U.S Army Engineer Research and Development Center (USAERDC)

597 views

Published on

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
597
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
36
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
18
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Good afternoon. Dave McKay and myself, along with the help of many others, spent years working on what are frequently called REMR CIs. These are inspection and condition rating tools for many of the primary civil works infrastructure components. I’m going to talk about these and how condition assessment fits into a broader asset management methodology.
  • Here’s an outline for this presentation and I’ll start with a few facts on CW infrastructure
  • 237 locks 926 harbors 383 flood protection reservoirs – located primarily in or protecting urban areas Large utility Not only large water based recreation provider but the Corps has more visitors than any other recreation provider. Nature Conservancy says the Pentagon has 30 million acres on more than 425 installations. It’s not clear if that includes the Corps. It’s also not clear if the 12mil listed above is all Corps owned but the environmental responsibility is huge. Water based habitat is some of the most important. Infrastructure causes some stresses and in some cases is also used to improve the habitat.
  • More than 50% of the dams and locks have reached their design life. Because of the maintenance backlog, all levels of service need to be justified. The budgets are targeted based on historic trend
  • The Bush administration has made a big push with the goal of improving management of public infrastructure
  • This is not an inspected condition. If you have the work plan for all repairs, this is a good alternative metric for condition. One problem is that it takes significant time and money to work out the repairs. It’s often an unnecessary expense – if you don’t plan to make the repairs any time soon. Some inspection based condition assessment CIs provide exactly the needed info. ROOFER summarizes distresses and says which ones need repaired at what estimated cost. It also suggests which roofs should be replaced. This brings up a topic I’ll talk more about later. It would be wonderful if we could generate repair lists and replacement lists directly from all CI inspections. For many infrastructure components, that simply isn’t possible. There are many other reasons why CIs vary in their methodology and benefits.
  • Why was hydropower deemed effective? hydroAMP
  • I want to emphasize the word viewpoint. These are just my thoughts. I hope you will consider them within your own understanding of asset management and remember that there’s many possible answers.
  • I am not an asset management expert. There is assuredly a lot of AM literature available that I have not looked at but in my exposure I have never seen a list comparable to this. There may very well be better alternatives but this was put together by CERL and I think it’s very useful. I can’t stress these factors enough. When we look at how to use these factors to manage our assets and operations, we quickly learn that there are no comprehensive capabilities that incorporate all of these aspects. Right now we have no standard criteria for most of these factors. It’s mostly subjective in an open framework. The implications are often only considered in an implicit manner. Just creating tools that make the subjective process more explicit well help. One day we may get there. At minimum we are making huge strides toward considering all these decision drivers.
  • Condition assessment is only part of the answer. Keep that in mind as I later speak to some virtues of condition indexes. My focus is condition assessment. As important as I think this is, by no means do I think that it’s the holy grail. Condition Assessment can include everything from deterioration to operational procedures. At a network level (Corps-wide all infrastructure) it would be great if all CIs were uniform in what they did and how they did. In some cases that may not even be possible but regardless, it generally makes it impossible to gain many benefits at the user and project level. I’ll speak more to how and why CIs vary but some are solely measures of physical condition and others look at aspects of performance and relative risk. No existing condition index – or any other metric – addresses all of these condition factors. Often the one we need the best info for is the one we are least able to measure. CIs can’t always even answer the questions we want them to. That’s not – I believe – a reason to dismiss them.
  • The type of asset also effects the optimal CI approach. The CIs for spillways and dams take a different approach and consider relative risk within the evaluation process.
  • All CIs provide a consistent quantification of condition. The other benefits are not uniformly applicable to all component indexes. These benefits are briefly described in the 2 page handout. Benchmarking for deterioration monitoring and major changes From unknown cause From barge impact
  • As the dollar threshold of decisions increases formal quantitative risk assessment becomes critical to good management. Beyond that, I need to be careful what I say. The Corps has invested heavily in risk and reliability – which includes the economic considerations. It’s focused mainly on major rehab which is where the focus should be for risk assessment. At the same time, I think we are missing the target if we dismiss the other three criteria in the process. Maybe we develop the other parts separately with a long range goal of a holistic system.
