Budget allocation for water mains rehabilitation projects using Simos’ procedure

Peer review under responsibility of Housing and Building National Research Center.

Figures & data

Figure 1 Budget allocation model development methodology.

Table 1 Grade classification factors.

Main clusters	Factor	Preferences
Economic factors	1. Project capital cost	The project with lower capital cost is preferred
	2. Project operational and maintenance costs (O&M)	The project with lower operational and maintenance cost is preferred
	3. Payback period	The faster payback period is preferred
	4. internal return ratio (IRR)	The higher ratio is preferred
Social factors	5. Effect on other nearest properties to the host pipes	The lower effect on other properties is preferred
	6. Effect on traffic	The lower disruption effect on traffic is preferred
	7. Effect on public health	The lower negative effect on public health is preferred
	8. Effect on other nearest utilities to the host pipes	The lower damage effect on other utilities is preferred
Environmental factors	9. Effect on public safety	The lower negative effect on public safety is preferred
	10. Effect on air quality	The lower negative effect on air quality is preferred
	11. Effect on water quality	The lower negative effect on water quality is preferred
	12. Noise effect	The lower noise effect is preferred
	13. Energy saving	The higher energy saving is preferred

Table 2 Experts’ feedback.

Main clusters	Factor	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Average	Simos’ Rank
Economic	(F1) Project Capital cost	3	4	3	4	4	3	3.5	3
	(F2) Project (O&M) costs	4	3	2	3	3	4	3.2	2
	(F3) Payback period	1	2	1	2	2	2	1.7	1
	(F4) Internal return ratio (IRR)	2	1	4	1	1	1	1.7	1
Social	(F5) Effect on other nearest properties to the host pipes	1	1	2	1	1	3	1.5	1
	(F6) Effect on traffic	2	3	4	4	3	1	2.8	2
	(F7) Effect on public health	4	4	1	2	2	4	2.8	2
	(F8) Effect on other (nearest) utilities to the host pipes	3	2	3	3	4	2	2.8	2
Environmental	(F9) Effect on public safety	5	3	3	3	1	1	2.7	2
	(F10) Effect on air quality	1	2	2	4	2	2	2.2	1
	(F11) Effect on water quality	3	5	1	5	3	4	3.5	4
	(F12) Noise effect	2	1	5	2	4	3	2.8	3
	(F13) Energy saving	4	4	4	1	5	5	3.8	5
Main clusters	1. Economic	1	3	2	3	3	2	2.3	3
	2. Social	3	1	1	2	1	1	1.5	1
	3. Environmental	2	2	3	1	2	3	2.2	2

Table 3 Factors’ relative weights calculations.

Factor/sub-group of factors/main clusters	No. of factors	Position (Simos’ Rank)			Non-normalized weight (position)	Normalized weight	Total normalized weight
Project capital cost	1	3			3	(3/7) ∗ 100 = 43	43
Project operational and maintenance costs (O&M)	1	2			2	(2/7) ∗ 100 = 29	29
{Payback period, internal return ratio (IRR)}	2	1	1		1	(1/7) ∗ 100 = 14	28
Sum	4	7					100
Effect on other nearest properties	1	1			1	(1/7) ∗ 100 = 14	14
{Effect on traffic, effect on public health, effect on other nearest utilities}	3	2	2	2	2	(2/7) ∗ 100 = 29	87
Sum	4	7					101
Effect on public safety	1	2			2	(2/15) ∗ 100 = 13	13
Effect on air quality	1	1			1	(1/15) ∗ 100 = 7	7
Effect on water quality	1	4			4	(4/15) ∗ 100 = 27	27
Noise effect	1	3			3	(3/15) ∗ 100 = 20	20
Energy saving	1	5			5	(5/15) ∗ 100 = 33	33
Sum	5	15					100
Economic main clusters	1	3			3	(3/6) ∗ 100 = 50	50
Social main clusters	1	1			1	(1/6) ∗ 100 = 17	17
Environmental main clusters	1	2			2	(2/6) ∗ 100 = 33	33
Sum	3	6					100

Table 4 Global weights of grade classification’s factor.

