use of main break data for better system management and ... · 1c broder st sw fernor st klein st...
TRANSCRIPT
Use of Main Break Data for Better System
Management and Operations
Michael T. Brown, P.E.
Water Utilities Facing Significant Buried
Infrastructure Replacement Investments
Utilities Must Do More With Less…..
Years
Dolla
rs
THIS IS USEFUL!
Value of Main Break Data
• Optimize replacement and renewal programs
• Prevention/reduction of breaks/leaks
• Decision support: repair or replace?
• Customer Service
• Cost effectively reduce/control NRW
Need to Start with Good DataMain Break Location
Street Name :
House Number Closest to Break :
Municipality :
County :
General Observations
Temperature (approx.) :
Weather Conditions : Was there construction or other activity in
area that could contribute to break? Yes
No
If yes, specify
_________________________________________
Main Details
Pipe Diameter (inches) :
Pipe Material (Circle one) :
ST(Steel) PC(Pit Cast Iron) LD(Lead) GS(Gal. Steel)
DI (Ductile Iron) CU(Copper) CI(Spun Cast Iron)
Other (Please specify) _______________
Installation Year :
Wall Thickness (Measure if possible) :
Type of Break (check applicable)
o Hole in Pipe
If yes, Size of Hole (in): ___________
o Leaking Joint
If yes, (circle): Rusted Bolts Leaking Gasket
Rotten Saddle Other (specify) ____________________
o Pipe Split
o Crack in the Pipe
If yes (circle) : Longitudinal Circumferential
o Other (describe):________________________________
_________
Date/Time
Date Break Identified/Reported :
Method of Identification (Circle one) :
Customer Complaint Visual Observation
Leak Survey Other (specify) __________________________
Date of Repair :
Start Time of Repair :
End Time of Repair :
Assumed Cause of Break (check applicable)
o Ground Shift (Rock Damage, Laying of Rock,
Erosion, etc.)
o Joint Failure (Rusted Bolts, Leaking Gasket,
Rotten Saddle, etc.)
o Clamp Failure
o Age or Deterioration (Holes, Pitting,
Corrosion, Weak Pipe, etc.)
o Tree Roots
o Pressure Surge
o Third Party Responsible (i.e. Contractor,
etc.)
o Other (describe):______________________________________
Repair Details
Staff Attending to Repair__________________________________________
_________________
Infrastructure Equipment (pipe, joint, clamp,
etc.)
___________________________________________________________
Construction Equipment __________________________________________
_________________
Traffic Control : Yes No
Street Repair : Yes No
Estimated Water Loss :
Estimated Cost of Repair :
GIS for Efficient Inventory and Analysis of Data
Correlation Analyses to Identify Trends
KAW - Lexington Central Division
Total Length of Main by Pipe Diameter
4 inches
5%
6 inches
23%
14-36 inches
9%
8 inches
43%
<4 inches
6%
10-12 inches
14%
KAW - Lexington Central Division
Total Length of Main by Pipe Material
Asbestos Cement
26%
Unlined Cast Iron
10%
Cast Iron Lined
8%
Ductile Iron
23%
Galvanized Steel
0%
PVC
29%
Concrete
4%
<1%
Concentration of Breaks by Main Size
KAW - Lexington Central Division
Concentration of Reported Breaks by Diameter
0
1
2
3
4
5
<4 4 6 8 10-12 14-36
Diameter (inches)
# o
f R
ep
ort
ed
Bre
ak
s p
er
Lin
ea
r M
ile
of
Ma
in
Average =
0.90
Concentration of Breaks by Main Size
KAW - Lexington Central Division
Total Length of Main by Pipe Diameter
4 inches
5%
6 inches
23%
14-36 inches
9%
8 inches
43%
<4 inches
6%
10-12 inches
14%
KAW - Lexington Central Division
Reported Breaks by Pipe Diameter
Jan 2000 to Oct 2008
<4 inches
29%
4 inches
8%
6 inches
31%
8 inches
26%
10-12 inches
5%
14-36 inches
1%Unknown
0%<1%
Concentration of Breaks by Material
KAW - Lexington Central Division
Concentration of Reported Breaks by Pipe Material
0
1
2
3
4
5
Asbestos
Cement
Unlined Cast Iron Cast Iron Lined Concrete Ductile Iron Galvanized Steel PVC
