Seismic Vulnerability and Asset Managementca-nv-awwa.org/canv/downloads/sessions/05/...P13 P17 P16...
Transcript of Seismic Vulnerability and Asset Managementca-nv-awwa.org/canv/downloads/sessions/05/...P13 P17 P16...
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 ?