Post on 24-Dec-2015
© 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
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Despite the Infrastructure Funding
Gap
Resources to do buried asset work can be
surprisingly difficult to capture!
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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!
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Age is Often Not the Prime Factor
© 2011 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.8
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
“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
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
“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
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
“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
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Consequences: Denver, February 7, 2008, Rupture of
a 66-inch Steel Water Line (under I-25)
Photo credit: The Denver Post used with permission
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Consequences: A 40 x 40 Foot Sinkhole, 16 Feet Deep
Photo credit: The Denver Post used with permission
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Consequences: A Really Bad Drive to the North - for
a Few Days
Photo credit: The Denver Post used with permission
Many angry water customers
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
42-inch PCCP failure, Fort Lauderdale – The Backstroke!
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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
© 2011 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.23
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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
© 2011 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.24
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Societal Costs were Sometimes Paid by the Utility
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
I know the Water Research Foundation has many relevant reports on CA that would help….
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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)
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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!
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
“Planning is best done ahead of time”
—‘Doc’ from Back to
the Future
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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: fblaha@waterrf.org