Data Management from Water Utility Perspective

Transcription

1 Data Management from Water Utility Perspective Jim Pescatore, Vice President, CDM Smith Charlie Jewell, Director of Planning, Boston Water & Sewer Commission October 10, Water Asset Management Conference Boston

2 Summary Water Distribution Commission System Prior Studies Work Accomplished Water Distribution Study Analysis Recommendations 2

3 3 MWRA

4 4 MWRA

5 Water Distribution System Five Pressure Zones Supplied from 29 metered locations 1,008 miles of pipe from 4-inch to 48-inch Approximately 39,118 Valves 13,480 Hydrants 86,700 Accounts 5

6 Prior Studies 1967 Distribution Study Increased Fire Flows Redundant Transmission Mains Cleaning and Cement Lining of Large Mains 1987 Study 17 miles of pipe per year Valve Upgrades Hydrant Replacement Hydraulic Model 6

7 Work Accomplished 540 Miles of Pipe Replaced or Lined since 1979 Replacement of Non-Traffic Hydrants Evaluated Fire Protection for Higher Elevations Exercised and Repaired all Valves 7

8 2011 Water Distribution Study - Tasks Multiple Tasks Main Topics for this Presentation Hydraulic Analysis Facilities Assessment Critical Pipes Future Program Legend Critical Mains 8

9 Analysis Upgrade of Hydraulic Model Infowater Peak Hour to Determine Possible Deficiencies Low Pressures Low Fire Flows Critical Mains / Probability and Consequence of Failure Pipe Sample Analysis Soil Testing 9

10 Results 6 Locations of available fire flow below 1,000 gpm Peak Hour Demand Simulation showed 5 locations with pressure less than 35 psi Model indicated key water mains that are lone source to several streets General results showed a strong system Nottinghill Road Area Parker Hill Seaver Park View Orient Heights Bellevue Tank Area Maximum Day/Peak Hour Simulation; Locations where Simulated Pressures are Less than 35 psi (pressures indicated) 10

11 Results (cont.) Number of pipe segments modeled 21,500 Non Critical 17,000 (80 percent) Critical - 4,300 (20 percent) Ranking by Hydraulic Criticality Index 11

12 Planning for the Future in 2011 What to do now that all the big problems are fixed? Solution: a digital risk based prioritization tool to support capital planning for system renewal How much should we do? Where should we do it? When should we do it?

13 Risk Based Prioritization Approach as a Continual Process (2011 Report) GIS Data Anecdotal Data Hydraulic Model Field Samples O&M Data/CMMS Management Strategies Capital Plans Defensible & Sustainable Capital Planning KANEW (Care-W) Casses/LEYP Annual Rehabilitation Planning (ARP)

14 14 Main Breaks Likelihood of Failure

15 Establishing Service Lives If Breaks Could Talk Break PCI - Breaks Information and break rate per Pit agecast Iron (PCI) % Estimated Service Life Curve for PCI Pipe Survival function Break rate (breaks/100mi/year) 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Age Age (years) Break # breaks& Break rate (breaks/100mi/year) Rates per Pipe Age (PCI) 0 Break rate increases as pipe moves along survival curve Project in conjunction with InfraPLAN

16 Average Service Lives of Pipe - BWSC MATERIAL GROUP Service Life in Years at 50 th Percentile PCI1 125 PCI2 145 CI1 100 CI2 120 CICL 100 DICL1 65 DICL2 85

17 KANEW: Aggregation of Renewal Requirements Total Long Term Renewal Volume Broken Down by Each Material Group by Year About 2060, large volumes of pipe require renewal Project in conjunction with InfraPLAN

18 KANEW Determining Long Term Needs What if Scenarios to Level Out Renewal Volume Sustainable Volume Over the Long Term Final Projected Renewal by Material Project in conjunction with InfraPLAN

19 What is LEYP? Linear Extension of the Yule Process model computes the possible number of failures on a water main with known characteristics within any time interval. Past Breaks Pipe Data Soil Types Predicted Number of Breaks

20 Value of LEYP Use the data to spot correlations and trends Is there a correlation and how strong is it? Is age related to failure likelihood? How much? Do soils impact pipe failures? How much? Leverage and test anecdotal information Pipes in this area with bad soils fail more Replacement for point based systems Advanced statistics can provide quantitative data about the pipes by leveraging historic break data 20

21 LEYP Outputs: Likelihood of Failure Predictive impact for each factor Compare impacts of factor to factor What is driving failures Predicted Break Rate for each pipe (composite) Level playing field Relative Risk of Breaking Pipe Diameter [diam_4] [diam_6] [diam_8] [diam_10-14] [diam_16plus]

22 Consequences of Failure - Leverage GIS and Hydraulic Model Critical Users Economic Zones Roads and Tunnels Hydraulic Criticality

23 Annual Rehabilitation Planning (ARP) Model

24 Risk Based Highest Priority Pipe for Renewal ARP Output

25 2011 PLAN PIPE RECOMMENDATIONS Class 56 pipe Polyethylene Encasement New Pipe Renewal Schedule 11 miles per year Continue to Sample Pipe Rerun the Models in 5 Years

26 2016 BWSC Water Distribution Pipe Ranking Update Project GIS Data Anecdotal Data Hydraulic Model Field Samples O&M Data CMMS Management Strategies Defensible & Sustainable Capital Planning KANEW Casses/LEYP CapPlan / InfoMaster Capital Plans

27 KANEW: Full System Results 11 mile peak 7 mile base need

28 Factors Tested in LEYP Statistical Model Update Diameter Material Date of installation Soil type Pressure Breaks Rate by Year Installed Breaks Miles of Pipe Breaks per Mile Miles of Pipe Break Rate Linear (Break Rate)

29 Risk Score Map Risk 29

30 2016 PLAN PIPE RECOMMENDATIONS 60 miles of pipe in extreme and high risk categories New Pipe Renewal Schedule 8 miles per year Continue to Sample Pipe Rerun the Models in 5 Years

31 Questions? Charlie Jewell Ph: (617) James J. Pescatore, P.E. Ph: (617)