JP7547327B2 - Impact calculation - Google Patents

Description

This patent application claims priority to the following U.S. nonprovisional and international patent applications and U.S. provisional patent applications:

U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/743,477, filed October 9, 2018;
U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/743,483, filed October 9, 2018;
U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/743,485, filed October 9, 2018;
U.S. Patent Application No. 16/365,466, filed March 26, 2019;
U.S. Patent Application No. 16/365,522, filed March 26, 2019;
International Patent Application No. PCT/US19/24139, filed March 26, 2019;
International Patent Application No. PCT/US19/24141, filed March 26, 2019; and U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/858,266, filed June 6, 2018.

This application incorporates by reference each of the eight patent applications listed above and any applications, including U.S. provisional applications, U.S. nonprovisional applications, and international applications, which they directly or indirectly incorporate by reference.

This patent application is related to and incorporates by reference the following U.S. non-provisional, international patent applications and U.S. provisional patent applications:

U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/649,058, filed March 28, 2018;
U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/658,189, filed April 16, 2018;
U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/671,601, filed May 15, 2018;
U.S. Patent Application No. --/--, --, filed October 9, 2019 (Attorney Docket No. Fracta-008-US);
International Patent Application No. PCT/US19/--, filed October 9, 2019 (Attorney Docket No. Fracta-008-PCT9); and U.S. Patent Application No. 16/597,691, filed October 9, 2019 (Attorney Docket No. Fracta-009-US).

All of the above provisional and nonprovisional patent applications are collectively referred to hereinafter as the "commonly assigned and incorporated applications."

This patent specification generally relates to an automated system and method for managing a network of interconnected assets, such as a pipeline network. More specifically, this specification relates to an automated system and method for calculating the consequence of failure to a pipeline network, such as a drinking water supply network.

Over a million miles of water pipes in the United States alone are reaching the end of their useful lives and are in need of replacement. To maintain current levels of service to a growing population over the next 25 years will require investments of at least $1 trillion. Ignoring the problem will result in higher repair costs and increased service disruptions.

In the United States, approximately 50,000 water utilities do not have the resources to replace them all due to budgetary constraints. Since it is not possible to replace all expired pipes, it is important to prioritize replacement of the worst-condition pipes while strategically preserving expired but healthy pipes for future replacement.

The replacement plans made by utilities are highly inaccurate and often not useful. The simplified models made by utilities have led to the wasteful replacement of pipes that may have had several more years of life left. Over the next 25 years, this will result in millions of dollars of wasted time.

When creating planned projects or jobs for replacing various segments of pipes, utility companies may want to rely on the impact of pipe segment damage. However, calculating the impact can be quite complicated. Beyond the direct cost of repairing the pipe, there are many other types of indirect costs, such as the impact of interrupting water service to customers and the impact on nearby "critical" facilities such as hospitals. Efforts have been made to incorporate such indirect costs by using a "weighting" mechanism for each type of additional factor. However, such efforts may create an unbalanced view of the overall risk distribution of the system.

According to some embodiments, a method for calculating an impact value for a network of interconnected managed assets is described. The method includes calculating, with a computer processing system, a cost of a service interruption value associated with each of a plurality of interconnected managed assets; calculating, with the computer processing system, a cost of a transportation interruption associated with each of the plurality of interconnected managed assets; and calculating, with the computer processing system, an overall impact value for each of the plurality of interconnected managed assets based at least in part on a projected cost of repair of the managed assets, the calculated cost of the service interruption value, and the calculated cost of the transportation interruption value.

According to some embodiments, the total impact value, the repair cost, the cost of the service interruption value, and the cost of the transportation interruption value are expressed as monetary values, and the total impact value includes the repair cost, the cost of the service interruption value, and the cost of the transportation interruption value.

