Best for the Buck: Using Asset Management for Project Design at Highline Water District Matthew J. Maring, P.E. April 30, 2008

Best for the Buck:Using Asset Management

for Project Design atHighline Water District

Matthew J. Maring, P.E.

April 30, 2008

Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008

Initial Project Design Concept

Transmission Capacity Improvements–4600’ 16” Diameter Mains–$1.8M Estimated Capital Cost

Dead-End Main Looping Improvements–6500’ 8” Diameter Mains–$2.1M Estimated Capital Cost

New Pressure Zone Creation–7 PRVs and 12 Isolation Valves–$0.8M Estimated Capital Cost

$4.7M Total Estimated Capital Cost


Project Approach

Asset Management Predesign Review–Business Case Evaluation–Hydraulic Modeling Analysis–Alternative Design

Approaches Identify, Optimize, Assess, Compare

– Identify Preferred Design Alternatives

Detailed Design Construction


Business Case Evaluation Process

Form Expert Team – Highline and BC Staff

Problem and Level of Service Definition

Data Collection, Problem Characterization

Alternative Development Brainstorming

Alternative Performance Evaluations–Hydraulic Modeling Analysis

Alternative Performance, Cost, and Risk Comparison

Preferred Solutions Detailed Design


Business Case Difference

Lifecycle Cost – A dollar is a dollar–Capital, O&M, R&R, Risk Costs

Triple Bottom Line Costing–Financial–Community/Social–Environmental

Preferred Solution = Lowest Lifecycle Cost that Meets Level of Service

Decisions–Documented, Defensible,

Transparent


Problem Definition

Low Pressures Limited Fire Flow Availability Dead-End Mains

–Water Circulation and Turn Over

–Low Pressures, Limited Fire Flow

High Pressures–Frequent Main Breaks


Level of Service

Peak Hour Demand Pressures > 30-40 psi

Max Day Demand + Fire Flow > 20 psi

Dead-End Mains–Address Pressures and Fire Flows–Correct where Financially

Preferable High Pressures and Main Breaks

–Distribution Leakage Standards–Correct where Financially

Preferable–Goal: Max Static Pressures < 100

psi


Data Collection and Problem Characterization

Hydraulic Model System Performance–Minimum Pressures, Fire Flows

Water Main Breaks–3 to 4 Times More Frequent in

High Pressure Areas–$6K+ Average Cost per Break

Repair Labor, Materials, EquipmentLost Water, Insurance Claims/Deductibles

–Reduce High Pressure Breaks to “Normal” Levels = $18K Annual Savings

Dead-End Main Flushing is “Cheap”


Existing System: Future Model Scenario Pressure and Fire Flow

Performance


High Pressure Area Main Breaks

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

An

nu

al M

ain

Bre

ak C

ou

nts

High Pressure Areas Normal Pressure Areas Total System


High Pressure Area Main Breaks

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

An

nu

al M

ain

Bre

aks

Pe

r P

ipe

Mile

High Pressure Areas Normal Pressure Areas Total System


Main Breaks: High Pressures or Acidic Soils?


Alternative Development

Low Pressures and Fire Flow Availability–Pipe and Pump Improvements–Various Sizes and Combinations

Dead-End Mains–Looping–Alternating and Continuous

High Pressures–New Pressure Zone–PRV Quantity and Locations– Isolation Valve Quantity and

Locations


Alternative Performanceand Hydraulic Modeling

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Fu

ture

Sce

nar

io P

eak

Ho

ur

Dem

and

Pre

ssu

re (

psi

)

Static Pressure

Alt 7: Pipe and PumpImprovements

Alt 6: PumpImprovements

Alt 5: PipeImprovements




Alt 1: Do Nothing/StatusQuo/Existing System

South Area Model Nodes

North AreaModel Nodes


Alternative Performanceand Hydraulic Modeling

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Fu

ture

Sce

nar

io F

ire

Flo

w D

efic

ien

cy Alt 7: Pipe and PumpImprovements

Alt 6: PumpImprovements





Alt 1: Do Nothing/StatusQuo/Existing System

So

uth

Are

a M

od

el N

od

es10

00 g

pm

Fir

e F

low

No

rth

Are

a M

od

el N

od

es10

00-1

500

gp

m F

ire

No

rth

Are

a M

od

el N

od

es25

00 g

pm

Fir

e F

low

No

rth

Are

a M

od

el N

od

es35

00 g

pm

Fir

e F

low


Alternative Performance New Zone Area Pressures, Before and

After


Lifecycle NPV Cost Comparison

Lifecycle Net Present Value (NPV) Analysis–Capital, O&M, R&R, Risk Costs

–Amount Invested Today to Fund All Current and Future Asset Costs


Risk Cost Considerations

Risk Cost = (Probability) x (Consequence)–Example A:

(Annual Number of Main Breaks) x (Average Break Repair Cost)

–Example B:(Likelihood of Insurance Claim) x (Insurance Deductible + Staff Costs)

Benefit Cost = (Probability) x (Avoided Consequence)–Example C:

(Avoided Number of Main Breaks) x (Average Break Repair Cost)


Preferred Solution for Detailed Design

Transmission Capacity Improvements–1800’ 12” Diameter Mains–Pump Station Upgrades–$1.1M Estimated Capital Cost

Dead-End Main Looping Improvements–2700’ 8” Diameter Mains

(Alternating)–$0.9M Estimated Capital Cost

New Pressure Zone Creation–3 PRVs, 50 psi Pressure

Reduction–$0.3M Estimated Capital Cost

$2.3M Total Estimated Capital Cost


Preferred Solution Delivers Optimal Performance and Cost

SavingsInitialConcept

Preferred

Solution

InitialConcept

Preferred

Solution

InitialConcept

Preferred

Solution

Capital

Costs

Lifecycle

Costs

Capital

Costs

Lifecycle

CostsTransmissionCapacity

4600’

16” Dia.

1800’ 12” Dia. And Pump Upgrades

$1.8M

$1.8M $1.1M

$1.5M

Dead-End Loops

6500’

8” Dia.

2700’ 8” Dia.

$2.1M

$2.1M $0.9M

$0.9M

New PressureZone

8 PRVs12 Iso. Valves

3 PRVs $0.8M

$1.2M $0.3M

$0.4M

Totals $4.7M

$5.1M $2.3M

$2.8M


Avoided Risk Costs Demonstrate Project Value

High Pressure Areas Main Breaks–$0.5M Lifecycle NPV Repair

Cost New Pressure Zone Creation

–$0.4M Lifecycle NPV Cost–$0.5M Lifecycle NPV

Avoided Repairs–$0.1M Savings Over Status

Quo


Asset Management Approach Successful

Business Case Evaluation and Hydraulic Modeling Analysis Approach Results:

Cost Savings– $2.6M Capital Costs = 53%– $2.3M Lifecycle Costs = 45%

Higher Overall Level of Service Takes Advantage of Existing Assets

– Pump Station Upgrades vs. New Water Mains

New Pressure Zone Pays for Itself– $0.4M Lifecycle Cost vs.– $0.5M Avoided Lifecycle Main

Break Repair Costs


Questions?

Documents

Best for the Buck: Using Asset Management for Project Design at Highline Water District Matthew J. Maring, P.E. April 30, 2008