are selected and ranked (ARP tool). Information of network is further used for the estimation of long-term investments needs (LTP). The tools are operated jointly within the "CARE-W Manager", which also contains facilities for using pipe network databases, geographical information systems (GIS) and input/output routines. The results from using the procedures are presented by reports, in tables and graphically. Aimed at planning engineers, water utilities and municipalities and consultants working in the increasingly growing field of the planning of rehabilitation of water networks in cities.
Table of Contents
| Section Title | Page | Action | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contents | 6 | ||
| Foreword | 9 | ||
| Summary | 10 | ||
| GENERAL | 10 | ||
| The CARE-W partnership | 10 | ||
| The CARE-W system | 11 | ||
| THE MARKET FOR CARE-W | 15 | ||
| 1.0 Performance Indicators for water network rehabilitation | 16 | ||
| 1.1 \tFRAMEWORK | 16 | ||
| 1.2 \tCOMPONENTS OF THE CARE-W PI SYSTEM | 17 | ||
| 1.2.1\tPerformance indicators | 17 | ||
| 1.2.2 \tAdditional performance measures | 17 | ||
| 1.2.3\tUtility information | 18 | ||
| 1.2.4\tExternal information | 22 | ||
| 1.2.5 \tAdditional performance measures | 23 | ||
| 1.3\tTHE CARE-W PI TOOL | 23 | ||
| 1.3.1\tWhat is the PI Tool? | 23 | ||
| 1.3.2\tSelection of the PI and UI with the PI tool | 23 | ||
| 1.3.3 \tData input | 23 | ||
| 1.3.4 \tEI input | 24 | ||
| 1.3.5 \tUI input | 25 | ||
| 1.3.6 \tCalculating PI and looking at results | 25 | ||
| 1.3.7\tGraphical representations | 26 | ||
| 1.3.8 \tThe uses of PI within CARE-W framework | 26 | ||
| 1.3.9\tUnderlying assumptions for the case of long-term planning | 27 | ||
| 1.3.9 \tProposed methodology for the use of PI for long-term rehabilitation planning | 27 | ||
| 1.4\tREHAB PI COMPARISON AMONG CARE-W END-USERS | 29 | ||
| 1.4.1\tParticipants in the international comparison of rehab PIs | 29 | ||
| 1.4.2\tResults achieved | 30 | ||
| 1.4.3\tPreliminary definition of guidance ranges | 31 | ||
| 1.4.4\tAssessment of global statistics and elaboration of the individual PI forms | 32 | ||
| 1.5\tRESULTS ACHIEVED | 33 | ||
| 1.5.1\tOperational indicators | 33 | ||
| 1.5.2\tQuality of service indicators | 33 | ||
| 1.5.3\tFinancial Indicators | 36 | ||
| 1.5.4\tWater resources indicators | 36 | ||
| 1.5.5\tPhysical indicators | 37 | ||
| 1.6\tCONCLUDING REMARKS | 37 | ||
| 1.7\tREFERENCES | 38 | ||
| 2.0 Technical tools for failure prediction and water reliability analysis | 39 | ||
| 2.1\tBACKGROUND, BASIS FOR THE WORK | 39 | ||
| 2.1.1 The statistical analyses used for the Failure Forecasting models | 40 | ||
| 2.1.2 \tDescription of the hydraulic reliability tools | 40 | ||
| 2.2\tSCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY APPLIED | 41 | ||
| 2.2.1\tFAIL tools | 41 | ||
| 2.2.1.1 Objectives of the tests for FAIL tools | 41 | ||
| 2.2.1.2\tEstimated indices | 42 | ||
| Mark\" index | 42 | ||
| Benefit index | 43 | ||
| 2.2.1.3\tGlobal synthesis for each test | 44 | ||
| 2.2.2\tREL tools | 45 | ||
| 2.3\tSCIENTIFIC RESULTS OBTAINED | 45 | ||
| 2.3.1\tTests on FAIL tools | 45 | ||
| 2.3.1.1 \tThe data | 46 | ||
| Installation date | 46 | ||
| Material | 46 | ||
| Diameter | 46 | ||
| Failures by year | 46 | ||
| 2.3.1.2 \tResults | 46 | ||
| 2.3.1.3\tConclusion on FAIL tool tests | 50 | ||
| 2.3.2 \tTests on REL tools | 51 | ||
| 2.3.2.1 \tUgla, Trondheim | 51 | ||
| Aquarel | 51 | ||
| Failnet-Reliab | 53 | ||
| Relnet | 54 | ||
| 2.3.2.2 \tCrissier, Lausanne | 55 | ||
| Failnet-Reliab | 56 | ||
| Relnet | 57 | ||
| 2.3.3\tConclusion | 57 | ||
| 2.4\tPRACTICAL APPLICATION FORESEEN | 59 | ||
