Seismic Vulnerability and Asset Management

Cal-Nevada AWWA Fall ConferenceSacramento, California

October 1, 2013

Don Ballantyne, Ballantyne Consulting LLCLaura Robinson, Kleinfelder

Agenda

• Introductions and Value Statement

• Asset Management for Municipal Utilities

• Historic Earthquake Damage

• Seismic Risk Evaluation

• Combined Seismic and Non-Seismic Risk

• GIS Tool Use

• Benefit Statement

Value Statement

• Water Systems Demand Resiliency

• Conventional Asset Management - Risk Distributed Over Design Life

• Seismic Damage is Acute - Widespread Consequences from Discrete Event(s)

• Result:

- Re-prioritization of CIP and O&M $ to Address Combined Risk

- Increased System Resiliency

Asset Management for Utility Systems

• Define Levels of Acceptable Risk

• Seek to Minimize Total Costs of Assets

o Acquisition

o Operation

o Maintenance

o Renewal/Replace

• Balance Limited Resources and Competing Demands

• Physical Attributes

• Structural Condition

• Operation and Maintenance Function

• Depreciation/ Present Day Value of Asset

Risk Model Inputs

• Record Data:

– As-Built Drawings

– Design Drawings

– O&M Manuals

– Bid Documents

– Photos and Videos

– Sketches

• Assessments:

– Field Inspections

– Inspection Technologies

– Work Orders

– Staff Interviews

Data Collection

• Relative Ranking of Each Asset’s Potential Risk

• Determine Risk Factor

– Product of the Probability of Failure and the Consequence of Failure

URF = S(Fp x Fc )

where:

Fp = probability of failure

Fc = consequence of failure

Utility Risk Factor (URF)

• Failure to Meet Design Intent

• Failure Modes May Include:

oAge

oCondition

oOperations and Maintenance

oCapacity

o Efficiency

o Safety

Probability of Failure

• Monetary Cost to Repair/Replace

• Loss of Service

• Residential

• Commercial

• Industrial

• Impacts on Critical Customers

• Environmental Impact

• Regulatory Non-Compliance

Consequence of Failure

• Public Health and Safety

• High Operating Costs

o Inefficiency

• Secondary Damage

o Property Damage

o Sinkholes

• Public Relations

o Disruption to the Community

Consequence of Failure

• Relative Ranking of Each Asset’s Potential Risk

• Prioritize Risk throughout System

• Facilitate Capital Improvement Planning (CIP)

• Facilitate O&M Planning

Utility Risk Factor (URF)

• Mitigate Risk Identified by Addressing:

oProbability of Failure

or

oConsequences of Failure

Utility Risk Factor (URF)

• Incorporate Seismic Risk into Utility Risk Factor equation

URF = URFNon-Seismic + URFSeismic

Re-Thinking Risk

Supply Reservoir

WTP

5 MG Steel Tank

10 MG Concrete Reservoir

Liquefiable SoilsLiquefiable Soils

Steel Transmission/Backbone 24-36”

Cast Iron Pipe Distribution

Ductile Iron Pipe Distribution

ASSET CITY Population 105,0007 distribution grid blocks serving 15,000 people ea25’ of pipe/person (375,000’/block)1 manufacturing block #6 (no residential)

1

2 3 4

5 6

7 8

New CommercialManufacturing

R1

P2

P1

P3

R2

R3

P4

P5

P14

P6

P8

P9

P7

P10

P11

P15

P12

P13

P17

P16

P18

Historic Earthquake Damage

• Water and Wastewater Systems are Damaged in Every Major Earthquake

• No Water for Fire Suppression

• Public Health Impacts

• Business Interruption Losses are Potentially the Most Significant

Historic Earthquake DamageSan Francisco 1989

100mm

settlement 60mm20mm

Pipe damage in the Marina District made fire suppression difficult

Historic Earthquake Damage San Francisco 1989

• Santa Clara Valley WD Treatment Plant damaged

• Purissima Hills wire-wrapped tank split open

Historic Earthquake DamageNorthridge 1994

• 2/3 San Fernando Valley were without water

• Treatment plants and tanks damaged

• LADWP restored 1,000+ pipe breaks in 9 days

Historic Earthquake DamageKobe 1995

Water / Electricity Restoration

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56

Days Following Earthquake

Pe

rce

nt

of

Pe

op

le W

ith

Se

rvic

e

Urban Area Water

Total Water

Electricity

• 1,200 pipe failures in Kobe drained the system making fire suppression problematic

Historic Earthquake DamageKobe 1995

• Water and wastewater treatment plants were heavily damaged

Historic Earthquake DamageChristchurch New Zealand 2011

• Liquefaction along the Avon River caused extensive damage to the buried infrastructure

• Water service was restored to inhabited houses in just over 40 days

Historic Earthquake DamageTohoku, Japan 2011

Moniwa Water Purification Plant-Damage to the sedimentation inclined basin plates.