  • Economics is very important. But like the other four criteria, it isn’t always applicable. What are the economics of loss of life? Well, it’s possible to make estimates. We can calculate the estimated cost per life saved but for better or worse the Corps does not calculate the value of a life. Even when economics is applicable, it’s not always measured the same way. Many people aren’t comfortable comparing benefits related to a preventing a dam failure to the benefits of flood damages prevented. They place a higher value on dam safety. Better to cause no harm. NED is an important economic measure but it’s not equivalent to flood damages prevented, reduced M&R cost or other cost savings. Quality of life is a very important issue but we can’t measure it very well and it’s not even directly related to economics – which sort of segways into the last factor
  • For better or worse politics plays into the process. But politics is just a negatively connotated word for making a determination of our priorities. Condition, performance, risk, and economics are important in the decision process but in the end we have to decide what our priorities are. One way is to mandate that certain things will happen. Another is to scream the loudest. And of course we want to have some balance between business areas and geographically. All this influences what and where we place emphasis. XXXXOK I mentioned “do no harm” – or at least minimize it. That bridges us into the priorities aspect. Unfortunately, that’s only a very small aspect of balancing priorities. We have 5 different business areas and how we make priorities within business areas vary significantly. Looking between business areas, I don’t want to say the prioritization process is “seat of the pants” because the drivers are real and important but clearly the process is not analytical nor objective. So back to within business areas and the “do no harm” principle. Looking at our environmental business area we have clearly done harm. We will continue to do harm. That’s part of our societal social structure. But we have dramatically changed in how we look at the environment. We spend huge sums of money to minimize our damage and to go back to repair damage that has been done in the past. XXXFor flood control I’ve mentioned the flood damages preventing and preventing dam failure. These are probabilistic long range benefits. For navigation, the benefits are sometimes in-house but much of the economics is related to the users. XXXx
  • Risk based – economics and life loss Condition - maintenance management
  • I have a few pictures here and as I move through them think about which of the 5 asset management criteria you use and more importantly how do you apply it. It’s not easy.
  • How do you compare these visitor’s facilities
  • I don’t know how big of an issue this is but it has created at least one major dam failure in the US. (johnstown)
  • ….you can see where they have a problem. This spillway also has tuck point erosion problems.
  • Don’t know the seriousness of the problem here but Melvin Price lost their operating equipment for a lock gate. The equipment was pulled down from the support.
  • The issue of course is the ability of Corps campsites to service monster sized RVs. What if the one on the left won’t handle the large RVs?
  • The bends were in many locations. I hae many more pictures of these deformities.
  • Here’s a lift gate belonging to Hydro Quebec that I wouldn’t want to open. Some of their gate are heated, others aren’t. They have many gates that have not been opened for 10 years or more and they are afraid to test them for fear of not getting them closed again. Many do not have bulkhead slots.
  • We have developed CIs for most major CW infrastructure components. Here are the related tech reports. We don’t cover everything but we’ve hit most components. As I move farther into the agenda, less of the work and products are completed. I mentioned the budgeting process earlier. We started work on tying our asset management tools to budget prioritization but with one exception I don’t talk about that here today because we don’t have those tools completed.
  • Our baseline scale
  • Miter Gates and Lock Valves – inspection and rating CI
  • Operating equipment – inspection and rating CI Spillways - decision process CI ***Decision process CI - Electrical - Operations
  • Rubble Breakwaters and Jetties - decision process CI Non-Rubble Breakwaters and Jetties - decision process CI
  • Concrete dams – inspection and rating CI Gates – numerous inspection and rating CIs - Spillway decision process CI Embankment dams - decision process CI
  • Hydropower CIs were developed by Hydroelectric Design Center. There current CI product is called Hydro Amp. It includes a multi-level inspection process.
  • All CIs provide a consistent quantification of condition. The other benefits are not uniformly applicable to all component indexes. These benefits are briefly described in the 2 page handout. Benchmarking for deterioration monitoring and major changes From unknown cause From barge impact
  • CIs too expensive Simpler cheaper and faster while minimizing the impact on technical integrity
  • The miter gate CI is the most complicated and time consuming. That’s ok since the CI has one of the biggest payoffs but it still makes a good candidate for simplifying. Anchorage movement measurement is the most complicated part and I’ll focus on how that was simplified.