Material
# o
f R
ep
ort
ed
Bre
ak
s p
er
Lin
ea
r M
ile
of
Ma
in
Average = 0.90
Cause of Break
KAW - Lexington Central Division
Reported Breaks by Cause
Jan 2000 to Oct 2008
Ground Shift/Other
82%
Pressure Surge
3% Clamp Failure
3%
Tree Roots
2% Age & Deterioration
10%
Correlation by Cause, Size, Material
Diameter (inches)
Asbestos Cement
Unlined Cast Iron
Cast Iron Lined
Concrete Ductile
Iron Galv. Steel
PVC All Mains
<4 1% 16% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 23%
4 4% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 7%
6 10% 11% 7% 0% 1% 0% 2% 29%
8 7% 12% 1% 0% 3% 0% 3% 29%
10-12 2% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 8%
14-36 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 3%
All Mains 26% 34% 5% 1% 12% 1% 18% 98%
Distribution of Breaks Caused by Ground Shift/Other
Distribution of Breaks Caused by Age & DeteriorationDiameter (inches)
Asbestos Cement
Unlined Cast Iron
Cast Iron Lined
Concrete Ductile
Iron Galv. Steel
PVC All Mains
<4 1% 37% 2% - - 6% 4% 50%
4 3% 1% - - - - 3% 7%
6 7% 9% 3% - 1% - 1% 21%
8 4% 5% 2% - 2% - 3% 17%
10-12 3% - 1% - - - 1% 4%
14-36 - 1% - - - - - 1%
All Mains 17% 53% 8% - 3% 6% 13% 100%
KAW - Lexington Central Division
Reported Breaks by Month and Cause
Jan 2000 to Dec 2007
0
50
100
150
200
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Month
# o
f R
ep
ort
ed
Bre
ak
s
Age & Deterioration
Clamp failure
Ground Shift/Other
Pressure Surge
Tree Roots
CauseAverage = 113 per month (over 7 year period)
Correlation by Month and Temperature
Correlation by Month and Temperature
KAW - Lexington Central Division
Monthly Average Temperature vs Number of Breaks
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
JAN-2
000
JUL-2
000
JAN-2
001
JUL-2
001
JAN-2
002
JUL-2
002
JAN-2
003
JUL-2
003
JAN-2
004
JUL-2
004
JAN-2
005
JUL-2
005
JAN-2
006
JUL-2
006
JAN-2
007
JUL-2
007
JAN-2
008
JUL-2
008
Date
Am
ou
nt
NUMBER OF BREAKS
AVERAGE TEMPERATURE (F)
Using Data to Establish Pipe Replacement
Prioritization Program
Using Data to Establish A Pipe Replacement
Prioritization Program
Main
Diameter
Main
materialYear
Number
of Breaks
Breaks
per LF
Greater
than 100 yrsUGI StatPres Institution Industrial Commercial Apartment Residential
Number of
Sink Holes
8.00 CI 1960 9 0.05 No 70.54 Yes 0
8.00 CI 1950 5 0.04 No 81.15 Yes 0
8.00 CI 1952 5 0.01 No 74.58 Yes 0
8.00 CI 1959 5 0.02 No 86.65 Yes 0
8.00 CI 1950 5 0.01 No 52.13 Yes Yes 0
6.00 CI 1957 5 0.01 No 70.49 Yes 0
8.00 CI 1958 4 0.01 No YES 84.62 Yes 0
3.00 PC 1882 4 0.03 Yes 105.12 Yes 0
8.00 CI 1960 4 0.01 No 87.29 Yes Yes 0
8.00 CI 1954 4 0.01 No 62.60 Yes 0
8.00 CI 1964 4 0.01 No 64.84 Yes 0
6.00 PC 1911 4 0.17 Yes 66.66 Yes 0
6.00 CI 1954 4 0.01 No 62.67 Yes Yes 0
12.00 CI 1957 3 0.03 No 104.23 Yes 0
6.00 CI 1951 4 0.01 No 62.84 Yes 0
6.00 CI 1959 4 0.01 No 76.81 Yes 0
6.00 CI 1961 4 0.04 No 63.56 Yes 0
8.00 CI 1958 4 0.01 No 59.84 Yes Yes 0
8.00 CI 1960 4 0.02 No 22.83 Yes 0
Using Data to Establish A Pipe Replacement
Prioritization Program
Break
Score
Diameter
ScoreMaterial/Age Score
Pressure
Score
Sinkhole
Score
Customer
Score TOTAL
SCORE
Base Score
Rank
45 0.5 5 1 0 0.0 51.5 1.0
25 0.5 5 1 0 0.0 31.5 2.0
25 0.5 5 1 0 0.0 31.5 3.0
25 0.5 5 1 0 0.0 31.5 4.0
25 0.5 5 0 0 0.7 31.2 5.0
25 0 5 1 0 0.0 31.0 6.0
20 0.5 5 1 0 0.0 26.5 9.0
20 0 5 2 0 0.5 27.5 7.0
20 0.5 5 1 0 0.3 26.8 8.0
20 0.5 5 1 0 0.0 26.5 10.0
20 0.5 5 1 0 0.0 26.5 11.0
20 0 5 1 0 0.3 26.3 12.0
20 0 5 1 0 0.2 26.2 13.0
15 1 5 2 0 3.0 26.0 14.0
20 0 5 1 0 0.0 26.0 15.0
20 0 5 1 0 0.0 26.0 16.0
20 0 5 1 0 0.0 26.0 17.0
20 0.5 5 0 0 0.3 25.8 18.0
20 0.5 5 0 0 0.0 25.5 19.0
Using Data to Establish A Pipe Replacement
Prioritization Program
UGI
Score
PENNDOT
Score
COA Streets
Score
Adjusted
Score
0 0 0 51.5
