{"title":"A Condition Rating System for Wastewater Treatment Plants Infrastructures","authors":"Altayeb Qasem, Tarek Zayed, Zhi Chen","volume":28,"journal":"International Journal of Environmental and Ecological Engineering","pagesStart":104,"pagesEnd":109,"ISSN":"1307-6892","URL":"https:\/\/publications.waset.org\/pdf\/15241","abstract":"Statistics Canada stated that the wastewater treatment\r\nfacilities in most provinces are aging and passes 63% of their useful\r\nlife in 2007 the highest ratio among public infrastructure assets.\r\nCurrently, there is no standard condition rating system for wastewater\r\ntreatment plants that give a specific rating index that describe the\r\nphysical integrity of different infrastructure elements in the treatment\r\nplant and its environmental performance. The main objective of this\r\nstudy is to develop a condition-rating index for wastewater treatment\r\nplants mainly activated sludge systems. The proposed WWTP CRI, is\r\nbased on dividing the treatment plant into its three treatment phases;\r\nprimary phase, secondary phase and the tertiary phase. The\r\ncondition-rating index will reflect the infrastructures state for each\r\nphase, mainly tanks, pipes, blowers and pumps.","references":"[1] ACSE, (2005). \"Report Card for American Infrastructures\", available on\r\nhttp:\/\/www.asce.org\/reportcard\/2005\/index.cfm, surfed on April 2004.\r\n[2] Al Barqawi H., (2006). \"Condition rating models for underground\r\ninfrastructure: Sustainable water mains\". M.A.Sc., Concordia\r\nUniversity, Montr\u00e9al, Canada.\r\n[3] Al-Barqawi, H., Zayed T., 2006. \"Condition Rating Model for\r\nUnderground Infrastructure Sustainable Water Mains\". ASCE, Journal\r\nof Performance of Constructed Facilities, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 126-135.\r\n[4] Best practice, (2003). \"Best Practices for Utility-Based Data\"- A best\r\npractice by National Guide to sustainable Municipal Infrastructure,\r\nIssue No 1.0, NRC Infra-guide publication.\r\n[5] Elmisalami, T., E., (2001). \"Developing a multi-attribute utility model\r\nfor selecting information technologies in the construction industry\".\r\nPh.D. theses, Iowa State University.\r\n[6] Keeney L., Raiffa H., (1993). \"Decisions with multiple objectives:\r\npreferences and value tradeoffs\". Cambridge University Press.\r\n[7] Kleiner, Y. and Rajani, B. (2001). \"comprehensive Review of structural\r\ndeterioration of water mains: Physically based Models\". NRCC-43722.\r\nUrban Water, Vol. 3. pp. 151 -164.\r\n[8] Mych\u00e8le G., Val\u00e9rie G. and Donald O. (2008). \"Age of Public\r\nInfrastructure -A Provincial Perspective-, Statistics Canada Report - No.\r\n11-621-MIE2008067.\r\n[9] Saaty, T.,(1991). \"Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback:\r\nThe Analytic Network Process\". Pittsburgh, PA, RWS Publications.\r\n[10] Statistics Canada (2008), \"The age of public infrastructure\", available\r\non http:\/\/www.statcan.gc.ca\/daily-quotidien\/080213\/dq080213aeng.\r\nhtm\r\n[11] Urhaman F., (2007). \"Integrated condition assessment models for\r\nsustainable sewer pipelines\". M.A.Sc., Concordia University Montreal\r\nCanada.\r\n[12] Vanier, D.J., and Rahman, S. (2004). MIIP Report: \"Survey on\r\nMunicipal Infrastructure Assets\", .\r\n[13] Zayed, T. and Halpin, D., (2005). \"Pile Construction Productivity\r\nAssessment.\" ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and\r\nManagement, Vol. 131 (6), June 1, pp.705- 714.","publisher":"World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology","index":"Open Science Index 28, 2009"}