© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Condition Assessment of Buried Assets Frank...

© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Condition Assessment of Buried Assets

Frank J. Blaha, P.E., Senior Research ManagerWater Research Foundation

Vancouver, British Columbia and Seattle, Washington, January 15 & 17, 2013

© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Transmission & Distribution Systems

• 60 - 80% of a utility’s capital (buried)

• Transmission mains, valves, distribution piping, pumps, water meters, etc.

• A “Pandora’s Box” with a maze of pipe types of different ages, pipe failure histories, various repair approaches, sensitive locations, lack of records


Distribution Systems, Asset Management and the

Infrastructure Funding GapUtilities follow AM principles as an

aspect of good management – no requirements or regulations

Much concern about deteriorating assets, infrastructure funding gap (IFG)—ASCE Report Card – D-

—EPA IFG estimate - $338 billion over 20 years

—AWWA IFG estimate - $1.7 trillion by 2050


Despite the Infrastructure Funding

Gap

Resources to do buried asset work can be

surprisingly difficult to capture!


Survey Results: Impediments to Conducting

CA Work• Fourteen unique

responses from utilities

• 7 of 14 responses speak to lack of resources (priority) for CA work

• 3 of 14 responses address a technical need

• Four remaining responses variable: —lack of non-invasive

concrete testing, —lack of CA plan, —annual budgeting issue, —upper management


Survey: CA Funding - O&M versus Capitalization

• Ten unique responses• 5 of 10 responses

were 1% or less of O&M budget to CA—majority (3) of those

were unknown or TBD

• Only one utility cited capitalization of CA work

• More justification and capitalization of CA work seems needed!


Asset Management and Condition Assessment

Condition Assessment (CA) could be an important tool to help close the IFG—Help find pipe likely to fail, from

pipe that is merely old —Better understand true condition of

your system—Old pipe might be fine – so long as

meets performance requirements


Age is Often Not the Prime Factor

© 2011 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.8


Prime Factor – Knowing Your System

• Most high-level replacement estimates based on age or age surrogates

• Using age may result in much good pipe un-necessarily replaced

• Using CA often find small % of suspect pipe needing renewal


Some Examples

• Miami-Dade—120 miles PCCP became worrisome—Hundreds of millions of dollars to

replace—CA inspection of 70 miles at $15M with

rehab▪Less than 1% of segments severely

deteriorated to be replaced▪Mostly carbon fiber rehab of severely

deteriorated sections—Estimate $25M total to CA inspect and

rehab 120 miles PCCP


Some Examples

• WSSC—145 miles of 36-inch diameter or larger PCCP—Based on inspection of 65 miles of 48” and

larger PCCP▪ 1.5% of pipes requiring repair▪ 4.8% of pipes with some distress and not repaired▪ 93.7% of pipe without distress▪ Acoustic fiber optics deployed▪ No failures on inspected pipes

—Effective program at 6% of replacement value


Asset Management and Condition Assessment

Overall CA seems little used, given its potential—Typically, used by those that have

suffered spectacular failures – it is a threshold of pain thing

—Apprehension as to “unwelcome news” – it is a risk and liability thing

—Problems also, if no problems identified – it is an accounting thing


Survey: What Condition Assessment work is Being

Done• Twelve unique

responses• 6 of 12 responses

doing no CA, or relying on age/visuals

• 2 of 12 focused on PCCP

• 4 variable responses—Breaks/Ground

Resistivity/Physical Inspection

—Water treatment plant—PipeDiver—CFR


Condition Assessment Context

Condition Assessment: risk management

Risk = Probability (likelihood) x Consequences

CA can help provide better understanding of the Probability of failure

CA cost and effort is considerablePrioritize pipe based on riskLong-term plan - may never assess all pipeMiami-Dade: 7,700 miles of total pipe, 70 miles

PCCP inspected and rehabbed for $15M


“Consequences” Part of the Risk Equation

Consequences are half of the risk equation

Consequences are not well defined - most information is anecdotal but we need quantified information

Avoidance of significant failures a prime driver for CA – this accounts for much of the CA work on PCCP


“Consequences” Directly Relate to Condition Assessment

Quantified consequences of failure can be used as a risk consideration

—Cost of failure vs. just-in-time renewal—Societal & environmental costs need to be better

understood

Typical small breaks: ~$5,000 direct cost, ~$5,000 societal

Large breaks (20-inch diameter and up), ~$500,000 geometric mean (n=30)

Clearly these are two different universes of consideration

Every failure is unique


“Consequences” Directly Relate to Condition Assessment

Small vs. large diameter failures

—“Manageable” vs. “Unacceptable” failures—“Manageable” failures can be effectively

managed by counting, categorizing failures – long-term record, and context of your system

—Some “survey level” condition assessment approaches may be helpful – leakage, soil conditions (field-based LPR), average pipe wall thickness

—There are “critical” small diameter pipes where failure is unacceptable


Consequences: Denver, February 7, 2008, Rupture of

a 66-inch Steel Water Line (under I-25)

Photo credit: The Denver Post used with permission


Consequences: A 40 x 40 Foot Sinkhole, 16 Feet Deep



Consequences: A Really Bad Drive to the North - for

a Few Days


Many angry water customers


Bad Publicity


42-inch PCCP failure, Fort Lauderdale – The Backstroke!