| 2.5\tCONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS | 61 | ||
| 2.6\tREFERENCES | 61 | ||
| 3.0 Decision support for annual rehabilitation | 62 | ||
| 3.1\tDECISION SUPPORT FOR ANNUAL REHABILITATION PROGRAMMES | 62 | ||
| 3.1.1\tBackground, basis for the work | 62 | ||
| CARE-W_ARP in the frame of CARE-W | 62 | ||
| Practices, and expectations expressed by end-users | 63 | ||
| 3.1.2\tScientific methodology: principles applied for defining decision criteria and for developing a multi-criterion decision support | 64 | ||
| Principles for the construction of decision criteria | 64 | ||
| Principle 1 | 64 | ||
| Principle 2 | 64 | ||
| Type 1: Calculation of potential local impacts (risks). | 65 | ||
| Type 2: Observation of local impacts. | 65 | ||
| Type 3: Assessment of the impacts of a deficient pipe on system performances. | 65 | ||
| Types 4 & 4’: observation of system performance deficiencies. | 65 | ||
| Principles for the development of a multi-criterion decision support | 66 | ||
| Approach A – Compensatory / additive models | 67 | ||
| Approach B – non compensatory models | 67 | ||
| 3.1.2\tScientific results obtained | 68 | ||
| A multi-criterion model supporting the definition of annual rehab programmes | 68 | ||
| Feasibility study | 70 | ||
| Prioritisation of rehab projects: multi-criterion procedures | 70 | ||
| ELECTRE TRI: calculation rules | 72 | ||
| Implementation of ELECTRE TRI in CARE-W_ARP | 73 | ||
| 3.1.3\tPractical application: a full scale study performed with AGAC Reggio Emilia | 75 | ||
| Data collection and preparation of a database | 75 | ||
| Knowledge bases | 76 | ||
| Calculation of PFR (predicted failure rate) | 76 | ||
| Applying CARE-W_ARP: simulations done and sensitivity analysis | 77 | ||
| Taking into account co-ordination with other utilities | 78 | ||
| The ELECTRE TRI procedure & the Hotspots procedure | 79 | ||
| Further experiments and research studies | 80 | ||
| 3.2\tDECISION MAKING PROCESS AND SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUES | 81 | ||
| 3.2.1\tDefining a conceptual model of decision-making for rehabilitation | 81 | ||
| 3.2.2\tSome results of the survey on present and actual decision-making process | 82 | ||
| The mandatory framework on rehabilitation | 82 | ||
| Existence of formal decision procedures and some of their characteristics | 84 | ||
| Budgets for rehabilitation: sources of funds and financial trade-offs | 84 | ||
| Interfaces with other actors | 84 | ||
| Decision making typology: levels of centralisation, formalisation, information and confrontation | 85 | ||
| Needs and expectations expressed by end-users | 85 | ||
| 3.2.3\tDetailed case-studies | 85 | ||
| 3.2.4\tConcluding comments | 86 | ||
| 3.3\tREFERENCES | 87 | ||
| Software | 87 | ||
| 4.1\tBACKGROUND | 88 | ||
| 4.2\tFRAMEWORK | 89 | ||
| 4.3\tREHABILITATION SCENARIOS | 90 | ||
| 4.3.1\tScenario Methodology | 90 | ||
| 4.3.2\tKey Factors for Water Network Rehabilitation | 91 | ||
| 4.4\tSOFTWARE: THE REHAB SCENARIO WRITER | 92 | ||
| 4.5\tREHABILITATION STRATEGY ANALYSIS | 94 | ||
| 4.5.1\tThe Cohort Survival model | 94 | ||
| 4.5.2\tPredictable Performance Indicators | 96 | ||
| 4.6\tSTRATEGIC FAILURE PREDICTION | 96 | ||
| 4.7\tSOFTWARE: THE REHAB STRATEGY MANAGER | 97 | ||
| Starting the project | 97 | ||
| Defining asset types and survival functions | 97 | ||
| Creating or importing the network data base | 98 | ||
| Forecasting rehab needs and effects | 98 | ||
| Specifying a rehab program | 98 | ||
| Forecasting the effects under the restrictions of the rehabilitation programme period | 99 | ||
| Transforming the effects into monetary terms | 99 | ||
