PowerPoint Presentationinfosense.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/NCAWWA...Based on Comparison with...

4/19/2012

1

Ivan Howitt InfoSense, Inc John Fishburne CMU

What is the Problem?

Acoustic Inspection

◦ What is it? / How does it work?

◦ CMU/InfoSense Field Trial Brief Summary

Condition Based Maintenance (CBM) for Collection System Cleaning

◦ Concept / Trade-Offs

◦ Scenarios

2012 NC AWWA-WEA Spring Conference

4/19/2012

2

Overflows are a Symptom – Not the Problem

2012 NC AWWA-WEA Spring Conference 3

Overflow locations – “Random”

Historical GIS – Helpful – But Insufficient

Where & When to Deploy Cleaning Resources

Cost Effective & Timely Condition Information


Charlotte

Mecklenburg

County, NC

~4

miles

Five Year Overflow Record –

Different Color / Year

4/19/2012

3


10 20 30 40 50 60 70 800

5

10

15

20

25

% System Cleaned Annually

Ove

rflo

ws /

10

0m

i

76%

Charlotte

Sixteen Municipalities’

Overflows/100mi vs.

% System Cleaned Annually

2

Linear Regression –

Standard Deviation: 2.5

One Sigma Below

Mean 45%

Requirements

◦ Determine Where & When to Deploy Cleaning

Resources

◦ Cost Effective – Inspection Cost << Cleaning Cost

Benefit

◦ Reduce Wasted Cleaning Effort

◦ Improved Performance


4/19/2012

4


How It Got Started – UNCC & CMU “Brainstorming” Session

Sewer Lines – Natural Acoustic Wave Guides

Obstructions – Acoustic Signals Absorb & Reflect

Diagnostic Tool – Evaluates Aggregate Blockage

Transmitter

“Yells” Receiver

“Listens”

No Flow Contact / No Confined Space Entry

Low Cost–Pennies/foot

Rapid Onsite Results – Under 3 min./segment

Portable < 30 lbs

GIS Integration – GPS Enabled

Archive Pipe Segment Blockage Assessment


4/19/2012

5

Two Central Questions Performance & Operational Cost

◦ Evaluated During 2010 CMU / InfoSense SL-RAT Field Trial

◦ NC-AWWA 2010 Spring Fling & Annual Meeting

Blockage Assessment Performance Evaluation Based on Comparison with CCTV



10

5

0

8

2

Obstructed

No Obstructions

Root Fibers Limited Growth

Grease Limited Build Up

Root Fibers and/or Grease

Robot Can Pass Through

Root Fibers and/or Grease

Robot Cannot Pass Through

4/19/2012

6

NC AWWA-WEA 90th Annual Conference

CCTV Blockage

Assessment 10

CCTV Blockage

Assessment 7

CCTV Blockage

Assessment 5

CC

TV

Ro

bo

t w

as A

ble

to

Pass T

hro

ug

h R

oo

t F

ibe

rs

CCTV Blockage

Assessment 2

11

0 2 4 6 8 100

2

4

6

8

10

CCTV Based Blockage Assessment

SL

-RA

T B

locka

ge

Asse

ssm

ent

12 2012 NC AWWA-WEA Spring Conference

SL-RAT Standard Threshold

• 61% Reduction in Cleaning

• All Pipes Requiring Cleaning

are Cleaned

CCTV & SL-RAT Acoustic Inspect >50% Pipe Segments Did Not Require Cleaning

SL-RAT Assessment Correlated with CCTV

SL-RAT Provides Conservative Assessment

SL-RAT Critical Threshold

• 85% Reduction in Cleaning

• Identify Pipes in Critical Need

of Further Action

4/19/2012

7

Typical Industry Values : Cleaning Crew $1.00/foot

Estimated SL-RAT Inspection Crew

Number of Crew Members 2

Annual Fully Loaded Salary Per Crew Member $68,000

Annual Equipment Costs (Including Truck & SL-RAT) $24,000

Work Days Per Year 251

Onsite Work Hours Per Day 5.5

SL- RAT Average Number of

Segments Inspected Per Hour

6

Average Sewer Line Segment Length in feet 220

Cost Per Foot $0.09/ft



Resource Efficiency Utilization Through Condition Assessment

Trade-Off - Inspection vs. Cleaning

F, FunctionalFailure

P, PotentialFailure

D, Detect Potential Failure

SL

-Seg

men

t C

on

ditio

n

Operation Time

CBM

Inspections

ΔT

F-P

ΔTD

F-D

4/19/2012

8

Cleaning Program - Current Practice

Cost Model ◦ Cleaning Cost / Foot $1

Performance Model ◦ Linear Regression for 16

Municipalities Overflows vs %System Cleaned

Benchmark ◦ 2 Overflows/100mi

◦ 45% System Cleaned – Low Confidence

◦ 75% System Cleaned – Modest Confidence


20 30 40 50 60 70

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Total Pipe Segments in Cleaning Operation (%)

Cle

anin

g C

ost

/ 100 m

i P

ipe (

Mill

ions $

)

Baseline Cleaning

Program

% Collect System for

2 Overflows/100mile

Based on One Sigma

Lower Bound

SL-RAT Inspection Prior to Cleaning

Only Clean Segments Below Standard Threshold

Illustrative Case ◦ 52,000 ft Basin

◦ 30,000 ft Assessed by SL-RAT as “Clean”

◦ 22,000 ft Below Threshold & Cleaned

◦ 58% Reduction in Cleaning


1000ft

Poor (1– 6)

Clean (6 – 10)

Blocked (0) SL-RAT

Assessment

4/19/2012

9


% Collect System for 2 Overflows/100mi

Based on One Sigma Lower Bound

Baseline Cleaning

Program

CBM

Cleaning

Program I

x 2.1

1

2

20 30 40 50 60 70 80

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3


Cle

anin

g C

ost

/ 100 m

i P

ipe (

Mill

ions $

)

Evaluate CBM Cost/Performance ◦ Use CMU/InfoSense

Field Study Results

◦ SL-RAT Cost/Ft $0.09

Point “1” ◦ 20% SL-RAT Acoustic

Inspection

◦ ~7.8% Cleaned

Point “2” ◦ 42% SL-RAT Acoustic

Inspection

◦ ~16.6% Cleaned

Cle

anin

g C

ost

/ 100 m

i P

ipe (

Mill

ions $

)

20 30 40 50 60 70 80

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3



Prioritize - Target High Risk Segments

Point “1” ◦ Same CBM Program I

◦ 20% Acoustic Inspection

◦ ~7.8% Cleaned

Point “2” ◦ 63% Acoustic Inspection

◦ ~14.1% Cleaned

◦ ~9.5% Evaluated as Critical

Baseline Cleaning

Program

CBM

Cleaning

Program I

CBM

Cleaning

Program II

x 2.1

1

2

% Collect System for 2 Overflows/100mi

Based on One Sigma Lower Bound

4/19/2012

10

Collection System Cleaning Operations Condition Based Management (CBM) Benefits

◦ Cleaning Resources Efficiently Deployed

◦ Reduces Non-Productive Cleaning Effort

◦ Prioritizes Cleaning & Provides Flexibility in Balancing Risk with Cost

Acoustic Inspection Enabler for CBM Cleaning Program

◦ Inspection Cost << Cleaning Cost

◦ Assessment Correlated with Cleaning Requirements


PowerPoint Presentationinfosense.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/NCAWWA...Based on Comparison with...

Documents

Transcript of PowerPoint Presentationinfosense.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/NCAWWA...Based on Comparison with...