  • So we went back out in the field to see what could be done.
  • An we came up with this alternative on the walkway.
  • Here the green line is the established method. The pink and yellow lines bracket and acceptable range. The blue line is the simplified method.
  • Miter gate most objective and involved CI We reduced the time for most of the other measurements also Total reduction is 50-75%
  • These are CIs too but they have many difference from other CIs like I’ve discussed. They have different approaches and provide different benefits
  • These are CIs too but they have many difference from other CIs like I’ve discussed. They have different approaches and provide different benefits
  • Part of the decision process instead of information supporting the decision process by quantifying issues instead of distresses.
  • U.S Army Engineer Research and Development Center (USAERDC)

    1. 1. Civil Works asset management for aging infrastructure Tuesday August 15, 2006 Stuart Foltz and David McKay CERL / Facilities Division
    2. 2. <ul><li>My objectives </li></ul><ul><li>Convince you that condition indexes are a necessary part of Asset Management </li></ul><ul><li>Convince you that CIs will solve all problems </li></ul><ul><li>Convince you to go home and use CIs </li></ul>
    3. 3. <ul><li>My objectives </li></ul><ul><li>Convince you that we have to use condition indexes </li></ul><ul><li>Convince you that CIs will solve all problems </li></ul><ul><li>Convince you to go home and use CIs </li></ul><ul><li>Appreciate what information is needed for Asset Management (macro level understanding) </li></ul><ul><li>See condition Indexes as a family of capabilities </li></ul><ul><li>Appreciate condition assessment as an Asset Management tool </li></ul>
    4. 4. <ul><li>This presentation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Corps CW infrastructure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Asset Management policy issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>An Asset Management viewpoint </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CI basics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Simplification </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>minutiae example: miter gate anchorage assembly </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>multi-level inspection </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Relative risk CIs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Conclusions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Questions </li></ul></ul>
    5. 5. <ul><li>25,000 miles navigable waterways </li></ul><ul><ul><li>237 lock chambers at 192 sites </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>926 shallow and deep draft harbors </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Premier Federal flood damage reduction agency </li></ul><ul><ul><li>383 major reservoirs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>8,500 miles of levees </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Fourth largest electrical utility in U.S. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>produces 25% of all hydropower </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Leading provider of water based recreation </li></ul><ul><li>Environmental steward of 12,000,000 acres of public lands and water </li></ul>Civil Works Infrastructure
    6. 6. <ul><li>Actual Operations & Maintenance (O&M) needs far outdistance the available dollars </li></ul><ul><ul><li>more than 50% of locks & dams reached their design life in 2000 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>rapidly growing maintenance backlog </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, enhancement </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>therefore all levels of service must be justified </li></ul></ul><ul><li>No reliable (universal and consistent) or objective means of communicating O&M needs, or of quantifying the impact of budget shortfalls exists </li></ul><ul><ul><li>both the budget development and allocation processes are largely subjective </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>target based budget allocations (historic trend) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>annually between 16,000 to 19,000 O&M work packages are uploaded to HQUSACE </li></ul></ul>Problems Corps-Wide
    7. 7. <ul><li>This presentation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Corps CW infrastructure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Asset Management policy issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>An Asset Management viewpoint </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CI basics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Simplification </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>minutiae example: miter gate anchorage assembly </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>multi-level inspection </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Relative risk CIs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Conclusions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Questions </li></ul></ul>
    8. 8. <ul><li>Executive Order 13327, “Federal Real Property Asset Management” (February 4, 2004) </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.whitehouse. gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040204-1.html </li></ul><ul><li>Directs all major agencies to develop asset management plans. </li></ul><ul><li>Creates FRPC (Federal Real Property Council) to establish guidance, and best practices. </li></ul><ul><li>FRPC has identified and defined 23 mandatory Property Inventory Data Elements and Performance Measures that will be captured and reported by all agencies. </li></ul>
    9. 9. <ul><li>1. Real Property Type </li></ul><ul><li>2. Real Property Use </li></ul><ul><li>3. Legal Interest </li></ul><ul><li>4. Status </li></ul><ul><li>5. Historical Status </li></ul><ul><li>6. Reporting Agency </li></ul><ul><li>7. Using Organization </li></ul><ul><li>8. Size </li></ul><ul><li>9. Utilization (Performance Measure #1) </li></ul><ul><li>10. Value </li></ul><ul><li>11. Condition Index (Performance Measure #2) </li></ul><ul><li>12. Mission Dependency (Performance Measure #3) </li></ul><ul><li>13. Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs (Performance Measure #4) </li></ul><ul><li>14. Main Location </li></ul><ul><li>15. Real Property Unique Identifier </li></ul><ul><li>16. City </li></ul><ul><li>17. State </li></ul><ul><li>18. Country </li></ul><ul><li>19. County </li></ul><ul><li>20. Congressional District </li></ul><ul><li>21. ZIP Code </li></ul><ul><li>22. Installation and Sub-Installation Identifier </li></ul><ul><li>23. Restrictions </li></ul>