| Balancing costs and benefits from rehab programs | 99 | ||
| 4.7.1 \tRehabilitation Strategy Evaluation | 100 | ||
| The Balancing and Ranking Procedure | 100 | ||
| 4.7.2 The balancing process | 101 | ||
| 4.7.3 \tOperating comparisons in pairs | 102 | ||
| 4.7.4 \tSolving balancing problems | 102 | ||
| 4.8\tPERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR THE EVALUATION | 102 | ||
| 4.9\tSOFTWARE: THE REHAB STRATEGY EVALUATOR | 103 | ||
| 4.10\tPRACTICAL APPLICATION | 104 | ||
| 4.11\tREFERENCES | 105 | ||
| 5.0 Development of a water network rehabilitation manager | 106 | ||
| 5.1 \tBACKGROUND | 106 | ||
| 5.2 \tSCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY APPLIED | 107 | ||
| 5.2.1 \tThe CARE-W Procedure | 107 | ||
| 5.2.2 \tThe Water Network Rehabilitation Manager Software | 108 | ||
| 5.3 \tSCIENTIFIC RESULTS OBTAINED | 108 | ||
| 5.3.1 \tThe CARE-W Procedure | 108 | ||
| Option 1: All planning at strategic level | 109 | ||
| Option 2: Strategic budgets set and pipe level targeting up to budget | 109 | ||
| Option 3: Pipe level build up of costs | 109 | ||
| Option 1: Strategic Rehabilitation Planning | 109 | ||
| Option 2: Annual Rehabilitation Planning Within Strategic Budgets | 110 | ||
| Option 3: Detailed Zonal Rehabilitation Planning | 110 | ||
| 5.3.4 \tThe Water Network Rehabilitation Manager Software | 112 | ||
| The Central CARE-W Database | 112 | ||
| Data flow and tools interaction | 113 | ||
| Using the Rehabilitation Manager software | 114 | ||
| 5.4 CONCLUSION | 118 | ||
| 5.5 REFERENCES | 118 | ||
| 6.0 Testing and implementation of CARE-W | 119 | ||
| 6.1\tOVERVIEW OF THE TESTING | 119 | ||
| 6.1.1\tAim | 119 | ||
| Task 6.1. System for testing | 119 | ||
| Task 6.2. Analysis | 119 | ||
| 6.1.2\tTesting approach | 121 | ||
| 6.1.3 \tUpdating tools | 122 | ||
| 6.2\tOUTPUT OF THE TESTING | 123 | ||
| 6.2.1\tData availability and preparation | 123 | ||
| 6.2.2\tMain findings | 125 | ||
| CARE-W_PI | 126 | ||
| CARE-W_FAIL | 126 | ||
| CARE-W_REL | 126 | ||
| CARE-W_ARP | 126 | ||
| CARE-W_LTP | 126 | ||
| 6.2.3\tUpdated help files | 127 | ||
| 6.2.4\tBugs | 127 | ||
| 6.2.5\tProposals for enhancement | 127 | ||
| 6.3\tCONCLUDING REMARKS | 128 | ||
| 6.4\tREFERENCES | 128 | ||
| 7.0 Integrated use of CARE-W | 130 | ||
| 7.1\tTHE CARE-W PROCEDURE | 130 | ||
| 7.2\tA REHABILITATION PLANNING SEQUENCE | 130 | ||
| How is the system working? What are the problems? Where are the problems? | 131 | ||
| How much money is needed for rehabilitation in the long- term, 10-20 years? Which long-term rehabilitation strategy is the best? | 132 | ||
| Which pipes should be rehabilitated? | 132 | ||
| 7.3\tHOW CARE-W CAN HELP? | 132 | ||
| 7.4\tDATA ISSUES | 132 | ||
| 7.4.1\tBasic requirements | 132 | ||
| 7.4.2\tSoftware basics | 133 | ||
| 7.5\tWORKING WITH PROJECTS AND DATASETS | 133 | ||
| 7.5.1\tProjects | 133 | ||
| 7.5.2\tDatasets | 133 | ||
| 7.6\tWORKING WITH CARE-W TOOLS: INTERACTION | 133 | ||
| 7.7\tGETTING RESULTS IN CARE-W | 134 | ||
| 7.7.1\tGeospatial reporting | 134 | ||
| 7.7.2\tTabular reports | 134 | ||
| 7.8\tUSING YOUR RESULTS | 135 | ||
| 7.8.1\tWhat do they mean? | 135 | ||
| 7.8.2\tSupplying inputs for the rehabilitation plan | 136 | ||
| 7.8.3\tWhat now? | 136 | ||
| 7.9 Conclusions | 136 | ||
| 7.10 References | 137 | ||
| Appendix 1: Definitions related to water network rehabilitation | 138 | ||
| Appendix 2: CARE-W rehab performance indicators | 140 | ||
| Appendix 3: CARE-W rehab utility information | 146 | ||
| Appendix 4: CARE-W rehab external information | 178 | ||
| Appendix 5: Detailed results of the CARE-W PI comparison among end-users | 181 |