Best for the Buck:
Using Asset Management for
Project Design at
Highline Water District
Matthew J. Maring, P.E.
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
Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008
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
Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008
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
Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008
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
Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008
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
Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008
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
Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008
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, Equipment
 Lost Water, Insurance Claims/Deductibles
– Reduce High Pressure Breaks to
“Normal” Levels = $18K Annual Savings
 Dead-End Main Flushing is “Cheap”
Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008
Existing System: Future Model Scenario
Pressure and Fire Flow Performance
Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008
High Pressure Area Main Breaks
35.0
Annual Main Break Counts
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
High Pressure Areas
2000
2001
2002
2003
Normal Pressure Areas
2004
2005
2006
Total System
Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008
High Pressure Area Main Breaks
Annual Main Breaks Per Pipe Mile
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
High Pressure Areas
2000
2001
2002
2003
Normal Pressure Areas
2004
2005
2006
Total System
Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008
Main Breaks: High Pressures or
Acidic Soils?
Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008
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
Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008
Alternative Performance
and Hydraulic Modeling
Future Scenario Peak Hour Demand Pressure (psi)
180
160
Static Pressure
140
Alt 7: Pipe and Pump
Improvements
Alt 6: Pump
Improvements
Alt 5: Pipe
Improvements
Alt 3: Pipe
Improvements
Alt 4: Pipe
Improvements
Alt 2: Pipe
Improvements
Alt 1: Do Nothing/Status
Quo/Existing System
120
100
80
60
40
20
South Area North Area
Model Nodes Model Nodes
0
Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008
Alternative Performance
and Hydraulic Modeling
0%
20%
30%
40%
80%
90%
North Area Model Nodes
3500 gpm Fire Flow
70%
North Area Model Nodes
2500 gpm Fire Flow
60%
North Area Model Nodes
1000-1500 gpm Fire
50%
South Area Model Nodes
1000 gpm Fire Flow
Future Scenario Fire Flow Deficiency
10%
Alt 7: Pipe and Pump
Improvements
Alt 6: Pump
Improvements
Alt 5: Pipe
Improvements
Alt 4: Pipe
Improvements
Alt 3: Pipe
Improvements
Alt 2: Pipe
Improvements
Alt 1: Do Nothing/Status
Quo/Existing System
Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008
Alternative Performance
New Zone Area Pressures, Before and After
Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008
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
Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008
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)
Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008
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
Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008
Preferred Solution Delivers
Optimal Performance and Cost Savings
Initial Preferred Initial Preferred Initial Preferred
Concept Solution Concept Solution Concept Solution
Capital Lifecycle Capital Lifecycle
Costs
Costs
Costs
Costs
Transmission 4600’ 1800’
$1.8M
$1.8M
$1.1M
$1.5M
Capacity
16” Dia. 12” Dia.
And Pump
Upgrades
Dead-End
6500’ 2700’
$2.1M
$2.1M
$0.9M $0.9M
Loops
8” Dia. 8” Dia.
New
8 PRVs 3 PRVs
$0.8M
$1.2M
$0.3M $0.4M
Pressure
12 Iso.
Zone
Valves
Totals
$4.7M
$5.1M
$2.3M $2.8M
Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008
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
Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008
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
Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008
Questions?
Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008