• Treatment plants and pipelines were damaged due to shaking.

• Water was restored with the help of mutual aid from cities outside the impact area.

• Select Earthquake Scenarios that Cover the Regional Seismicity

Seismic Risk Evaluation –Earthquake Hazards

Shakemap Scenarios for:Newport –Inglewood M 6.9 and San Andreas M7.8

• GIS - Overlay Facilities/Pipe on Hazard Map

• Quantify Earthquake Hazards for Each Facility/Pipe Location for Each Scenario

– Shaking Intensity, Wave Propagation

– Fault Rupture Displacement

– Liquefaction Probability, Lateral Spread PGD

– Other Types of PGD,

Seismic Risk Evaluation –Earthquake Hazards

• Estimate the Damage to the Water System Infrastructure for Each Scenario

Seismic Risk Evaluation –Infrastructure Fragility

– Treatment plants, pump stations, storage – using fragility relationships specific to each• Published

• Facility specific

• Estimate in terms of % replacement cost

• Restoration time

• Estimate the Damage to the Water System Infrastructure for Each Scenario

Seismic Risk Evaluation –Infrastructure Fragility

– Pipelines • Fragilities from the

ALA

• Pipeline specific fragilities

• Number of breaks/leaks

Pipeline Damage

ExamplesSanta Clara Valley WD

City of Burnaby, BC

• For each scenario use network analysis to determine

– Impact on system

– Outage areas

– People and businesses without service

• Calculate outage/repair time as a function of order of repair, extent of damage and resources available to repair

Seismic Risk Consequences

Example - Consequences

System Pressures (Seattle -Cascadia Subduction Scenario)

Outage Times (LADWP –Northridge Scenario)

• Calculate the direct and societal losses for all facilities/ pipelines for each scenario (people-days without water)- Overall system scenario risk

Seismic Risk Consequences

• Annualize the losses aggregating all of the scenarios - Overall system risk

• Deaggregate the annual loss to each system component as a function of expected damage

• Develop Seismic Utility Risk Factor (URFSeismic)

Seismic Risk Consequences

• Incorporate Seismic Risk into Utility Risk Factor equation

URF = URFNon-Seismic + URFSeismic

Re-Thinking Risk

Non-Seismic URF Seismic URF Revised URF Non-Seismic Total

R1 0.021 0.551 0.572 8 4 96%

R2 0.000 0.000 0.000 27 27 0%

R3 0.000 0.000 0.000 27 27 0%

WT1 2.785 0.730 3.515 1 1 21%

P1 2.270 0.027 2.297 2 2 1%

P2 2.028 0.027 2.055 3 3 1%

P3 0.046 0.005 0.051 6 13 10%

P4 0.000 0.000 0.000 27 27 0%

P5 0.004 0.003 0.007 24 24 41%

P6 0.004 0.003 0.007 24 24 41%

P7 0.231 0.022 0.254 4 7 9%

P8 0.013 0.016 0.029 15 15 56%

P9 0.013 0.368 0.380 15 6 97%

P10 0.005 0.224 0.230 23 8 98%

P11 0.006 0.143 0.149 22 12 96%

P12 0.020 0.002 0.022 9 20 9%

P13 0.000 0.000 0.000 27 27 0%

P14 0.011 0.003 0.014 19 21 21%

P15 0.007 0.016 0.024 20 18 69%

P16 0.002 0.002 0.004 26 26 53%

P17 0.061 0.143 0.204 5 9 70%

P18 0.012 0.002 0.014 18 22 14%

D1 0.007 0.007 0.013 21 23 49%

D2 0.018 0.007 0.025 10 17 26%

D3 0.018 0.013 0.031 10 14 42%

D4 0.015 0.013 0.028 13 16 46%

D5 0.013 0.010 0.023 14 19 43%

D6 0.023 0.394 0.417 7 5 94%

D7 0.016 0.157 0.173 12 10 91%

D8 0.013 0.157 0.170 17 11 93%

Component

Name

Utility Risk Factor Rank

Asset City Evaluation

% Contribution by

Seismic

Non-Seismic Rank

Seismic Rank

Revised Rank

• Method to determine expected system functionality for selected earthquake scenarios

• Emergency planning, response , and restoration• Financial impacts – post event planning, insurance, bond

sales • Societal impacts – outage times, potential business

interruption of end users• Information needed to develop project justification using

benefit/cost analysis such as for triple-bottom-line analyses

• Use to justify rate increases to reduce seismic risk• Comprehensive revaluation of risk to reprioritize capital

improvements

Benefits of Implementation

Questions ?