Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Recent advances in network theory hold promise for improving how infrastructure managers make decisions about their portfolio of assets. A framework that incorporates contemporary perspectives of networks is presented, which permits modeling the topology of an infrastructure network. The framework is capable of characterizing the components of the overall system and subnetworks and the direct and indirect interactions among these components. This framework is applied to a transportation system, which allows the authors to investigate the importance of the various components as elements of a complex network and use this data to support transportation asset management. The study shows that the links determine how the infrastructure network grows and that problems like congestion can be addressed by analyzing other factors related to topology, such as speed, unit size, and lane width. The proposed methodology appears promising as an asset management tool.

Keywords

infrastructure network theory network topology transportation asset management transportation systems

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Albert, R. , Barabási, A.L. , & Jeong, H. ( 2000). The Internet’s Achilles’ heel: Error and attack tolerance in complex networks. Nature, 406, 378-382.

Barabási, A.L. ( 2002). Linked: The new science of networks. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.

Barabási, A.L. , & Albert, R. ( 2002). Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics, 74, 47-97.

Barabási, A.L. , & Bonabeau, E. ( 2003). Scale-free networks. Scientific American , 288, 60-69.

Blacksburg. (2001). Blacksburg 2046 comprehensive plan. Retrieved March 11, 2009, from http://www.huduser.org/rbc/search/rbcdetails.asp?DocId=1412

Blacksburg. (2007). Town of Blacksburg maps and GIS. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from http://www.blacksburg.gov/Index.aspx?page=29

Erdös, P. , & Rényi, A. (1960). The evolution of random graphs. Publications of the Mathematics Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 5, 17-61.

Fonseca, A. , Flintsch, G.W. , Garvin, M. , Sotelino, E. , & Barkhi, R. ( 2007, January 21-25). Contemporary network theory: Concepts and implications for transportation infrastructure management. Paper presented at the 86th annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.

Granovetter, M. ( 1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited . Sociological Theory, 1, 201-233.

10.

Grubesic, T. , & Murray, A.T. ( 2006). Vital nodes, interconnected infrastructures, and the geographies of network survivability. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96, 64-83.

11.

Lambert, J.H. , & Sarda, P. ( 2005). Terrorism scenario identification by superposition of infrastructure networks. Journal of Infrastructure Systems , 11, 211-220.

12.

Newman, M.E.J. ( 2003). The structure and function of complex networks. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 45, 167-256.

13.

Rodrigue, J.P. , Comtois, C. , & Slack, B. ( 2006). The geography of transport systems. New York: Routledge.

14.

van der Mandele, M. , Walker, W. , & Bexelius, S. ( 2006). Policy development for infrastructure networks: Concepts and ideas. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 12, 69-76.

Characterization of Network Topology to Support Infrastructure Asset Management

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References