© 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved.

Info What? Using InfoMaster to

Develop a Rehabilitation and

Replacement Plan

Amanda Lei - City of San Jose

Alex Palmatier - HDR

Forecasting and Budget

Lessons Learned

Background

Data Management

Prioritizing CCTV Work

Repair, Rehabilitation or Replacement?

Background Sewer System, Assessment Approaches and InfoMaster

Service Area Approximately 180 square miles

Approximately 2,200 miles of sewer

Approximately 985,000 residents

16 Lift Stations

90% clay pipe

85% 10-inch or smaller

45,000 Manholes

Average system age approximately 45 years

Median age is 52

City of San Jose

On-Call/As-Needed (project design/corrective maintenance)

Inspections Completed by Contractors and City Crews

2010 Started SSCA Pilot program

Currently Completed System Sample Set - 371 miles (usable data)

Remainder Focused on High SSO Areas

Historical CCTV Program

For sewer mains with diameter smaller than 18-inches:

o Inspecting mains within 200 feet of Water Bodies within two (2) years of CD Effective Date

o Repair or replace mains that receive a PACP rating of 5 within one (1) year of determination

o Repair or replace mains that receive a PACP rating of 4 within five (5) years of determination

o Assess 70% of City’s collection system within ten (10) years of CD Effective Date

o Reporting of SSOs that discharge to a critical habitat area as defined by the Endangered Species Act

3rd Party Consent Decree

Historical Approach to Renewal Planning

• Budget Based on Last Year

• Little knowledge of system risks

Backward Looking

• Projects determined as problems arise during the year Reactive

• Do as many projects as you can afford each year

Budget Constrained

• Money is spent but overall risk may not have been reduced much

Ignores asset and system

risks

Represents a New Focus for Most Utilities San Jose Goal – Risk Based Planning

Risk-Based Renewal Planning

• Based on asset risk scores throughout system and long term forecasts of risk and cost

Forward Looking

• High risk assets slotted for renewal before failure occurs Proactive

• Budget could be determined based on agreed risk targets for system

Risk or Budget Constrained

• High risk assets addressed first

• Budget may rise or fall to meet risk targets

Focused on risk

management

Analytical and Optimization Software Package by Innovyze

Built On and Runs Inside ArcGIS Infrastructure

Out-of-the-Box

Improves Data Collection and Validation

Smarter Decision Making

InfoMaster What?

Workflow Diagram What Does it Do?

Likelihood of Failure

• Pressure Changes

• Roughness Hydraulic

Model

• Age

• Material Infrastructure

Data

• Soil Type

• Railroads/Fault Lines GIS Data

• Break History

• Repairs/Lining CMMS & Work

Orders

Consequence of Failure

• Pipe/Valve Criticality

• Flow Delivered Hydraulic Model

• Hospitals, Schools, etc

• Power, Industry, etc. Critical Facilities

• Population Density

• Street Paving GIS Data

• Traffic Analysis

• Community Relations Other

Rehabilitation Engine Budget Scenarios Rehabilitation Costs

Prioritized Capital Plan

Calculation of

Risk

Multiple Calculation

Options

GIS

Data Management

CCTV Viewer

Risk Profile

Capital Planning

InfoMaster Why?

Data Management

Data

o Where is it coming from?

• Cond Assessment CCTV

• CIP Project CCTV

• O&M CCTV

o Where does it go?

• Storage

• Access

o How do we maintain it?

• Formats

• Quality Control

Challenges

Use GIS as Database of Record

o Data stored in SDE or GDB

o Hyperlink to videos for viewing

Combine Multiple Data Sources

o CCTV – PACP based

• Can accept anything tabular

o Single Inspection “Instance” or Multiple

o Can Use Any GIS Data

Solutions

Review of the Standards

o Update to require PACP database as a deliverable

o Develop a frequency interval for data submission

o Develop and implement a QA criteria and QC protocol

o Develop requirements for the use of specific codes

• Sag issues

Data Collection

Database Setup

o Project

o System

Mapping Asset Attribute

o Based on ESRI Data Model

• Connects to SDE or GDB

Importing CCTV Data

o Imports PACP Database

Creating the InfoMaster Workspace

Importing GIS

Data Validation

Defect Mapping

Defect Scoring

Rehab Plan

Importing CCTV

Missing MH

Missing Pipe

Pipe Length Errors

Validation Errors

Profile View Visualizing the Data

Map View Visualizing the Data

Prioritizing CCTV Work Cost Effective, Risk Based Assessment

Which Segments to CCTV Next?