0 0 0 31.5
0 0 0 31.5
0 0 0 31.5
0 0 0 31.2
0 0 0 31.0
2 0 0 28.5
0 0 0 27.5
0 0 0 26.8
0 0 0 26.5
0 0 0 26.5
0 0 0 26.3
0 0 0 26.2
0 0 0 26.0
0 0 0 26.0
0 0 0 26.0
0 0 0 26.0
0 0 0 25.8
0 0 0 25.5
Using Data to Establish A Pipe Replacement
Prioritization ProgramWATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT
PIPE PRIORITIZATION PROGRAM
CYCLE 2 - PRIORITIZATION (9-16-14)
MAP ID Street Start Intersection End IntersectionLength
(approx ft)
Main
Diameter
Main
Material
Greater than
100 yrs
Number of
Breaks
1A
S Ivy St / Private ROW /
E Eaton StE Johnston St
Mountain Park
Rd1,693 4, 6, & 8 CI No 26
1B N Main StNorth of W Allen
St
North of W
Chew St1,672 6 & 8 CI/PC No 18
1G
College Dr / Honichick Dr
/ Park Blvd
12" main west end
of College DrHamilton Blvd 1,617 6 & 8 CI No 11
1C Broder St SW Fernor St Klein St 1,352 6 & 8 CI No 10
1D Tremont St N 12th St N 14th St 1,180 6 & 8 CI/PC No 8
1E S Leh St W Elm StNorth of Mosser
St1,019 8 CI No 7
1F Miller St & Reading Rd
Just south of
Hamilton/W of
College Dr
S Ott St 2,128 8 CI No 8
TOTAL LINEAL FOOT
(approximate) 10,661
TOTAL LINEAL MILEAGE (approximate) 2.02
Integration of Hydraulic Model for Advanced
Prioritization Analyses
Diameter (inches)
Asbestos Cement
Unlined Cast Iron
Cast Iron Lined
Concrete Ductile
Iron Galv. Steel
PVC All Mains
<4 1% 16% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 23%
4 4% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 7%
6 10% 11% 7% 0% 1% 0% 2% 29%
8 7% 12% 1% 0% 3% 0% 3% 29%
10-12 2% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 8%
14-36 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 3%
All Mains 26% 34% 5% 1% 12% 1% 18% 98%
Distribution of Breaks Caused by Ground Shift/Other
Distribution of Breaks Caused by Age & Deterioration
Advanced AM Tools?
Distribution of Breaks Caused by Ground Shift/Other
Distribution of Breaks Caused by Age & Deterioration
1. Sustainable tool – easy to maintain and update
2. Sufficient automation, but not at the expense of efficiency
3. Sufficient functionality, but not at the expense of usability
“It’s An Ill Plan That Cannot Be Changed”
Financial Assessment for Program Investment
Estimated Total Present Worth
Rank Street Address Repair Cost
(Yr. 2009) Replace Cost
(Yr. 2009)
Repair / Replace
Cost Ratio
1 Ralston Lane Entire Street $86,079 $40,714 2.11
2 Warfield Place Entire Street $66,256 $47,500 1.39
3 Athens Boonesboro Road 5000-5290 $99,341 $81,429 1.22
4 Hanover Court Entire Street $89,845 $80,000 1.12
5 Montavesta Road 2917-2994 $117,711 $122,143 0.96
6 Schoolhouse Lane Entire Street $71,549 $88,214 0.81
7 Gaybourne Way Entire Street $136,960 $230,714 0.59
8 La Somme Dr & Riviera Road Entire Street $102,591 $278,214 0.37
9 Deer Haven Road 1000-1361 $98,235 $289,286 0.34
10 Gemini Trail Road Entire Street $215,859 $670,000 0.32
11 Sidwell Lane Entire Street $103,478 $352,857 0.29
12 Grassy Creek Drive 3800-3999 $129,526 $450,000 0.29
13 Gentry Road 177-550 $80,436 $291,786 0.28
14 Carriage Lane 3200-3399 $99,799 $430,000 0.23
15 Meadow Lane 800-1199 $77,608 $350,000 0.22
16 Ford Hampton Road 500-2896 $164,065 $895,714 0.18
17 Burton Road 578-1457 $116,398 $793,929 0.15
18 Old Paris Pike 1600-2189 $128,862 $1,221,429 0.11
19 Cynthia Road 2800-4099 $86,477 $1,119,643 0.08
20 Carrick Pike 100-1698 $92,197 $1,370,000 0.07
21 Newtown Pike 3290-5120 $111,263 $1,950,000 0.06
22 Iron Works Pike 1600-2899 $70,330 $1,260,000 0.06
23 Leesburg-Newtown Road 100-1899 $99,567 $3,230,000 0.03
24 North Cleveland Road 176-2999 $69,640 $2,940,000 0.02
In Closing….
• Don’t overlook value of main break data
– Establish data collection protocols
– Establish practical approach for data
management and analyses
• Valuable tool to optimize system
management and operations