    10. 10. <ul><li>FRPC Condition Index </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Metric </li></ul></ul><ul><li>CI = (repair cost) </li></ul><ul><ul><li> (asset value) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Assessment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Quick and dirty estimate </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Network level accuracy </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Project or component level accuracy </li></ul></ul></ul>
    11. 11. <ul><li>Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) </li></ul><ul><li>Worksheet for assessing government programs </li></ul><ul><li>Focused on performance measures </li></ul><ul><li>Does not directly require Asset Management but such a plan will help achieve a high score </li></ul>
    12. 12. <ul><li>Corps programs evaluated in PART: </li></ul><ul><li>(1) Coastal Ports and Harbors ( Moderately Effective ) </li></ul><ul><li>(2) Coastal Storm Damage Reduction ( Results Not Demonstrated ) </li></ul><ul><li>(3) Corps Hydropower ( Adequate ) </li></ul><ul><li>(4) Emergency Management ( Moderately Effective ) </li></ul><ul><li>(5) Flood Damage Reduction ( Results Not Demonstrated ) </li></ul><ul><li>(6) Inland Waterways Navigation ( Results Not Demonstrated ) </li></ul><ul><li>(7) Non-regulatory Wetlands Activities ( Results Not Demonstrated ) </li></ul><ul><li>(8) Recreation Management ( Moderately Effective ) </li></ul><ul><li>(9) USACE Regulatory Program ( Moderately Effective ) </li></ul>
    13. 13. <ul><li>WRDA revision </li></ul><ul><li>WRDA 2005 limits the Corps ability to re-program project money </li></ul><ul><li>According to Gen Riley, Dir of CW: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ the goal of FY 2006 program execution would be to ‘ accurately schedule work ’ based on appropriations and carry-over funds and ‘then to execute the schedule .’” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Corps will need to develop more accurate and omniscient spending plans. </li></ul></ul>
    14. 14. <ul><li>This presentation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Corps CW infrastructure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Asset Management policy issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>An Asset Management viewpoint </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CI basics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Simplification </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>minutiae example: miter gate anchorage assembly </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>multi-level inspection </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Relative risk CIs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Conclusions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Questions </li></ul></ul>
    15. 15. <ul><li>Asset Management decision criteria </li></ul><ul><li>Infrastructure condition </li></ul><ul><li>Infrastructure performance </li></ul><ul><li>Risk </li></ul><ul><li>Economics </li></ul><ul><li>Policies, Corps priorities, national priorities </li></ul>
    16. 16. <ul><li>Asset Management criteria </li></ul><ul><li>Infrastructure condition (family of capabilities) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reliability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Failure probability </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Probability of unsatisfactory performance </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Serviceability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Expected remaining life </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Repair needs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Age </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Function </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Risk (includes consequences) </li></ul></ul>
    17. 17. <ul><li>Asset Management criteria </li></ul><ul><li>Infrastructure condition </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Type of asset and inspection method </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Light bulb </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Motors </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Roofing </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Pavements </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mechanical equipment </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Bridge </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Miter gate </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Levees </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Spillways and dams </li></ul></ul></ul>
    18. 18. <ul><li>Asset Management criteria </li></ul><ul><li>Infrastructure condition </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Business line </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Navigation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Hydropower </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Flood damage reduction </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Recreation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Environment </li></ul></ul></ul>
    19. 19. <ul><li>Asset Management criteria </li></ul><ul><li>Intended use </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Inspection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>standard process </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>identify safety & reliability problems </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Condition tracking </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Budgeting (macro) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Prioritization </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Work planning (micro) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Forecasting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Expected remaining life </li></ul></ul></ul>