According to some embodiments, calculating the cost of the service interruption and the cost of the transportation interruption value includes calculating a product of a predicted time to make repairs to the managed asset and a predicted cost per unit time attributable to each interruption. The predicted cost per unit time attributable to the service interruption can be based on a per capita cost of the service interruption and a predicted number of people affected by the service interruption due to damage to the managed asset. The predicted cost per unit time attributable to the transportation interruption can be based on a per capita cost of the transportation interruption and a predicted number of people affected by the transportation interruption due to damage to the managed asset.

In some embodiments, if a managed asset is in proximity to a critical facility, the aggregate impact value may be based on costs associated with service interruptions and/or traffic disruptions to the critical facility.

According to some embodiments, the interconnected and managed assets are piping segments. The piping segments can be used to deliver water to consumers. According to some other embodiments, the piping segments can be used to deliver fresh water, wastewater, recycled water, brackish water, storm water, sea water, potable water, steam, compressed air, oil, and natural gas.

According to some embodiments, the method may also include displaying on a graphical user interface a plurality of parameters relevant to calculating the impact value, and receiving a selection or modification from a user for one or more of the plurality of parameters.

According to some embodiments, a system for calculating an impact value for a network of interconnected managed assets is described. The system includes a database storing a predicted cost of repair for each of a plurality of the managed assets; and a processing system configured to calculate a cost of a service interruption value associated with each of the plurality of managed assets, calculate a cost of a transportation interruption value associated with each of the plurality of interconnected managed assets, and calculate an overall impact value for each of the plurality of managed assets based at least in part on the predicted cost of repair, the calculated cost of the service interruption value, and the calculated cost of the transportation interruption value for the managed assets.

As used herein, grammatical conjunctions such as "and," "or," and "and/or" are all intended to indicate the occurrence or presence of one or more of the instances, objects, or subjects that they connect. Thus, as used herein, the term "or" is intended in all cases to mean "inclusive or" rather than "exclusive or."

To further clarify the above and other advantages and features of the subject matter of the present patent specification, specific examples of its embodiments are illustrated in the accompanying drawings. It is clear that elements or parts illustrated in one drawing may be replaced with equivalent or similar elements or parts illustrated in another drawing, and that the drawings are merely illustrative of exemplary embodiments and therefore should not be considered as limiting the scope of the present patent specification or claims. The subject matter of the present patent specification will be described and explained with additional specificity and details using the accompanying drawings.

FIG. 13 is a diagram illustrating an example of a graphical user interface for overview of basic COP factors according to some embodiments. FIG. 13 is a diagram illustrating an example of a graphical user interface for overview of basic COP factors according to some embodiments. FIG. 13 is a diagram illustrating an example of a graphical user interface for overview of basic COP factors according to some embodiments. 1 is a diagram illustrating an example of a graphical user interface for configuring parameters related to critical facilities according to some embodiments. 11 is a diagram illustrating an example of a graphical user interface for configuring other damage-related parameters according to some embodiments. 4 is a diagram illustrating an example of a map graphical user interface for the impact module according to some embodiments. 1 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example of a graphical user interface showing a report view for an impact module according to some embodiments. 1 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example of a graphical user interface showing a report view for an impact module according to some embodiments. 1 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example of a graphical user interface showing a report view for an impact module according to some embodiments.

A detailed description of some examples of preferred embodiments is provided below. Although some embodiments are described, it should be understood that the novel subject matter described in this patent specification is not limited to any one embodiment or combination of embodiments described herein, but encompasses various alternatives, modifications, and equivalents. Furthermore, in order to provide a thorough understanding, numerous specific details are described in the following description, but it is possible to practice some embodiments without some or all of these details. Furthermore, for the sake of convenience, detailed descriptions of certain technical matters that are known in the relevant art are omitted so as not to unnecessarily obscure the novel subject matter described herein. It is clear that one or some individual features of the specific embodiments described herein can be used in combination with features of other described embodiments or with other features. Furthermore, like reference numerals and symbols in the various drawings represent like elements.

According to some embodiments, a consequence of failure, or impact (COF), module allows utilities to efficiently generate impact information and visualize the impact of that information in the form of a map or report. The impact module takes into account user inputs, prepared environmental information, and infrastructure. According to some embodiments, the COF module generates impacts in dollar values that do not make complex layered decisions regarding the relative importance of various factors or rely on the assignment of weighting factors. Thus, based on a simple and easy-to-understand configuration, it is possible to provide utilities with a subjective and clear view of the true COF impact.