Main Clusters	Factor	Global weight = normalized weight ∗ main cluster weight
Economic	(F1) Project capital cost	(0.5 ∗ 0.43) = 0.22
	(F2) Project operational and maintenance costs (O&M)	(0.5 ∗ 0.29) = 0.15
	(F3) Payback period	(0.5 ∗ 0.28) = 0.14
	(F4) Internal return ratio (IRR)	(0.5 ∗ 0.28) = 0.14
Social	(F5) Effect on other nearest properties to the host pipes	(0.17 ∗ 0.14) = 0.02
	(F6) Effect on traffic	(0.17 ∗ 0.29) = 0.05
	(F7) Effect on public health	(0.17 ∗ 0.29) = 0.05
	(F8) Effect on other nearest utilities to the host pipes	(0.17 ∗ 0.29) = 0.05
Environmental	(F9) Effect on public safety	(0.33 ∗ 0.13) = 0.09
	(F10) Effect on air quality	(0.33 ∗ 0.07) = 0.04
	(F11) Effect on water quality	(0.33 ∗ 0.27) = 0.09
	(F12) Noise effect	(0.33 ∗ 0.20) = 0.07
	(F13) Energy saving	(0.33 ∗ 0.33) = 0.11

Table 5 Factors grade scales (scores).

Factor	Weight Fj	Factor grade scales (scores) (Si)
		0	1	2	3	4	5
(C1) Internal water pressure (m)	0.20	⩾20	15–20	12–15	9–12	6–9	<6
(C2) Individual water consumption	0.15	⩾Code	<Code (0–10%)	<Code (10–20%)	<Code (20–30%)	<Code (30–40%)	<Code (⩾40%)
(C3) Project’s cost for served person	0.15	⩾500L.E/person	400–500	300–400	200–300	100–200	<100
(C4) Current age of pipes	0.15	<10 years	10–20	20–30	30–40	40–50	>50
(C5) Pipes’ break rate	0.27	No break	<0.1b/k/y	0.1–0.5	0.5–1	1–2	>2
(C6) Pipes’ materials type	0.08	PVC	DI	Steel	Concrete	CI	AS

Figure 2 Sketch map for ranking projects and budget allocation of water mains rehabilitation projects.

Table 6 Total score calculation for project (P3).

Factor	Weight (Wj)	Score (Si)	Total score (Wj ∗ Si)
(F1) Project capital cost	0.10	5	0.5
(F2) Project operational and maintenance costs	0.20	4	0.8
(F3) Payback period	0.10	3	0.3
(F4) Internal return ration (IRR)	0.10	2	0.2
(F5) Effect on other nearest properties to the host pipes	0.11	1	0.11
(F6) Effect on traffic	0.02	3	0.06
(F7) Effect on public health	0.02	2	0.04
(F8) Effect on other nearest utilities to the host pipes	0.02	4	0.08
(F9) Effect on public safety	0.09	5	0.45
(F10) Effect on air quality	0.11	3	0.33
(F11) Effect on water quality	0.04	2	0.08
(F12) Noise effect	0.07	1	0.07
(F13) Energy saving	0.02	4	0.08
Total score = ∑Wj ∗ Si			2

Table 7 Projects’ total score.

Project ID	Project budget (million L.E)	Projects’ total score
P1	10	1
P2	15	5
P3	17	2
P4	20	4
P5	22	3
P6	27	1
P7	32	3
P8	37	2
P9	40	3
P10	42	2
P11	47	3
P12	50	1
P13	55	5
P14	67	4
P15	75	3
P16	80	1
P17	12	1
P18	9	3
P19	7	4
P20	23	2
P21	28	1
P22	30	4

Table 8 Project’s grade classification.

Projects	Grade	Total budget (million LE)
P1, P6, P12, P16, P17, P21	Grade (V5)	207
P3, P8, P10, P20	Grade (V4)	119
P5, P7, P9, P11, P15, P18	Grade (V3)	225
P4, P14, P19, P22	Grade (V2)	124
P2, P13	Grade (V1)	70
Total budget		745

Table 9 Project’s ranking at grade (V5).

Project ID	Project’s total score	Project ranking	Project budget
P1	5	1	10
P6	4	2	27
P12	3	3	50
P16	3	3	80
P17	2	4	12
P21	1	5	28