    20. 20. <ul><li>Asset Management criteria </li></ul><ul><li>metrics </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(1) measurement </li></ul></ul>(2) (3) R4 Heavy section loss (>30% of original thickness), may have holes through the base metal 5 R3 Flaking, swelling, moderate section loss (>10% but <30%). Structural analysis warranted 5 R3 Flaking, swelling, moderate section loss (>10% but <30%). Structural analysis not warranted 4 R2 Flaking, minor section loss (<10%) 4 R1 Peeling of the paint, pitting, surface rust 3 Light R1 Slight peeling of the paint, pitting or surface rust 2 - No evidence of active corrosion 1 Rust Code Description CS Failed 0 Imminent Failure 1 Critical Condition 2 Serious Condition 3 Poor Condition 4 Fair Condition 5 Satisfactory Condition 6 Good Condition 7 Very Good Condition 8 Excellent Condition 9 Description NBI Rating
    21. 21. <ul><li>quantification of condition </li></ul><ul><li>discover hidden problems </li></ul><ul><li>diagnosis of concerns </li></ul><ul><li>benchmarking, trends - creation of a condition history </li></ul><ul><li>a training tool, educational </li></ul><ul><li>institutionalize knowledge </li></ul><ul><li>supporting documentation for prioritization and justification of work </li></ul><ul><li>tool for communication with management </li></ul><ul><li>information source for contracting scopes of work </li></ul><ul><li>quantification of condition </li></ul><ul><ul><li>for components </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>for a system (report card) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>a simplified estimate of relative risk </li></ul><ul><li>a simplified estimate of reliability </li></ul><ul><li>a data source for detailed risk analysis </li></ul>Condition Index Benefits
    22. 22. <ul><li>Asset Management criteria </li></ul><ul><li>Infrastructure performance (function) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Does the infrastructure provide the intended benefit? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Breakwaters & Jetties </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Rec facility </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Levee </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Lock </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Buildings </li></ul></ul></ul>
    23. 23. <ul><li>Asset Management criteria </li></ul><ul><li>Risk (reliability) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Computationally precise </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Data intensive </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provides measure of costs and benefits </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Different risks aren’t easily comparable </li></ul></ul>
    24. 24. <ul><li>Asset Management criteria </li></ul><ul><li>Economics </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Pavements </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Minimize M&R costs </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Navigation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Reliability (minimum delays) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Flood Damage Reduction </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Dam safety </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Recreation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>NED </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Environment </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Preservation </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    25. 25. <ul><li>Asset Management criteria </li></ul><ul><li>Policies, Corps priorities, national priorities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mandates </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Constituent influence </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Balanced program </li></ul></ul>
    26. 26. <ul><li>Asset Management M&R issues: </li></ul><ul><li>(budget prioritization issues) </li></ul><ul><li>Reliability based </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Safety and failure consequences </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Condition based </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Deteriorated </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Quality of service (public facilities) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Modern, aesthetic, comfortable, dependable </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Performance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not designed right or the need changes </li></ul></ul><ul><li> Economics and Policy </li></ul>
    27. 29. Red Rock Dam
    28. 31. Stewart Mountain
    29. 32. Stewart Mountain
    30. 35. Carters Dam
    31. 37. <ul><li>This presentation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Corps CW infrastructure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Asset Management policy issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>An Asset Management viewpoint </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CI basics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Simplification </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>minutiae example: miter gate anchorage assembly </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>multi-level inspection </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Relative risk CIs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Conclusions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Questions </li></ul></ul>
    32. 38. <ul><li>Systematic Process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>condition evaluation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Inspection Procedures </li></ul><ul><ul><li>based upon objective measurements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>guidance if subjectivity unavoidable </li></ul></ul>Condition Index (CI) <ul><li>Rating Algorithms </li></ul><ul><ul><li>create index(es) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>0 to 100 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Data is Valuable </li></ul><ul><ul><li>raw numbers meaningful </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>track & quantify changes </li></ul></ul>