According to some embodiments, the COF module can be described in three main groups of functionality: analysis, viewmap, and reporting.

Module 1 - Analysis. This module takes the user through impact analysis by allowing the user to configure three basic groups of COF factors (Basic COF Factors, Critical Facilities, and Other Damage). In addition, the module provides a structure that allows the user to establish different scenarios so that the user can select different values to use to determine which COF configuration works best.

Module 2 - View Map. Users can view both the impact of damage information and the results of damage likelihood on the COF map as well as environmental factors that contribute to the COF analysis. These factors include transportation infrastructure, critical facilities, and others related to COF.

Module 3 - Reports. Reports provide a clear assessment of the impact profile of the user's utility by allowing the user to select the impact category and level as per their own standards. Users can also check the distribution of impact by piping asset information (dimension, material) or by type of impact in a chart.

The following description provides a detailed description of the functionality provided at each stage within the COF module.

Module 1 - Analysis. This analysis module contains three main groups of setups: COF Scenarios, COF Cost Drivers, and Operational Analysis.

COF Scenario Setup. Before going into the details about COF configuration, the user should define a new scenario or an existing one to be modified via the analysis page. The user mentally selects the name and description of the scenario, then starts with a blank configuration page by setting up a brand new COF from scratch, copying a scenario from an existing one, or uploading COF values from the customer's own database (i.e. skipping the COF analysis by uploading the customer's own COF analysis).

Modify and update COF factors. The configuration of COF factors for a blank scenario is described.

Basic COF Factors . Figures 1A-1C are examples of graphical user interfaces for a general overview of basic COF factors, according to some embodiments. In particular, Figure 1A shows an interface displaying parameters for pipe repair costs, Figure 1B shows an interface displaying parameters for service interruption costs, and Figure 1C shows an interface displaying parameters for transportation interruptions. The leading numbers included in the input tables shown in Figures 1A-1C are "dummy" numbers.

Pipe Repair. This section of the Basic COF Factors contains two parts: Cost and Time. The customer can populate or register either one of these two parts as a starting point by clicking button 110. The customer's choice often depends on the record keeping method chosen by the utility company. The other part (cost or time) is then automatically registered using the pre-assigned equivalent hourly rate entered in field 112.

For example, a customer may decide to populate a cost table based on information such as that shown in Table 1.

The user can then define an equivalent hourly rate (in field 112) and rationally convert the construction cost to construction time based on rental rates, equipment costs, and so on. The greater the resources (labor and equipment) used for the same construction cost, the shorter the time for actual repair. In this way, the user can determine where this hourly rate conversion seems appropriate for the utility/agency.

Assuming the user selects $200 per hour as the hourly rate value, when the "Time" table is selected in area 110, the user can automatically populate the table by clicking the "Auto-fill with Hourly Rates" button 114, resulting in Table 2.

By clicking the plus and minus sign buttons 116 on the sides of the table, the user can add or delete rows to change the resolution or incremental steps of the pipe sizes shown for both tables. The incremental steps are linked and reflected between the two tables.

The construction cost table gives a clear dollar value for the outcome from a pipe repair, but the time duration of the repair is directly related to the dollar value of the impacts associated with two factors: service interruption and transportation interruption.

Once autofill is completed for both the "Cost" and "Time" tables, the user can fine-tune each table by modifying the values in each cell without triggering another autofill action (unless the Autofill button 114 is clicked). This allows the user to "break" the link between these two tables via the equivalent hourly rates and create two independent tables of repair time and cost based on his/her best engineering judgment.

After the two separate tables of repair times and costs have been created, the user can click the Autofill button 114 in either table to relink the information between the two tables if desired.

