SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR EVALUATING PERFORMANCE OF INFRASTRUCTURE

• US 20160224922A1
• Filed: 01/28/2016
• Published: 08/04/2016
• Est. Priority Date: 02/02/2015
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology
• Original Assignee: Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology
• Inventors: CHAE, Myung Jin, PARK, Tae Il
• Application Number:
  US15/008,454
• Publication Number:
  US 20160224922A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 1/1
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06393 Score-carding, benchmarking or key performance indicator [KPI] analysis

Abstract

Disclosed herein are a system and method for evaluating the performance of infrastructure, in which a condition rating according to a result of a survey targeting experts is expressed as a sequentially distributed probability distribution function using a fuzzy membership function and a comprehensive performance measure score is more accurately expressed as a probability distribution function, thereby accurately evaluating a comprehensive performance measure rating. Also, a utility value is derived using a utility function and usable and functional evaluation measures for each facility of the infrastructure are collected, thereby comprehensively determining subjective performance evaluation measures of the infrastructure.

Claims

1. A system for evaluating the performance of infrastructure which comprises roads, railways, harbors, dams, bridges, airports, rivers, water supplies, and fishing ports, the system comprising:

a comprehensive facility performance measure setting unit (110) which selects a comprehensive performance measure for each facility, which is defined according to customer value items preset for each facility of the infrastructure;

a facility performance measure setting unit (120) which defines a facility performance measure which quantitatively indicates the comprehensive facility performance measure for each facility of the infrastructure using a fuzzy membership function according to properties of the comprehensive facility performance measure;

a facility performance measure utility function determination unit (130) which determines a utility function for each facility performance measure corresponding to an effect value selectively given within a range from 0% to 100% utilizing an expert survey through normalization using a utility theory;

a facility performance measure weight determination unit (140) which assigns a weight for each facility performance measure using an analytic hierarchy process (AHP);

a facility performance measure evaluation unit (150) which evaluates the facility performance measure utilizing an on-site survey or a check result;

a facility performance measure utility function determination unit (160) which determines a utility value for each facility performance measure using the determined facility performance measure utility function and the assigned weight;

a facility comprehensive performance measure score calculation unit (170) which calculates a facility comprehensive performance measure score for each facility of the infrastructure;

a facility comprehensive performance measure evaluation result analysis unit (180) which analyzes an evaluation result by analyzing an effect of the facility performance measure on the facility comprehensive performance measure score; and

an infrastructure performance evaluation unit (190) which performs a comprehensive performance evaluation for each facility of the infrastructure,

wherein the facility performance measure setting unit (120) expresses a condition rating according to a result of the expert survey using the fuzzy membership function as a sequentially distributed probability distribution function, and corresponding thereto, the facility comprehensive performance measure is expressed as a probability distribution function in the form of a fuzzy membership function.

2. The system of claim 1, wherein the fuzzy membership function is a fuzzy membership function with a strengthened central score.

3. The system of claim 1, wherein the facility performance measure setting unit (120) classifies the customer value items of the infrastructure into sustainability, accessibility, affordability, quality, health &

safety, reliability &

responsiveness, and customer service and defines respective properties to derive comprehensive infrastructure performance measures.

4. The system of claim 1, wherein the facility performance measure utility function determination unit (130) selectively determines the utility function for each performance measure within a range from 0% to 100% according to a multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) to integrate facility performance measures with different properties of the comprehensive facility performance measure and to sequence a rating standard.

5. The system of claim 1, wherein the facility performance measure utility value determination unit (160) determines the utility value by solving three simultaneous equations formed of

u_i(x_iA)−

u_i(x_iB)=α

[u_i(x_iD)−

u(x_iE)]

u_i(x_iB)−

u_i(x_iC)=β

[u_i(x_iD)−

u(x_iE)]

u_i(x_iC)−

u_i(x_iD)=γ

[u_i(x_iD)−

u(x_iE)] 

 

Equation 1

in which x_iA indicates a rating of an ith performance measure, a u_i value indicates an effective value of a certain rating of A to E of the ith performance measure, α

, β

, and γ

indicate relative importance values of other change in rating based on a change in rating of the lowermost importance.

6. The system of claim 5, wherein a level of the rating is determined through Level=Σ

k_i×

u_i(x_i), in which k_i indicates a weight for each performance measure and u_i(x_i) indicates a function value for each performance measure x_i.

7. The system of claim 1, wherein the facility comprehensive performance measure evaluation result analysis unit (180) analyzes an effect of the facility performance measure on the facility comprehensive performance measure score and resets a facility performance measure according to analysis of an evaluation result and a maintenance and management strategy.

8. A method of evaluating the performance of infrastructure which comprises roads, railways, harbors, darns, bridges, airports, rivers, water supplies, and fishing ports, the method comprising:

a) selecting a comprehensive performance measure for each facility, which is defined according to customer value items preset for each facility of the infrastructure;

b) defining a facility performance measure which quantitatively indicates the comprehensive facility performance measure for each facility of the infrastructure using a fuzzy membership function according to properties of the comprehensive facility performance measure;

c) determining a weight for each facility performance measure using an AHP;

d) determining a utility function for each facility performance measure corresponding to an effect value selectively given within a range from 0% to 100% utilizing an expert survey through normalization using a utility theory;

e) evaluating the facility performance measure utilizing an on-site survey or a check result;

f) determining a utility value for each facility performance measure using the determined facility performance measure utility function and the determined weight;

g) calculating a facility comprehensive performance measure score for each facility of the infrastructure;

h) analyzing an evaluation result by analyzing an effect of the facility performance measure on the facility comprehensive performance measure score; and

i) performing a comprehensive performance evaluation for each facility of the infrastructure,

wherein in operation b), a condition rating according to a result of the expert survey is expressed using the fuzzy membership function as a sequentially distributed probability distribution function, and corresponding thereto, the comprehensive performance measure for each facility is expressed as a probability distribution function in the form of a fuzzy membership function.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein the fuzzy membership function is a fuzzy membership function with a strengthened central score.

10. The method of claim 8, wherein operation a) comprises:

classifying the customer value items of the infrastructure into sustainability, accessibility, affordability, quality, health &

safety, reliability &

responsiveness, and customer service; and

defining respective properties to derive comprehensive infrastructure performance measures.

11. The method of claim 8, wherein the utility function for each performance measure is selectively determined within a range from 0% to 100% according to an MAUT to integrate facility performance measures with different properties of the comprehensive facility performance measure and to sequence a rating standard.

12. The method of claim 8, wherein in operation f), the utility value is determined by solving three simultaneous equations formed of

u_i(x_iA)−

u_i(x_iB)=α

[u_i(x_iD)−

u_i(x_iE)]

u_i(x_iB)−

u_i(x_iC)=β

[u_i(x_iD)−

u_iD(x_iE)]

u_i(x_iC)−

u_i(x_iD)=γ

[u_i(x_iD)−

u_iD(x_iE)] 

 

Equation 1

in which, x_iA indicates a rating of an ith performance measure, a u_i value indicates an effective value of a certain rating of A to E of the ith performance measure, α

, β

, and γ

indicate relative importance values of other change in rating based on a change in rating of the lowermost importance.

13. The method of claim 12, wherein a level of the rating is determined through Level=Σ

k_i×

u_i(x_i), in which k_i indicates a weight for each performance measure and u_i(x_i)indicates a function value for each performance measure x_i.

14. The method of claim 8, wherein in operation h), an effect of the facility performance measure on the facility comprehensive performance measure score is analyzed and a facility performance measure is reset according to analysis of an evaluation result and a maintenance and management strategy.