1. ERDC Knowledge Core
  2. Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC)
  3. Information Technology Laboratory (ITL) - (1986 - present)
  4. Publication
  5. Special Report
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/11681/46123
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorAlt, Jonathan K.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBrown, Willie H.en_US
dc.contributor.authorGallarno, George E.en_US
dc.contributor.authorRichards, John P.en_US
dc.contributor.authorOlszewski, Jennifer M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorRice, Titus L.en_US
dc.creatorInformation Technology Laboratory (U.S.)en_US
dc.date.accessioned2022-11-30T16:23:31Zen_US
dc.date.available2022-11-30T16:23:31Zen_US
dc.date.issued2022-11en_US
dc.identifier.govdocERDC/ITL SR-22-5en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11681/46123en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.21079/11681/46123en_US
dc.descriptionSpecial Reporten_US
dc.description.abstractUSACE operates, maintains, and manages more than $232 billion of the Nation’s water resource infrastructure. USACE uses the Operational Condition Assessment (OCA) to allocate limited resources to assess condition of this infrastructure in efforts to minimize risks associated with performance degradation. The analysis of risk associated with flood risk management (FRM) assets includes consideration of how each asset contributes to its associated FRM watershed system, understanding the consequences of the asset’s performance degradation, and a determination of the likelihood that the asset will perform as expected given the current OCA condition ratings of critical components. This research demonstrates a proof-of-concept application of a scalable methodology to model the probability of a dam performing as expected given the state of its gates and their components. The team combines this likelihood of degradation with consequences generated by the application of designed simulation experiments with hydrological models to develop a risk measure. The resulting risk scores serve as an input for a mixed-integer optimization program that outputs the optimal set of components to conduct OCAs on to minimize risk in the watershed. This report documents the results of the application of this methodology to two case studies.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipNavigation Systems Research Program (U.S.)en_US
dc.description.tableofcontentsAbstract .................................................................................................................................... ii Figures and Tables ................................................................................................................... v Preface ..................................................................................................................................... vi 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Objective............................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Approach ............................................................................................................ 3 2 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Facility performance model .............................................................................. 5 2.2 Initializing conditional probability tables .......................................................... 7 2.3 Subject matter expert elicitation methodology ................................................ 8 2.4 Consequence development ............................................................................ 10 2.4.1 Experimental design ................................................................................................. 11 2.4.2 Statistical modeling .................................................................................................. 11 2.5 Determining risk ............................................................................................. 12 2.6 Prioritization model ........................................................................................ 12 2.7 Summary .......................................................................................................... 14 3 Case Study: Jennings Randolph Lake Results ........................................................... 15 3.1 Review of previous results ..............................................................................15 3.1.1 Subject matter expert elicitation .............................................................................. 15 3.1.2 Initializing Bayesian models ..................................................................................... 16 3.2 Update on consequence development .......................................................... 16 3.3 Updated prioritization results ......................................................................... 17 3.4 Proof of concept prioritization tool ................................................................. 17 4 Case Study: Trinity River ................................................................................................ 19 4.1 Overview ...........................................................................................................19 4.2 Data exploration ..............................................................................................19 4.3 Subject matter expert elicitation .................................................................... 21 4.3.1 Conduct ..................................................................................................................... 21 4.3.2 Results ....................................................................................................................... 21 4.4 Initializing Bayesian networks ........................................................................ 22 4.5 Developing consequences .............................................................................. 24 4.5.1 Scenario configuration ............................................................................................. 24 4.5.2 Analysis of results, experiment 1 ............................................................................. 24 4.5.3 Analysis of results, experiment 2 ............................................................................. 25 4.6 Prioritizing components by risk ....................................................................... 27 4.6.1 Developing risk scores .............................................................................................. 27 4.6.2 Prioritization .............................................................................................................. 28 5 Summary and Way Ahead ............................................................................................. 31 5.1 Modeling methodology .................................................................................... 31 5.2 Case study 1 .................................................................................................... 31 5.3 Case study 2 .................................................................................................... 31 5.4 Way ahead....................................................................................................... 32 References ............................................................................................................................. 34 Appendix A: Terms of Reference ......................................................................................... 35 Appendix B: OCA Rating Scales .......................................................................................... 36 Appendix C: CPT Initialization Methodology ..................................................................... 37 Appendix D: Risk Determination Methodology ................................................................. 39 Appendix E: Single Facility Case ......................................................................................... 41 Appendix F: Subject Matter Elicitation Materials ............................................................ 42 Appendix G: Initializing Bayesian Networks Example ...................................................... 64 Appendix H: SMEs for Both Case Studies .......................................................................... 65 Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................... 66 Report Documentation Pageen_US
dc.format.extent77 pages / 3.99 MBen_US
dc.format.mediumPDFen_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherEngineer Research and Development Center (U.S.)en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesSpecial Report (Engineer Research and Development Center (U.S.)) ; ERDC/ITL SR-22-5en_US
dc.rightsApproved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimiteden_US
dc.sourceThis Digital Resource was created in Microsoft Word and Adobe Acrobaten_US
dc.subjectCivil engineering--Planningen_US
dc.subjectDecision makingen_US
dc.subjectEngineering--Managementen_US
dc.subjectHydraulic structuresen_US
dc.subjectDamsen_US
dc.subjectRisk assessmenten_US
dc.titleRisk-based prioritization of operational condition assessments : methodology and case study resultsen_US
dc.typeReporten_US
Appears in Collections:Special Report

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
ERDC-ITL SR-22-5.pdfERDC/ITL SR-22-53.99 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open
Show simple item record