Service interruption. The "cost" of a service interruption can be defined as a dollar value representing the loss of a customer's water supply. In the described COF module, a user can define a cost value for a service interruption based on a variety of factors, including: (1) the number of individuals affected, (2) the amount of time affected, and (3) a dollar value per hour assigned to the impact.

In FIG. 1B, a per hour value can be entered in field 122. The dollar amount entered defines the amount a utility company or agency will spend to prevent a single individual customer from losing service for one hour. This amount has been found to provide a uniform solution across multiple scenarios (number of customers losing service for a given period of time).

The duration of the above mentioned effects can be determined by the pipe size and material, which is related to the construction cost of the pipe. This information therefore comes from the pipe repair tables (shown in Figure 1A and Tables 1 and 2).

The number of affected individuals is estimated from the pipe size. By clicking the plus/minus sign buttons 126 on the side of the table, the user can add or delete rows to change the resolution or incremental steps of the pipe size shown. Cells where the user should make entries are highlighted with a dotted line.

The user can define an average pipe velocity, which can then be used to multiply the pipe cross-sectional area to obtain the average flow within a range of pipe sizes. A typical velocity range is 3-5 ft/sec (fps) and can be obtained from hydraulic model results or more general knowledge based on design specifications.

Daily per capita water use can be obtained from city planning documents or operator knowledge, with a typical value being 50 gal/day per capita. Given the average daily flow and the average daily water use per capita, the estimated number of customers can be calculated automatically and as a function of the hourly value based on the other two factors as shown in the following formula:

Total service interruption impact = Number of affected customers x Value per customer per hour x Repair
Return Time Transportation Disruptions. Transportation disruptions can be defined as a dollar value representing individuals having access to a section of transportation infrastructure. In the described COF module, a user can define a value for a transportation disruption based on (1) the number of individuals affected, (2) the length of time affected, and (3) an hourly value assigned to this impact.

In FIG. 1C, a user can enter a per hour rate value in field 132. The dollar amount entered defines the amount a utility company or agency will spend to prevent a single customer from experiencing interruptions in service for one hour. This amount has been found to provide a uniform measure across multiple scenarios (number of customers delayed or stopped in service for a given amount of time).

As mentioned above, the time of impact can be determined by the size and material of the pipe, which is related to the construction cost of the pipe. This information comes from the pipe repair table (shown in Figure 1A and Tables 1 and 2).

The number of affected individuals is estimated from the type of transport. The general process is illustrated in Figure 1C. Cells that should be populated by the user are highlighted with a dotted line.

The user can provide an estimate of the number of passengers per hour for each type of transportation type. This information can be either common knowledge or information provided by public information from a regulatory agency (e.g., Caltrans, BART, or Department of Transportation). As with service interruptions, a per passenger hour value is assigned universally to all transportation types. The dollar value assigned to each line can be calculated by the following formula:

Total Service Disruption Impact = Number of passengers affected x Value per passenger per hour x Time to repair Critical Facilities: According to some embodiments, "critical facilities" can be defined according to government agencies, such as FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) in the United States. The operation of and access to and from these facilities are critical to maintaining essential public services.

In the context of a water utility, attention should be paid to any potential breaks in water mains that could affect critical facilities. Traditionally, this has been done through various weighting mechanisms that either overemphasize the likelihood of breaks in these facilities or underestimate their importance. This traditional "weighting" mechanism approach has been found to create an unbalanced view of the overall risk profile of the system.

According to some embodiments, the COF module described herein considers the basic functions of these critical facilities and assigns values that represent their importance, thereby elevating their importance while at the same time ensuring that they are on par with other factors and parameters. To accomplish this, if a critical facility depends on both water service and transportation access in an emergency, the user should overwrite these values with higher threshold numbers that are appropriate for those facilities, regardless of the actual pipe size or transportation type, which may be less important compared to other nearby pipes or transportation. In other words, even if the pipe is small or the transportation mode is a local road, the user has the opportunity to simply increase those values as if the pipe were larger and the transportation type was closer to mass transit.

