LEVERAGING GIS BEYOND THE MASTER PLAN MATT BOND, PE LAYNE PARSONS, PE BRIAN LENDT, GISP TACWA MEETING JANUARY 30, 2015
AGENDA Asset Management Context Adaptive Capital Improvement Planning Risk based prioritization CIP cost estimating Stream Bank Erosion Analysis 2
AM PD AMIS MATURE ASSET MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PD Program Development & Implementation AMIS Condition Asset Assessments Management Information Systems Linear Assets Gap Assessment Program Plan Facilities Wastewater Water Water Wastewater BRE & CIP BRE & CIP Business Risk Exposure & CIP Project Identification GIS SAMS CCP CCP Comprehensive CIP Prioritization CIP PRIORITIZATION TOOL WBMD WBMD Web Based Management Dashboards PROJECT MANAGEMENT DASHBOARDS 3
ADAPTIVE CIP PRIORITIZATION 4
INDUSTRY FOCUS IS CHANGING: EXPANSION ASSET MANAGEMENT & OPTIMIZATION Need for cost effective assessments Address worst condition pipelines first Risk based prioritization CIP PRIORITIZATION 5
CIP PRIORITIZATION OLD APPROACH Traditional CIP Not risk based Static CIP Report Time and situation constrained Not adaptable CIP PRIORITIZATION 6
CIP PRIORITIZATION ADAPTIVE APPROACH CIP PRIORITIZATION Two Components Adaptive CIP Prioritization Process GIS based CIP project identification and cost estimating tool (icip) Benefits Elevate awareness with graphic displays Leverage risk based and capacitybased prioritization Dynamic budgeting and reporting GIS interface Define and budget projects for asset inspection, repair, planning, and rehabilitation 7
CASE STUDY WINSTON SALEM WW MASTER PLAN 8
PROJECT BACKGROUND PROJECT BACKGROUND Engineering agreement with Black & Veatch Evaluated growth through 2041 Evaluated capacity of three major sewer basins WW Master plan Flow projections Flow monitoring Hydraulic modeling Capacity improvements 9
PROJECT BACKGROUND, CONT. PROJECT BACKGROUND Asset Management PAS55 Assessment GAP Analysis Hansen (Infor) AMS Review Adaptive Capital Improvement Planning CIP prioritization CIP cost estimating 10
ADAPTIVE CIP PRIORITIZATION Risk = Likelihood of Failure (LoF) X Consequence of Failure (CoF) CIP PRIORITIZATION Likelihood of Failure (LoF) Life Expectancy Distance to SSO s Work Order History Condition Inspection Geotechnical Infiltration Available Capacity Exposure Survivability Curves Consequence of Failure (CoF) Critical Customers Population Impact Proximity to Water Source Highways Railroads Pipe Size Critical Areas Difficulty of Repair Sensitive Locations 11
RISK RATING & ASSET PRIORITIZATION Age of Facility & Known Hot Spots CIP PRIORITIZATION 12
RISK BASED CIP PRIORITIZATION HEAT MAP Likelihood of Failure (LoF) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Group 10 $95 $14 $0 $0 $0 $15 $0 $1 $10 $5 A Heat Map Data Mileage Costs CIP PRIORITIZATION Consequence of Failure (CoF) 9 $89 $0 $42 $52 $0 $1 $0 $10 $10 $25 B 8 $11 $0 $12 $0 $0 $3 $20 $2 $15 $4 C 7 $12 $52 $45 $0 $0 $25 $0 $22 $35 $8 D 6 $0 $10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30 $0 $0 $0 E 5 $10 $22 $17 $0 $0 $25 $0 $0 $0 $30 F 4 $62 $6 $56 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 G 3 $90 $99 $10 $0 $0 $28 $0 $0 $0 $0 H 2 $25 $35 $24 $0 $10 $0 $15 $0 $0 $52 1 $45 $0 $0 $1 $0 $10 $0 $0 $0 $0 13
ADAPT TO FUTURE CONDITION ASSESSMENT CIP PRIORITIZATION Inspection Results Consequence of Failure Likelihood of Failure 0 1 2 3 4 5 Group 5 A B 4 C D 3 E F 2 G H 1 Confirmed by Inspection Adjusted due to Inspection 14
CALCULATING ASSET RISK 15 CIP PRIORITIZATION
EXAMPLE STRATEGY GROUP HEAT MAP 16 CIP PRIORITIZATION
icip COST ESTIMATING TOOL 17
