KSCE Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering Research (대한토목학회논문집)

Korean Society of Civil Engeneers (대한토목학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Sewer CCTV Inspection Prioritization Based on Risk Assessment

위험도 기반의 하수관로 CCTV 조사 우선순위 결정 연구

  • 손주영 (중앙대학교 토목공학과) ;
  • 이재현 (중앙대학교 토목공학과) ;
  • 오재일 (중앙대학교 사회기반시스템공학부)
  • Received : 2017.02.07
  • Accepted : 2017.04.06
  • Published : 2017.06.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Most sewer lines buried in the city are likely to be collapsed due to serious aging. Also, due to the high concentration of development and high population density and traffic, the collapse of the sewer will cause enormous social and economic damage. Therefore, proactive maintenance is required to prevent accidents caused by deteriorated sewer pipe. In order to utilize limited budget effectively, risk-based prioritization methods should be proposed that simultaneously consider the consequence of failure and the probability of failure. In this study, the method of risk-based prioritization of sewer was examined by reviewing various cases of overseas studies and applied to the urban sub-catchment. First, the impact factors that can be secured through the sewer GIS DB in Seoul were derived, and the weight, sub-criteria, and impact score of each impact factor were determined and the consequence of failure was calculated by weight sum method. In addition, the probability of failure was calculated by dividing the service life by the estimated useful life, and the consequence of failure and the probability of failure were classified into five grades by the Jenks natural breaks classification method. The prioritization method was applied to sub-catchment in the Seoul to derive a risk matrix and a risk grade. As a result, 26% of all subjects were selected as the inspection priority subjects with 4-5 risk grade. Therefore, using the risk-based CCTV prioritization methodology, it will be possible to systematically determine the objects that need investigation first.

