use of main break data for better system management and ... · 1c broder st sw fernor st klein st...

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%


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


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


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%


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


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


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%


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


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


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



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



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


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 Age & Deterioration

Advanced AM Tools?


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

Questions??

Michael Brown, P.E.

[email protected]

use of main break data for better system management and ... · 1c broder st sw fernor st klein st...

Documents