Bidding Out the CCTV Work (spec language, data formats, point repairs)

Challenges

Develop Risk Profile

o Determine Likelihood of Failure (LoF) Criteria

o Determine Consequence of Failure (CoF) Criteria

o Use CCTV History

o Reliability Analysis

• Life Expectancy

• Failure Condition

Solutions

Based on Pipe Attributes

Environmental Conditions

o Soil type

o Land use

History

o Tasks

o Incidents

Likelihood of Failure

Pipe Attribute SSO

Risk =

(Pipe Attribute Spill Count

/ System Spill Count)

(Pipe Attribute Count /

System Count)

Determine a Correlation Between

Categories and Failure

o Identifies if they should be used and how to

score

LoF Evaluation

Cleaning Frequency

Age

Diameter

Material

Asset Type

Slope

Groundwater Table Location (with respect

to pipe)

Pipe Depth

Easement Type

Restaurant Proximity

LoF Attributes Evaluated

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0"-5" 6" 7"-10" 12"-21" 23"-45" >45"

Att

rib

ute

SS

O/S

top

pag

e R

isk

Diameter

Pipe Attribute SSO Risk

Pipe Attribute StoppageRisk

Pipe AttributeStoppage&SSO Risk

Average Risk

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

AB

S

AC

P

BR

I

CI

CIP CP

CP

L

DIP

HD

PE

PE

PV

C

PV

L

RC

P

VC

P

Att

rib

ute

SS

O/S

top

pag

e R

isk

Pipe Material

Pipe Attribute SSO Risk

Pipe Attribute StoppageRisk

Pipe AttributeStoppage&SSO Risk

Average Risk

Physical Attributes

o Diameter

o Flow

Critical Facilities

Health Impacts

Regulatory

Political

Consequence of Failure

Creeks (200 ft)

Schools (200 ft)

Hospitals

Railroad (intersect)

Right-of-Way

Storm Drain (200 ft)

Parks (200 ft)

Diameter

Length

Capacity

Land Use

Major Roads

CoF Criteria Identified by:

o Staff

o Available Data

o CD Requirements

Several Different Combinations Evaluated

for Risk Profile

CoF Evaluation

Use LoF and CoF Criteria to Generate Risk

Profile

Risk Profile

Combine Different Parameters, Risk Distributions and Risk Weights Risk Profile Comparison

Created 4 Different Combinations of LoF and CoF

Focused on SSO Likelihood

Consequence Looked at Combinations of Health and CD Components

Risk Profile Comparisons

LOF COF

Install Date Creeks (200')

Diameter Schools (200')

Material Hospitals

Slope Railroad (Intersect)

Depth Right of Way

Storm Drain (200')

Parks (200')

Roadways

Diameter/Length/Capacity

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Co

mp

lete

/Pla

nn

ed C

CT

V (

Mi)

Fu

ture

CC

TV

(M

i)

Normalized Risk

FUTURE CCTV CCTV COMPLETE PLANNED

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

150-

200

200-

250

250-

300

300-

350

350-

400

400-

450

450-

500

500-

550

550-

600

600-

650

650-

700

700-

750

750-

800

800-

850

850-

900

900-

950

950-

1000

Co

mp

lete

/Pla

nn

ed C

CT

V (

Mi)

Fu

ture

CC

TV

(M

i)

Normalized Risk

FUTURE CCTV CCTV COMPLETE PLANNED

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Co

mp

lete

/Pla

nn

ed C

CT

V (

Mi)

Fu

ture

CC

TV

(M

i)

Normalized Risk

FUTURE CCTV CCTV COMPLETE PLANNED

LoF CoF

Diameter

Creek (200')

Age

Storm Drain

(200')

Material

Population

Density

Asset Type

Cleaning

Frequency

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

50-1

00

100-

150

150-

200

200-

250

250-

300

300-

350

350-

400

400-

450

450-

500

500-

550

550-

600

600-

650

650-

700

700-

750

750-

800

800-

850

850-

900

900-

950

950-

1000

Co

mp

lete

/Pla

nn

ed C

CT

V (

Mi)