icip interactive Capital Improvement Planning Built on top of ArcGIS software Based on Esri CIP template, enhanced by B&V Includes suite of tools for interactive CIP planning, budgeting and reporting i CIP COST ESTIMATING TOOL 18 18
DEMO 19
DEMO 20
WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF ADAPTIVE CIP? i CIP COST ESTIMATING TOOL Leverage risk based prioritization and/or capacity assessments Graphically see immediate results of decisions Adapt to changing budgets and priorities Easy to integrate with existing GIS asset inventory Accepts linear and facility (point/polygon) assets Open architecture, Esri based enhanced by B&V 21
LEVERAGING GIS BEFORE THE FAILURE 22
SO, WHAT S THIS ALL ABOUT? 23 The Problem Stream bank erosion causing pipeline failure Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) PRESENTATION OVERVIEW Co$tly emergency repairs The Solution Proactive Site Identification Site Field Review Prioritization and Recommendations 23
THE PROBLEM THE PROBLEM Emergency repair Pipeline exposed following an erosion event 24
SEWERS AND STREAMS THE PROBLEM: SEWERS ALONG STREAMS Many sanitary sewers built along streams Facilitates access and elevations for gravity flow Increases susceptibility to stream bank erosion Older pipes are especially at risk 25
THE PROBLEM: EROSION & EMERGENCY REPAIRS WHEN IT Gradual erosion worsens Potential exists for major failure of stream banks Emergency repairs are necessary weather can impede access Immediate environmental hazard Emergency repairs can be costly Pictured Stream bank failure necessitates emergency repair 26
THE SOLUTION THE SOLUTION Analysis and planning can prevent costly sewer failures 27
BEFORE A BECOMES AN THE SOLUTION: OVERVIEW Proactive is better than reactive Identify areas of concern Sites Reviewed GIS Aerial Review Field Inspections Identify highest priority sites Estimate cost of prevention Predict and prevent emergency failures, don t wait until it s too late 28
WHERE S THE TROUBLE? THE SOLUTION: SITE IDENTIFICATION Accurate sewer locations maintained in GIS Digitize stream bank where pipes cross or follow Review map to identify potential problem locations Stream bank digitization based on latest highresolution aerial photography from NCTCOG 29
THE BASICS OF SITE REVIEW Parameters of concern include: SITE REVIEW: MAJOR PARAMETERS All four are considered when prioritizing sites for preventative measures Parameters are evaluated by combining field inspections and GIS review 30
SITE REVIEW: BANK EROSION SEVERITY TAKING IT TO THE BANK Stream bank qualities evaluated in the field Each site given a weighted score based on parameters Sites are ranked to facilitate comparison and overall evaluation Scoring matrix adapted from: Bank Erosion Severity 2C Bank Soil Texture 2 Average Bank Slope 1 Average Bank Height 3 Vegetative Bank Protection 3 Bank Cutting 1 Mass Wasting 1 Bank Soil Texture Johnson, P.A., G.L. Gleason, and R. D. Hey, 1999. Rapid Assessment of Channel Stability in Vicinity of Road Crossings, ASCE, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering Vol. 125, No 6. Values 1.2 Average Bank Slope 0.6 Average Bank Height 2.4 Vegetative Bank Protection 2.4 Weighted Values Bank Cutting 0.4 Mass Wasting 0.8 Score 7.8 Bank Erosion Severity Ranked Values 3 31
THE RISK OF FAILURE SITE REVIEW: INTERCEPTOR FAILURE RISK Failure risk based primarily on bank height Bank height measured in field Difference in bank height and invert elevation gives overall failure risk Stream Stream Bank Failure Plane Stream Bank Toe Field measurements are updated and adjusted based on available contour data HIGH R I S K LOW 32