Figure 2 is an example of a graphical user interface for configuring parameters related to critical facilities, according to some embodiments. First, the user should define default values for transportation and service interruption values based on values created by basic COF factor inputs as shown in Figures 1B and 1C. In Figure 2, the user can select hourly values from transportation and service interruption rates from drop-down fields 210 and 212, respectively. In the illustrated example, the user has selected values of $50,000 for highways and $9,019 for 12-20 inch pipes. These values are used as default hourly values to be applied to override transportation and service interruption values based on actual transportation type and pipe size for nearby critical facilities.

The COF engine then searches for suitable critical facilities where both access and water supply are important. As a default, both access and water supply are considered important for all types of facilities. However, the user can choose to switch off either or both of these aspects as appropriate (i.e. water supply may be less important for a police station).

The COF module automatically assigns higher values from the default larger piping and mass transportation impact values to pipelines close to these facilities. The transportation and service interruption values are overwritten by these higher values to reflect the importance of maintaining access and/or water supply to these locations.

Using button 230, users have the ability to add additional types of facilities by picking existing GIS information from the COF system or uploading custom GIS information to represent facilities that are important to them. For example, these facilities can include, but are not limited to, pumping facilities, processing facilities, major customers, large industrial users, etc.

The user also has the means to manually modify the override values after turning on either the transport or service interruption for each type of facility. Default values are assigned based on the customer's initial selection of transport type or pipe size, but they can be fine-tuned if the customer determines that the facility is more or less important compared to other types of facilities or the default values provided via pipe size and transport type. In the example shown in FIG. 2, the user has overridden the transport interruption value for hospitals (220) and the service interruption value for police facilities (222). Manually changed values can be reverted to default by clicking the reset button if the interruption type is active (turned on).

Other Damage. Generally, other damage is an occasional event that is not expected every time an asset fails. In other words, it is expected that the "other damage" will not occur, at least occasionally, even if damage occurs to the associated piping segment. In some instances, if a piping segment is damaged (e.g., near a restaurant and the damage causes a business interruption), some of the "other damage" may occur 10% of the time. Generally, it is not expected to occur every time the associated piping segment is damaged. These are not frequent occurrences and are not associated with facilities that are critical to emergency response or water supply. Examples of these other damages include building damage, fish kills (environmental impacts), or personal injury.

Figure 3 is an example of a graphical user interface for configuring other damage-related parameters according to some embodiments. These conditions can be grouped into two main categories: (1) conditions that are proximately related to a GIS feature type (building, river, lake), such as building damage, and (2) conditions that are independent of any GIS feature type, such as disturbance or fish kill.

For other damage types that can be associated with GIS feature types, the user can enter the number of times it has occurred in the past along with an impact value inferred from past cases or from the projected risk of future cases (if the plan has a 5 year horizon or 5 year LOF, the look back must be at least 5 years for past cases). If the case has never occurred in the past and the user wants to add a horizon for the future, the frequency of occurrence can be set as 1.

The COF system described herein extracts the number of injuries that have occurred from the past five years (in this example, there were 300) and uses that information to calculate the likelihood that such an event will occur in the user's system by dividing the number of past occurrences by the total number of injuries in the look back period. A representative impact value is then calculated by multiplying the value of the event by its actual likelihood of occurring during that period.

The COF system described herein then searches for GIS features relevant to this type of damage that are detrimental but do not occur every time a pipe is damaged, but have a global impact or effect. In the case of a building damage, all pipes close to the building are assigned an impact value equal to:

Impact Value = Past Event Value x Past Occurrences / Total Past Damages in Planning Horizon For other damage types that are independent of or cannot be clearly related to any GIS feature type, user input to the GIS feature ("Relevant GEOs" in Figure 3) is not required.

Run COF Analysis : After configuration of the COF parameters, the user can run the COF analysis himself or calculate the BRE (Business Risk Exposure) by multiplying the resulting COF value by the default LOF value (typically 5-year LOF).

