COMMITMENT & INTEGRITY DRIVE RESULTS
Union Sanitary District’s Collection System Hydraulic Model and Pipe Condition Assessment Program
– the ongoing evolution of a powerful planning tool
Rollie Arbolante – Union Sanitary DistrictJennifer Chang & Gisa Ju – Woodard & Curran
PUG 2018 Sharing Technologies SeminarThursday, February 22, 2018
Union Sanitary District800+ miles of sewer22 mgd ADWF (current)57 mgd PWWF (current)73 mgd PWWF (future)
Early Planning Efforts1989 Sewer Master Plan
➢ Collection system-wide➢ Flow projections and hydraulic model➢ Recommended capacity projects and 6-year cycle
of CCTV inspection1993 District-wide Master Plan
➢ Transport & Treatment Systems➢ Refined design flow projections
These studies set the stage for an on-going master planning process
Master Planning Process
Capacity Deficiencies
Design Conditions
Flow Meter Data
Land Use Data
Rehabilitation Needs
Cost Data
Inspection Data
O&M Data
Condition AssessmentCapacity Assessment
Recommended CIP
Hydraulic Model
Database ProgramAlternative
Analysis & Prioritization
Capacity Assessment Methodology
Build Network• Asset data• Operation data• Land Use data
Calibrate Model• Flow meter data• Rain gauge data• SCADA data
Assess Capacity• Future conditions• Design storm• Deficiency criteria
Develop Projects• Capacity improvement• Capital costs• Priorities
Hydraulic Model Simulates System Performance
USD Hydraulic Model Evolution – Model SoftwareSNAP Model (Static) HydroWorks™
(Fully Dynamic)InfoWorks™
(GIS interface) InfoWorks ICM™
1989 201820171999 2004
•Static•Non-graphical•No hydraulic gradeline•No user interface
•Fully dynamic•Powerful GIS interface•Vast capabilities
USD Hydraulic Model Evolution – Model NetworkMost
10-inch sewersGradual
refinementsRedefine
“subareas” All Pipe Network
1989 201820172000
USD Hydraulic Model Evolution – Land Use DataDigitized AutoCad map +
aerial photo overlays + ArcGIS Mapping + Customer Billing Databases
1995 201820042000
Customer Billing Database• Address and APN• Land Use Type (CIXZ)• Residence Type• Vacant or Not Served• Volume Per Year Usage
USD Hydraulic Model Evolution – Design FlowsPeaking factors, conservative I/I
rates Less conservative RDI/I assumptions
Design storm update, calibrated
RDI/IRDI/I sensitivity
studied“Calibrated” vs. “Design” BWF
Design storm update
1989 201820152000 2008 20121997
Hydraulic Model Planned Future EnhancementsAll-pipe model
▪ Increases detail and accuracy of flow routing
▪ Facilitates development reviews
▪ Confirms capacity needs for rehabilitation projects
Condition Assessment Methdology
Condition Rating Based on CCTV Data▪ Values defined by District staff
▪ Structural, maintenance, and total ratings
▪ Minimum “default” rating for sewers on 3 to 36-mo. maintenance frequency
Critical Rating Establishes Priorities
Critical Rating = Condition Ratingx Total IF
Impact factors reflect consequence of failure
Critical Rating reflects total risk
(Value from 1 to 2)
Structural Rehabilitation Methods Considered ▪ Full-segment replacement
▪ Full-segment lining
▪ Spot repair of severe defects
▪ Spot repair of moderate and severe defects
“Best” Method Based on Lowest Annual Cost of OwnershipCost of ownership also considers maintenance cost over remaining life of pipe
➢ Replacement – 100-year life @ 72-mo. maintenance frequency➢ Lining – 75-year life @ 72-mo. maintenance frequency➢ Spot Repair – remaining life based on current pipe age and number
of unrepaired defects @ current maintenance frequency
Pipe Condition Assessment Program EvolutionPCAP
Developed
Changes to CCTV codes, Hansen updates, new manhole numbering
system, GIS, localized liner spot repair
“Annual cost of ownership”
concept
NASSCO PACP
InfoMaster™1995 20182012
Powerful Planning Tools Facilitate Great Results
Address capacity deficiencies
1995 – Multiple deficiencies2017 – No capacity projects
Optimize rehabilitation
Lifecycle cost methodInfoMaster™ benefits
Increase confidence
Reduce assumptionsImprove resolutionApply elsewhere
In Conclusion▪ Through cyclic Master Plan updates, the District’s hydraulic model and
condition assessment methodology have continually improved in detail and usefulness
▪ Master Plans ensure timely identification of capital needs
▪ USD serves as an excellent example of leveraging effective planning tools in a systematic approach to quality public stewardship
Acknowledging 20+ Years of EffortDISTRICT STAFF
Andy Morrison (retired)Bernie Graef (retired)
Chris ElliotCurtis Bosick
Dan Tolvtvar (retired)Dwight Dorsey (retired)
James SchofieldJeff Roletto (retired)Jesse Gill (retired)
Manuel Terra (retired)Matt Faria (retired)
Mohammad GhouryPaulette Roberson
Raymond ChauRich Czapkay
Richard Currie (retired)Richard ScobeeRollie Arbolante
Russell Wogerman (deceased)Sami GhossainShawn Nesgis
Susan Whitelock (retired)Todd Jacob
Consultants and Subconsultants: Woodard & Curran (RMC), MWH, Talavera & Richardson, E2, V&A, ADS, and Total Flow
COMMITMENT & INTEGRITY DRIVE RESULTS
QUESTIONS?
Contact informationRollie Arbolante (USD)
Gisa Ju (Woodard & Curran)[email protected]
Jennifer Chang (Woodard & Curran)[email protected]