Open Access
Issue
MATEC Web Conf.
Volume 120, 2017
International Conference on Advances in Sustainable Construction Materials & Civil Engineering Systems (ASCMCES-17)
Article Number 08006
Number of page(s) 11
Section Sustainable Solutions for Buildings, Constructions and Infrastructures
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201712008006
Published online 09 August 2017
  1. Gaewski, P., Tata and Howard, Inc., and Blaha, F., AwwaRF, Analysis of Total Cost of Large Diameter Pipe Failures (2007).
  2. Jones, C.. Paper presented at the Life Extension of Technologies Workshop, New York, Incentives and Barriers to the use of Trenchless Technology (1999)
  3. Allouche, E., Ariaratnam, S., and AbouRizk, S. Construction Congress VI: ASCE, VA. 543–553, Multi-Dimensional Utility Model for Selection of a Trenchless Construction Method (2000). [CrossRef]
  4. Gilchrist, A., and Allouche, E. N.. Tunnelling and underground space technology, 201, 89–104, Quantification of social costs associated with construction projects: state-of-the-art review (2005).
  5. Manuilova, A., Dormuth, D., and Vanier, D. National Research Center, Canada, MIIP Report: A Case Study of Use and External Components of Social Costs that are related to Municipal Infrastructure Rehabilitation, (2009).
  6. Rahman, S., Vanier, D.J., and Newton, L. A. National Research Center, Canada, MIIP Report: Social Cost Considerations for Municipal Infrastructure Management. (2005)
  7. Martin, T., Johnson, D., and Anschell, S. Proceeding, Leading Edge Conference on Strategic Asset Management, IWA, Lisbon, Portugal, Using historical repair data to create customized predictive failure curves for sewer pipe risk modeling.(2007).
  8. Torterotot, J. P., Sousa e Silva, D., Barbier, R., Werey, C., Pereira A., Konig, A., Montginoul, M., and Waechter V. IWA Publishing, CARE-S Computer Aided Rehabilitation of Sewer and Storm Water Networks.73–88, (2006).
  9. Cromwell, J. E., and Pearson, N. AWWARF, Denver, Cost of infrastructure failure. (2002).
  10. Salman, B. and Salem, O. Journal of pipeline systems engineering and practice, Risk Assessment of Wastewater Collection Lines Using Failure Models and Criticality Ratings., 3, 68–76. (2012)
  11. Ana, E. V., Ph.D. dissertation, University of Brussels, Belgium. Sewer asset management - sewer structural deterioration modelling and multi-criteria decision making in sewer rehabilitation projects prioritization (2009).
  12. Higgins, A.M. and Harris, A.H. Critical Care Clinics, Health economic methods: cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and cost-benefit evaluations, 281, 11–24.(2012)
  13. Polinder, S., Toet, H., Panneman, M. and Beeck, E. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, Denmark, Methodological Approaches for Cost-effectiveness and Cost-utility Analysis of Injury Prevention Measures, (2011).
  14. Moayyedi, P. and Mason, J., European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses: how did we get here and where are we going?, 16-6, 527–534 (2004).
  15. Adey, B.T. and Hajdin, R. Journal of Structure and Infrastructure Engineering. Methodology for determination of financial needs of gradually deteriorating bridges with only structure level data, 7 -8, 645–660 (2011). [CrossRef]
  16. Vacheyroux, G. and Corotis, R., Journal of Structure and Infrastructure Engineering Strategies of investment in the management of urban bridges: a life-cycle approach illustrated for Paris,, 9-11, 1080–1093 (2013).
  17. Marinoni, O., Adkins, P. and Hajkowicz, S. Journal of Environmental Modelling and Software, Water planning in a changing climate: join application of cost utility analysis and modern portfolio theory, 26 -1, 18–29 (2011).
  18. Hajkowicz, S., Spencer, R., Higgins, A. and Marinoni, O., Journal of Environmental Management, Evaluating water quality investments using cost utility analysis,, 884, 1601–1610, (2008)
  19. North American Electric Reliability Corporation, Standard CIP-002-1, Cyber Security, Critical Asset Identification. Washington, DC (2006).
  20. European Commission, Proposal for a Directive of the Council on the Identification and Designation of European Critical Infrastructure and the Assessment of the Need to Improve Their Protection, COM2006787 Final, Brussels, Belgium (2006).
  21. Khogali, W. E., and Mohamed, E. H. Managing utility cuts: Issues and considerations. Paper presented at the NCRR/CPWA Seminar Series: Innovations in Urban Infrastructure. APWA International Public Works Congress NRCC/CPWA Seminar Series Innovations in Urban Infrastructure, 1–11, (1999).
  22. Gourvil, L. and Joubert, F. Évaluation de la congestion routièredans la région de Montréal: Québec: Transports Québec, (2004).
  23. Boyce, G., and Bried, E., Proceedings of North American No-Dig, Benefit–cost analysis of micro-tunneling in an urban area. 94,36–01 (1994)
  24. Pucker, J., Allouche, E., and Sterling, R. Proceeding of NASTT No-Dig Conference, Social Costs Associated with Trenchless Projects: Case Histories in North American and Europe. C4–04 (2006).
  25. Zhang, A., Boardman, A. E., Gillen, D., and Waters, I., Report for Transport Canada Towards estimating the social and environmental costs of transportation in Canada. (2004)
  26. Gulliver, J., Springer-Verlag New York, 10.1007/978-1-4614-5731-2, Transport and Fate of Chemicals in the Environment: Selected Entries from the Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology (2012).
  27. Rail, D., Technomic Publishing Company, Inc., Lancaster, PA. Groundwater Contamination: Sources, Control, and Preventative Measures. 37–40, (1989)
  28. World Bank, Urban Development Sector Unit, Vietnam Country Department of the World Bank, Project appraisal document on a proposed loan to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam for the Ho Chi Minh City environmental sanitation project, (2001).
  29. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/start, accessed 15 November 2016

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.