도심 내 매설된 대다수의 하수관로는 노후가 심각하게 진행되어 파손의 가능성이 높다. 또한, 도시개발의 집중도가 높아 인구밀도나 통행량이 많으므로 하수관로가 붕괴되면 사회 경제적으로 막대한 피해를 입게 된다. 따라서 관로 파손에 의한 사고를 예방하기 위해 사전적인 유지관리가 필요하며, 한정된 재원의 효율적인 활용을 위해 파손의 가능성과 피해의 규모를 동시에 고려한 위험도 기반의 우선순위 결정방안이 제시되어야 한다. 본 연구에서는, 다양한 해외 연구사례를 검토하여 위험도 기반의 하수관로의 조사 우선순위 결정 방법을 도출하였고 도심지 배수분구에 적용 검토하였다. 우선, 서울시 하수관로 GIS DB를 통해 확보 가능한 영향인자를 도출하고, 각 영향인자들의 가중치, 구분항목, 영향점수를 결정하여 가중치 환산법으로 하수관로 파손결과를 산정하였다. 또한, 하수관로의 예상 내용연수 대비 사용연수를 계산하여 파손가능성을 도출하였으며, 내츄럴 브레이크 방법으로 파손결과와 파손가능성을 5등급으로 구분하였다. 위 방법을 서울시 내 위치한 소규모 배수분구에 적용하여 위험도 매트릭스와 위험도 등급을 도출하였으며, 그 결과 전체 대상의 26%가 위험도 4-5등급인 CCTV조사 우선대상으로 선정되었다. 따라서 위험도 기반의 CCTV 우선순위 결정방법을 활용하여 조사가 우선적으로 필요한 대상을 체계적으로 결정할 수 있을 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Baah, K., Dubey, B., Harvey, R. and McBean, E. (2015). "A riskbased approach to sanitary sewer pipe asset management." Science of The Total Environment, Vol. 505, pp. 1011-1017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.10.040
  2. Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) (2009). Statement of federal financial assounting concepts and standards.
  3. Hahn, M. A., Palmer, R. N., Merrill, M. S. and Lukas, A. B. (2002). "Expert system for prioritizing the inspection of sewers : Knowledge base formulation and evaluation." Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, Vol. 128, No. 2, pp. 121-129. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2002)128:2(121)
  4. Halfawy, M. R., Dridi, L. and Baker, S. (2008). "Integrated decision support system for optimal renewal planning of sewer networks." Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 360-372. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2008)22:6(360)
  5. Harvey, R. R. and McBean, E. A. (2014). "Predicting the structural condition of individual sanitary sewer pipes with random forests." Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 294-303. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2013-0431
  6. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (2015). Publication 946, pp.105-113.
  7. Invercargill City Council (ICC) (2011). Sewerage Asset Management Plan.
  8. Jenks, G. F. (1977). Optimal data classification for choropleth maps, Occasional paper No. 2. Lawrence, Kansas: Univ. of Kansas, Dept. of Geography.
  9. Kleiner, Y., Sadiq, R. and Rajani, B. (2004). "Modeling failure risk in buried pipes using fuzzy Markov deterioration process." In ASCE International Conference on Pipeline Engineering and Construction, pp.1-12.
  10. Kley, G. and Caradot, N. (2013). D1. 2. Review of sewer deterioration models; project acronym : SEMA, Kompetenzzentrum Wasser Berlin.
  11. Korea Institute of Public Finance (KIPF) (2012). Depreciation and useful life analysis of major countries, pp. 40-45 (in Korean).
  12. Lukas, A. and Merrill, M. S. (2006). Scraps: "An expert system for prioritizting sewer inspections." North American Society for Trenchless Technology (NASTT).
  13. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) (2009). Capital Improvement Program (CIP), http://www.mwra.state.ma.us/finance/cip.htm
  14. McDonald, S. E. and Zhao, J. Q. (2001). "Condition assessment and rehabilitation of large sewers." In Proceedings of the International Conference on Underground Infrastructure Research, pp. 361-369. University of Waterloo.
  15. Ministry of Environment (MOE) (2005). Public sewer maintenance practical guide (in Korean).
  16. Ministry of Environment (MOE) (2011). Sewerage facility standard (in Korean).
  17. Ministry of Environment (MOE) (2013). Guidance of sewer system maintenance in major management (in Korean).
  18. Ministry of Environment (MOE) (2015a). Conducting precise surveys on aged sewage pipes to cope with subsidence; Press Releases (in Korean).
  19. Ministry of Environment (MOE) (2015b). Guidelines for public sewerage facility management (in Korean).
  20. Ministry of Environment (MOE) (2015c). National sewerage master plan (2016-2025).
  21. National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO) (2013). Infrastructure condition assessment and certification programs (PACP/MACP/LACP), National Association of Sewer Service Companies, USA, 2012 and 2013 Trainer of the Year.
  22. National Research Facility & Equipment Center (NFEC) (2014). Accounting Life and Management Life of Research Equipment (in Korean)
  23. Salman, B. and Salem, O. (2012). "Risk assessment of wastewater collection lines using failure models and criticality ratings." Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 68-76. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000100
  24. Seoul Metropolitan Government. (2015). Korea geologic information consortium : sewer management computer system maintenance . improvement of function and DB accuracy improvement business (in Korea).
  25. Syachrani, S., Jeong, H. D. and Chung, C. S. (2013). "Advanced criticality assessment method for sewer pipeline assets." Water Science and Technology, Vol. 67, No. 6, pp. 1302-1309. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2013.003
  26. Syachrani, S., Jeong, H. S. and Chung, C. S. (2011). "Dynamic deterioration models for sewer pipe network." Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 123-131. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000085
  27. Toy, L. P. (2014). Risk-based asset inspection prioritisation programme.
  28. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) (2002). SSO fact sheet-asset management for sewer collection systems.
  29. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) (2005). Advanced asset management training.
  30. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) (2009). Condition assessment of wastewater collection systems, EPA/600/R-09/049.
  31. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) (2015). Condition assessment of underground pipes with excerpts from : condition assessment of wastewater collection systems, EPA/600/R-09/049.
  32. Ward, B. and Savic, D. A. (2012). "A multi-objective optimisation model for sewer rehabilitation considering critical risk of failure." Water Science and Technology, Vol. 66, No. 11, pp. 2410-2417. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2012.393
  33. Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) (2007). Condition assessment strategies and protocols for water and wastewater utility assets.
  34. Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) (2009). Remaining asset life : A state of the art review.
  35. Water Research centre (WRc) (2001). Sewerage rehabilitation manual (4th ed.).