Module 2 - Map . Figure 4 is an example of a map graphical user interface for the Impact module, according to some embodiments. On the map, the user can: (1) inspect the pipe COF heat map 410 and individual pipe segments to visualize where the impact values are highest; (2) inspect the pipe COF details (section 412) for different categories that make up the COF value and their subcategories, including base COF factors, critical facilities, and other damages; (3) inspect the pipe segment information, including length, material, year installed, etc.; and (4) change the layers of the display on the map view between pipe information (diameter, material, year installed), LOF information, COF information, and BRE information (menu bar 414). Symbols change in response to user selections, and (5) on the map controls (section 420), choose the scenario in view and select various GIS features related to COF calculations and analysis to show on the map.

Module 3 - Reports . Figures 5, 6A and 6B are example graphical user interfaces showing a report view for the Impact module, according to some embodiments. In this report view, a user can select charts and tables generated by the COF module to identify, compare and contrast the following aspects of the system COF in the report section: (1) distribution of dollar volume risk values from different categories of impact across pipe materials and sizes; (2) distribution, summary, of impact values across different categories of COF; and (3) distribution of business risk exposure as above.

According to some embodiments, the COF modules described herein can be applied to assets other than potable water supplies, such as pipes for carrying other fluids, such as wastewater, recycled water, brackish water, storm water, seawater, steam, compressed air, oil, and natural gas. According to some embodiments, the systems and methods described herein can be applied to networks, such as fiber cables, wires, and utility poles.

Although the above has been described in some detail for clarity, it is apparent that certain changes and modifications can be made without departing from the principles thereof. It should be noted that there are many alternative ways of implementing the processes and apparatus described herein. Thus, these examples are illustrative and not restrictive, and the subject matter described herein should not be limited to the details provided therein, but may be modified within the scope of the claims and equivalents.

Claims (20)