Fu

ture

CC

TV

(M

i)

Normalized Risk

FUTURE CCTV CCTV COMPLETE PLANNED

Repair, Rehabilitation or Replacement? Making Consistent, Defensible Decisions

o No Overall Condition Based Rehab Plan

o No Methodical Decision Tool

• Used “Expert” Method

o Creating the Decision Trees

• Repair Methods Used

• Decision Points

• Defect Lengths Determination

• Is Our Decision Model Reflective of Reality?

Challenges

Create Standards

o Data Collection and Defect Coding

o Defect Repair Methods

o Acceptable Number of Defects/Pipe

o At what point do we replace?

Solutions

Which discrete defects are fixed and how? Defect Repair Methods

How are pipeline repairs determined? Rehabilitation Methods

Cost Tables

Typical Decisions

Hydraulic

capacity

OK?

Part of

an existing

project?

Defects that

increase risk of

SSO?

Maintenance costs

versus capital costs?

Pipe smaller

than current

standards?

Number of

defects per

100 feet?

Length of

continuous

defects?

Started with 3 Existing Decisions

o Reviewed agency characteristics and goals

• System age and size

• R&R goals

Processed Existing 322 Miles of San Jose CCTV

Development Approach

Yields of Miles of Construction from 322 CCTV Miles

Yields and Costs Used for Forecasting

Review of Results

Agency Yield Cost (millions)

A 31% $85

B 10% $35

C 38% $70

What is Currently Being Used?

Are There Any Decisions from Previous Models that are Applicable to San Jose?

What Should Our Yield Be?

o What codes are driving decisions?

Developing San Jose’s Model

Data – MWLS Codes

o Are they truly sags?

What to Do with 6” Pipe

Major Issues to Address

Yield from initial 322 miles of San Jose CCTV: Approximately 32% construction yield

• 42.4 Miles of Rehab

» Allows 6” pipe to be lined

• 56.5 Miles of Repair

• 0.6 Miles of Replacement

• 3.6 Miles of Evaluate Sags

Emphasis away from replacement

Approximately $40 Million in Backlogged Projects

Results

Forecasting and Budget Short Term and Long Term CIP

Now That We Have Information – What’s Next?

Has some already been built?

o How do we reconcile?

How Do We Forecast Future CIP

o Is 32% a realistic yield?

From Budgeting to Project Delivery, How Will InfoMaster be Used?

o Impacts to budget

o Planning window

• 5 or 10 years

• CD impacts

Challenges

Estimating Future Yield and Cost Forecasting

$38,400,737

$-

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

$35,000,000

$40,000,000

$45,000,000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Est

imat

ed C

ost

Year

Model 2 Cost Forecast at 5% Yield Decrease Per Year

Initial Cost

Forecast Cost

Sanitary Sewer Condition Assessment (SSCA) Pilot

o Randomly selected ~50 miles of pipe to CCTV

o Identified to determine approximate condition of entire system

o Based on statistical sample of:

• Material

• Diameter

• Age

Results of San Jose Model

o 10% Construction Yield

Statistical Sample Set

Lessons Learned Issues, The Future, and Questions

Data Compatibility

o SDE vs GDB

• Numeric vs Text

Defect Length and Count of Defects

o PACP vs Count

o Continuous Defects

CapPlan Limitations

Asset Based vs Project Approach

Lessons Learned - Software

Where are we in implementation?

Completed Model

Validated Decision Process

o Compared to previous projects

Begin Rollout

o Setup on City servers

o Data mapping

o Staff training

Project Status

Questions?

Forecast with SSCA Yield Percentage Statistical Sample Set

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Initial Cost $47,308,210

Forecast Cost $14,563,747 $9,970,632 $6,811,930 $4,653,571 $3,165,471 $2,171,385 $1,480,737 $1,018,555 $675,107 $447,983

$-

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

$35,000,000

$40,000,000

$45,000,000

$50,000,000

Co

st

CIP 10 Year Cost Forecast

Straight-line Yield

$-

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

$35,000,000

$40,000,000

$45,000,000

$50,000,000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10