    33. 39. Condition Index Scale
    34. 40. CI - Inland Navigation lock gates, lockwalls, valves, dikes and revetments
    35. 41. Open Gears Enclosed Gears & Oil CI Operating Equipment – All Business Areas gears, couplings, racks, strut arms, rocker arms, chains, cable and hydraulic cylinders
    36. 42. CIs in Coastal Navigation breakwaters and jetties
    37. 43. CIs in Flood Control concrete dams, embankment dams, gates
    38. 44. CIs in Hydropower
    39. 45. <ul><li>quantification of condition </li></ul><ul><li>discover hidden problems </li></ul><ul><li>diagnosis of concerns </li></ul><ul><li>benchmarking, trends - creation of a condition history </li></ul><ul><li>a training tool, educational </li></ul><ul><li>institutionalize knowledge </li></ul><ul><li>supporting documentation for prioritization and justification of work </li></ul><ul><li>information source for contracting scopes of work </li></ul><ul><li>quantification of condition </li></ul><ul><ul><li>for components </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>for a system (report card) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>a simplified estimate of relative risk </li></ul><ul><li>a simplified estimate of reliability </li></ul><ul><li>a data source for detailed risk analysis </li></ul>Condition Index Benefits
    40. 46. <ul><li>HQ issues </li></ul><ul><ul><li>HQ mandated use but never looked at CIs rating </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No policy for how to implement CIs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>No uniformity in CI usage </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Funding streams </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>O&M vs CG repairs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Automated Budgeting System - Baseline, Deferrable, Non-deferrable, Beyond ability </li></ul></ul></ul>
    41. 47. <ul><li>This presentation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Corps CW infrastructure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Asset Management policy issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>An Asset Management viewpoint </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CI basics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Simplification </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>minutiae example: miter gate anchorage assembly </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>multi-level inspection </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Relative risk CIs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Conclusions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Questions </li></ul></ul>
    42. 48. <ul><li>Perception & Problem: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>CI’s too expensive </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Payback (benefit) takes some time to realize </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Objective: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>encourage broader use of index style methodology and meet the specific need </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Approach </li></ul><ul><ul><li>make CI procedures simpler, faster, cheaper </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>minimize impact on original technical integrity </li></ul></ul>
    43. 49. <ul><li>Two simplification approaches </li></ul><ul><ul><li>reduction by minutiae </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>step by step with stopwatch </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>simplify measurements </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>multi level / intensity inspections </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>purpose driven </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>first asks what is the information for </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>uses yes/no format to recommend inspection levels of varying complexity </li></ul></ul></ul>
    44. 50. <ul><li>This presentation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Corps CW infrastructure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Asset Management policy issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>An Asset Management viewpoint </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CI basics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Simplification </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>minutiae example: miter gate anchorage assembly </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>multi-level inspection </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Relative risk CIs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Conclusions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Questions </li></ul></ul>
    45. 51. <ul><li>Anchorage Movement </li></ul><ul><li>Elevation Changes </li></ul><ul><li>Miter Offset </li></ul><ul><li>Bearing Gaps </li></ul><ul><li>Downstream movement </li></ul><ul><li>Cracks </li></ul><ul><li>Leaks & Boils </li></ul><ul><li>Dents </li></ul><ul><li>Noise & Vibration </li></ul><ul><li>Corrosion </li></ul><ul><li>18% (relative importance) </li></ul><ul><li>14% </li></ul><ul><li>08% </li></ul><ul><li>13% </li></ul><ul><li>11% </li></ul><ul><li>10% </li></ul><ul><li>05% </li></ul><ul><li>02% </li></ul><ul><li>11% </li></ul><ul><li>08% </li></ul>Miter Gate Measurements
    46. 52. We’re Trying to Reduce This
    47. 53. To Something Like This simplified measurement for anchorage assembly
    48. 54. Actual CI vs. Simplified CI Using Real Data = CI - 20 = CI + 5 Simplified CI Actual CI 104 vertically framed leaves (decreasing CI)
    49. 55. <ul><li>Miter Gate CI procedures </li></ul><ul><ul><li>most “intensely objective” of all </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>nine other miter gate measurements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>gages on anchor bars easy </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>use of binoculars in lieu of boat inspection </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>multi level / intensity check sheet will tell you if more measurements should be taken </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>In many cases will be able to reduce the entire miter gate inspection time by 50% to 75% </li></ul>