1. A method for prioritizing replacement of pipes in worst condition while strategically reserving expired but healthy pipes for future replacement, comprising: providing a graphical user interface (GUI) for interacting with a user to select repairs for a network of interconnected and managed pipes;
calculating, in a computer implemented processing system, a cost of service interruption value associated with each of a plurality of said interconnected and managed pipes, the cost representing a value to a customer of a loss of service through said network due to an interruption, the cost of service interruption value being based on factors including the number of people affected by the interruption, the duration of the interruption, and the size and material of the affected pipes; and calculating a probability that a service interruption will occur in each of said plurality of said interconnected and managed pipes during a period of time;
calculating a cost of a transportation interruption value associated with each of the plurality of the interconnected and managed pipelines, the cost of the transportation interruption value representing a value associated with an individual having access to a section of the transportation infrastructure associated with a service interruption; and calculating, in a computer implemented processing system, a total impact value for each of the plurality of the interconnected and managed pipelines based at least in part on a projected cost of repairing the managed pipeline, the calculated cost of the service interruption value, and the calculated cost of the transportation interruption value, applying an emphasis to the impact of critical facilities;
providing an interaction between the user and the displayed GUI, the interaction including a selection or modification to one or more parameters included in the GUI, comprising:
The interaction allows the user to select between the cost of the repair and the time of the repair, and automatically populates values that match the time or repair not selected, the cost of the repair, the size of the pipe, and the number of people affected by the repair;
generating a report based on the interactions;
and prioritizing replacement of pipes in the network according to the report. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the total impact value, the predicted cost of repair , the cost of the service interruption value, and the cost of the transportation interruption value are expressed as monetary values, and the total impact value comprises the sum of the predicted cost of repair, the cost of the service interruption value, and the cost of the transportation interruption value. The method of claim 2, wherein the calculating the cost of the service interruption value and the cost of the transport interruption value includes calculating the product of a predicted time to perform a repair on the managed piping and a predicted cost per unit time attributable to each interruption. The method of claim 3, wherein the predicted cost per unit time due to the service interruption is based at least in part on a per capita cost of the service interruption and a predicted number of people who will experience a service interruption due to damage to the controlled piping. The method of claim 4, wherein the interconnected and managed piping is a piping segment, and the predicted number of people experiencing a service interruption is based at least in part on a diameter of the piping segment. The method of claim 3, wherein the predicted cost per unit time due to a transport interruption is based at least in part on the per capita cost of the transport interruption and the predicted number of people who will experience a transport interruption due to damage to the controlled pipeline. The method of claim 1, wherein, if a managed pipeline is in proximity to a critical facility, calculating the total impact value is further based in part on costs associated with the service interruption and/or transportation interruption to the critical facility. The method of claim 1, wherein calculating the total impact value for at least some of the managed pipes is further based in part on a predicted cost for rare events predicted to occur at a rate less than 100% for each of the managed pipes. The method of claim 8, wherein the rare event is predicted to occur at a rate of less than 10% for each of the managed piping. The method of claim 1, wherein the interconnected and managed piping is a piping segment. The method of claim 10, wherein the piping segments form a network for delivering water to a consumer. The method of claim 10, wherein the piping segment is configured to deliver a type of fluid selected from the group consisting of fresh water, wastewater, recycled water, brackish water, storm water, sea water, potable water, steam, compressed air, oil, and natural gas. displaying on a graphical user interface a plurality of parameters relevant to the calculation of the overall impact value, and receiving selection or modification from a user of one or more of the plurality of parameters;
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: 1. A system for prioritized replacement of worst-condition piping while strategically reserving end-of-life but healthy piping for future replacement, comprising: displaying a graphical user interface (GUI) for interacting with a user to select and implement repairs to a network of interconnected and managed piping;
The system comprises:
A GUI display and
a database storing projected costs of rehabilitation for each of a plurality of interconnected managed piping; and a processing system,
a processing system configured to: calculate a cost of a service interruption value associated with each of the plurality of managed pipelines, the cost representing a customer value of a loss of supply through the network, the cost of the service interruption value being based on factors including the number of people affected by the loss, the duration of the impact, a value associated with the impact, and the size and material of the affected pipeline; calculate a cost of a transportation interruption value associated with each of the plurality of interconnected managed pipelines; calculate an overall impact value for each of the plurality of managed pipelines based at least in part on the predicted cost of repair for the interconnected managed pipelines, the calculated cost of the service interruption value, and the calculated cost of the transportation interruption value; and apply an emphasis to the overall impact associated with critical facilities to calculate a probability that a service interruption will occur in each of the plurality of interconnected pipelines during a period of time;
The processing system is configured to display the GUI of a plurality of parameters relevant to calculating the overall impact value, and provide an interaction between the user and the displayed GUI, the interaction including selection or modification of the parameters, the interaction allowing the user to select between cost of repair and time of repair, and populating values corresponding to unselected time or repair, cost of repair, size of pipe, and number of individuals affected by the repair;
generating a report based on the interactions;
The system prioritizes replacement of pipes in the network according to the report. 15. The system of claim 14, wherein the total impact value, the predicted cost of repair , the cost of the service interruption value, and the cost of the transportation interruption value are expressed as monetary values, and the total impact value comprises the sum of the predicted cost of repair , the cost of the service interruption value, and the cost of the transportation interruption value. The system of claim 15, wherein calculating the cost of the service interruption value and the cost of the transport interruption value includes calculating the product of a predicted time to make a repair to the managed piping and a predicted cost per unit time attributable to each interruption. The system of claim 16, wherein the predicted cost per unit time due to the service interruption is based at least in part on a per capita cost of the service interruption and a predicted number of people who will experience a service interruption due to damage to the controlled piping. The system of claim 16, wherein the predicted cost per unit time due to a transport interruption is based at least in part on the per capita cost of the transport interruption and the predicted number of people who will experience a transport interruption due to damage to the controlled pipeline. The system of claim 14, wherein the interconnected and managed piping is linear piping segments forming a network for delivering water to consumers, and the treatment system generates potential improvement projects that are potential piping replacement projects. The system of claim 14, wherein the interconnected and managed piping is a piping segment configured to deliver a type of fluid selected from the group consisting of fresh water, wastewater, recycled water, brackish water, storm water, sea water, potable water, steam, compressed air, oil, and natural gas.