Large Diameter Failures

• Study of 30 large diameter failures

• Types of pipe involved—14 Cast Iron—11 PCCP—4 Steel—1 PVC

• Main factor influencing cost was shutdown time (flooding), not diameter



Large Diameter Failures

• Re-constructed total costs—Range of $6,000 to $8.5 million—Average cost of $1,700,000 per

failure—Geometric mean of $500,000 per

failure—~Half of total costs were paid by

the utility – direct costs



Direct Costs to Utilities – 30 Large Breaks


Societal Costs were Sometimes Paid by the Utility


Large Diameter Failure & Consequence Avoidance -

Example• Miami-Dade

—PCCP Failure – Hyaleah Street—Utility direct cost $2.5M —$100,000 - estimated cost of renewal

prior to failure▪Not all failure will have a 1 to 25 factor of

replacement costs to failure costs, but some central tendency may be found in Project 4451


Survey: Greatest Condition Assessment Needs

• 22 unique responses• 7+ of 22 responses

specific to certain pipes—PCCP the favorite for

worry—WaterRF ongoing,

completed work on all

• 5+ of 22 are on risk management context—WaterRF ongoing,

completed work, especially 4451


Foundation and Water Community Work in CA Area

Active in this area back to early 1990s

Number of surveys of capabilities—Most recent in 2007, with

WERF, Condition Assessment Strategies and Protocols for Water and Wastewater Utility Assets

▪ Appendix F particularly valuable –85 techniques and technologies


I know the Water Research Foundation has many relevant reports on CA that would help….


Foundation and Water Community Work in CA Area –

EPA ReportsCondition Assessment of Ferrous

Water Transmission & Distribution Systems - State of Technology Review Report

Condition Assessment Technologies for Water Transmission and Distribution Systems (in clearance)


Multiple CA Surveys and Reviews - What Has Been Learned

Many existing and emerging technologies

Some technologies worthy of further investment and field-scale research

Future capabilities may be improvedIssues of IP, investment, make

WaterRF developing new technologies difficult

We do not understand application, accuracy, use, value, experience of CA


Impediments to Use of CA

Some attempts to understand utility perspective on CA—Perceived high cost and cost uncertainty—Limited budgets for CA—Difficulties in gaining access to pressurized

lines—Concern about equivocal data—Some wish to wait for improved

technologies—No single technology universally useful


High Cost and Cost Uncertainty – What Is WaterRF Doing?

Cost sensitivity very specific to pipe type/size

Cost not just vendor fees – big costs in getting access and keeping water service going

Gathering case-studies/experiences to enable utilities to make the best decisions, better understand value, application

CA costs are often considered an O&M cost – but O&M funds are typically very limited

Capitalizing CA costs typically preferred by technical staff – but not allowed by some accountants!


High Cost, Cost Uncertainty, General Acceptance, Gaining

Access – “WaterID” Should Help

CA case studies being accumulated in “WaterID” database by Virginia Tech, funded by EPA

“WaterID” is publicly available at www.waterid.org

Includes literature, cost data, technologies for condition assessment and renewal topics for water and wastewater systems

http://www.waterid.org/


Equivocal Data – What Is WaterRF Doing?

Improved technologies – better data— Advanced Condition Assessment and

Failure Prediction Technologies for Optimal Management of Critical Pipes (Australian utilities) - $4+ million partnership program

Quantify value and application of CA in a risk management setting

Case Studies & Field Trials


Delay Use of CA to the Future for Improved Value – What Is WaterRF

Doing?More attention to trying quantify value

and application of CA based on situation and technologies available now — Work specific to types and sizes of pipe

▪Large diameter cast iron▪Small diameter cast and ductile▪PCCP

—CA “phased approach” for risk assessment—CA “integrated approach” for risk

assessment and renewalCase studies & Field Trials


No Single Technology Universally Useful – What Is WaterRF Doing?

Understand and acknowledge use and limitations of each technology

Trying to better quantify the economics and application experience at utilities

CA context for use – pipe specific, issue specific

Considering a new project on standard failure classification system for potable water systems


Bottom Line: Condition Assessment at the Foundation

Help close the IFG, promote sustainability

Bring knowledge to bear on this critical issue

Help utilities make informed decisions

Frank’s Car – he waswearing a seat belt


Risk Management and CA

• New project 4451 – Utility Risk Management Methodologies for Buried Assets with Improved Triple Bottom Line Understanding of Pipe Failures—Further document, develop, practical

risk management approaches for buried assets

—Considerable utility involvement both North America and Australia

—Leading practices will be considered


Understanding of Consequences and CA

• New project 4451 – Utility Risk Management Methodologies for Buried Assets with Improved Triple Bottom Line Understanding of Pipe Failures—Will develop an improved costing tool—Apply tool to considerable number

(~200) of large and small failures to understand costs

—Compare costs of failure to pre-engineered replacement prior to failure


“Planning is best done ahead of time”

—‘Doc’ from Back to

the Future


Possible 2013 Infrastructure Projects

• Standard Potable Water System Defect Rating System

• Condition Assessment Field Trials/Case Studies

• Visual Classification Guide for Pipe Failures – Field Guide, Suggested Data Needs

• More documentation of utility CA experiences


Conclusions/Recommendations

• Condition Assessment is a critical tool for asset management of buried infrastructure—There are technologies that can and should

be used now—CA will help focus infrastructure renewal

projects on the greatest needs—Results will vary, but some very positive

success stories have been noted—Improvements are inevitable, but will come

faster with more utility involvement


Condition Assessment Decision Process WhenNot Using Foundation Knowledge ?

© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Thank You!Questions?

Frank J. Blaha, P.E.Senior Research Manager

Water Research Foundation6666 W. Quincy Avenue

Denver, CO 80235Phone: 303-347-6244

Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Condition Assessment of Buried Assets Frank...

Documents

Transcript of © 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Condition Assessment of Buried Assets Frank...