LEARNING FROM THE PAST Aerial photography past versus current Digitized to determine change due to erosion Can determine sewer distance to bank Years to exposure based on rate of erosion progression SITE REVIEW: GIS AERIAL REVIEW 2000 Stream bed Change / Time = Rate of progression 2007 Stream bed Progression rate estimate assumes constant, gradual erosion 33
SITE REVIEW: POTENTIAL FOR LEAKING LEAKING POTENTIAL Sewers and manholes evaluated based on: Exposed interceptor/manhole Material Visible damage/deterioration 2000 Stream bed Encasement, rip rap, and other protection Undermining Odor Visible leakage 2007 Stream bed Each parameter is given a score Scores added together for overall leaking potential Analysis of leaking potential allows for more informed prioritization of sites 34
REPORTING FROM THE FIELD SITE REVIEW: FIELD INSPECTIONS Field inspections performed by experienced water resources engineers Provide additional information about sites, including: Actual length of stream bank erosion Informed observation of quality/type of erosion Discussion of geological features (e.g. soil type, gullies) Initial comments and recommendations Can obtain GPS location of bank edges Professional judgment and observation complements calculation, scoring, and ranking of site parameters 35
PUTTING ALL THE PIECES TOGETHER All parameters are scored, ranked, weighted and combined to determine an overall priority ranking SITE PRIORITIZATION: PRIORITY RANKING Site Bank Erosion Severity Observed Values Ranked Values (1 to 5) Progression Rate (ft/yr) Avg Vertical Dist between Invert & Stream (ft) Leaking Potential Bank Erosion Severity Rankings allow prioritization of sites for recommendations Progression Rate Interceptor Failure Risk Leaking Potential 8C 2 0.0 9.70 58 2 5 2 2 Bank Erosion Condition 0.40 0.40 0.20 Bank Erosion Severity Interceptor Risk Progression Rate Bank Erosion Ranking Sewer Condition Leaking Potential Total Priority Ranking Condition 0.8 0.8 1.0 2.60 2 5.20 Poor 36
SITE CONDITIONS Site conditions determine recommendations Good Monitor after rainfall; periodic full evaluation Fair Monitor after rainfall; periodic full evaluation SITE ANALYSIS: CONDITIONS Poor Consider beginning stream analysis and protective measures design Needs Immediate Attention Monitor after rainfall and evaluate annually Erosion failure may be imminent, consider immediate action to stabilize bank Additional recommendations based on unique site conditions 37
WHAT DO YOU RECOMMEND? SITE ANALYSIS: RECOMMENDATIONS Options for preventative measures include: Stream bank restoration Engineered solutions Pipe realignment Recommendations depend on site observations Range of repair for various options Address highest priority sites 38
EVERYONE WINS! A WIN WIN SITUATION Cost estimates can be compared and selected In general, preventative measures are more Comprehensive Permanent Environmentally friendly Cost effective than emergency repairs Prevention protects the environment from harmful SSOs Bank erosion prevention is a win win for utilities and the environment 39
IN CONCLUSION Asset Management Program Dynamic and Adaptive CIP Proactive and Predictive O&M Leveraging GIS beyond the Master Plan CONCLUSION 40
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? QUESTIONS? Thank you for attending this presentation! Thanks to TACWA for inviting us to share this presentation 41
Matt Bond, PE Client Services Director BondDM@bv.com Layne Parsons, PE Project Manager ParsonsLG@bv.com Brian Lendt, GISP GIS Implementation Specialist LendtBW@bv.com