    50. 56. <ul><li>This presentation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Corps CW infrastructure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Asset Management policy issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>An Asset Management viewpoint </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CI basics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Simplification </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>minutiae example: miter gate anchorage assembly </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>multi-level inspection </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Relative risk CIs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Conclusions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Questions </li></ul></ul>
    51. 57. <ul><li>Simplified CI - multi-level inspection approaches </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Level 1: desktop, based on existing data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Level 2: walk around, yes/no type questions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>function, needs or frequency based </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>criteria for moving to Level 3 or 4 inspection </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Level 3: specific component(s) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>simplified procedure </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>by the orange book (as designed) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Level 4: full scale engineered evaluation </li></ul></ul>
    52. 59. <ul><li>This presentation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Corps CW infrastructure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Asset Management policy issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>An Asset Management viewpoint </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CI basics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Simplification </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>minutiae example: miter gate anchorage assembly </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>multi-level inspection </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Relative risk CIs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Conclusions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Questions </li></ul></ul>
    53. 60. <ul><li>Provide framework for engineering assessment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify and quantify issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No black box calculation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Calculations based on the engineers’ priorities and ratings </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Assessment of performance (coastal) </li></ul><ul><li>Risk based assessment (spillway and embankment) </li></ul><ul><li>Not an inspection procedure (spillway and embankment) </li></ul><ul><li>Provides measure of priority (spillway and embankment) </li></ul><ul><li>Example CIs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Coastal structures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Embankment dams (geotechnical) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Spillways (gates – struct, mech, elect, ops) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Relative Risk CIs </li></ul></ul>
    54. 61. <ul><ul><li>Relative Risk CIs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Embankment dams </li></ul><ul><li>Developers: Corps, Hydro Quebec </li></ul><ul><li>Users: Hydro Quebec , Manitoba Hydro, EDF </li></ul><ul><li>Spillways </li></ul><ul><li>Developers: Corps, Hydro Quebec, BurRec, Manitoba Hydro, Ontario Hydro </li></ul><ul><li>Users: Hydro Quebec , Manitoba Hydro, EDF </li></ul>
    55. 62. Relative Risk CIs <ul><li>CI methods for risk analysis </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not a fatigue or load capacity measure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Does not replace reliability or risk analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provides a simpler complement to other methods </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Think multi-level </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>No data issues </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Used by Hydro Quebec for all dam safety prioritization </li></ul></ul>
    56. 63. <ul><li>This presentation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Corps CW infrastructure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Asset Management policy issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>An Asset Management viewpoint </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CI basics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Simplification </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>minutiae example: miter gate anchorage assembly </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>multi-level inspection </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Relative risk CIs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Conclusions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Questions </li></ul></ul>
    57. 64. Conclusions <ul><li>Inspection and assessment of infrastructure is a valuable component of infrastructure management </li></ul><ul><li>Maintenance & Repair for a large, complex and varied infrastructure requires many technical and decision support tools </li></ul><ul><li>ERDC has developed processes and methodologies to support many of these decisions within the Civil Works community but more remains to be done. </li></ul>
    58. 65. <ul><li>My objectives (workshop) </li></ul><ul><li>Appreciate what information is needed for Asset Management (macro level understanding) </li></ul><ul><li>Appreciate condition assessment as an Asset Management tool </li></ul><ul><li>See condition Indexes as a family of capabilities </li></ul>
    59. 66. <ul><li>The End </li></ul><ul><li>Questions? </li></ul>http://www.cecer.army.mil/fl/remr/remr.html

    ×