Condition Assessment of
Buried Assets
Frank J. Blaha, P.E., Senior Research Manager
Water 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 Gap
Utilities 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
8
© 2011 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
© 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 considerable
Prioritize pipe based on risk
Long-term plan - may never assess all pipe
Miami-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
Many angry water customers
Photo credit: The Denver Post used with permission
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Bad Publicity
© 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
23
© 2011 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
© 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
24
© 2011 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Direct Costs to Utilities – 30 Large
Breaks
© 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.
Foundation and Water Community
Work in CA Area – EPA Reports
Condition 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 improved
Issues 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 renewal
Case 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 was
wearing 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 When
Not Using Foundation Knowledge ?
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Thank You!
Questions?
Frank J. Blaha, P.E.
Senior Research Manager
Water Research Foundation
6666 W. Quincy Avenue
Denver, CO 80235
Phone: 303-347-6244
Email: fblaha@waterrf.org
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.