STR-665: Selected Topics

in Construction

Lecture 6: Water Network Asset Management

Dr. Hesham Osman

Assistant Professor, CEM
Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University

Topics for this week

Introduction to Water Main Asset Management

Water Main Deterioration Processes

Water Main Condition Assessment

Non-critical water main management using
Break History Analysis

1
 Introduction to Water Main
Management

Water Main Materials

2
 Water Main Management Framework- Risk-
based categorization
Risk (t) = Σ (Consequences x Probability)
Low Priority Moderate Priority Highest Priority
High

Failure can be Use monitoring and Failure cannot be

addressed through assessment to plan handled in an
normal operations effective manner
Probability of Failure

Failure can be
Run-to-failure is an Continuous proactive
accommodated but
acceptable policy maintenance & rehab
strains operation

High tolerance for Low tolerance for No tolerance for

Performance Performance Performance
Uncertainty Uncertainty Uncertainty
Low

Low Consequences (Impact) of Failure High

Risk-based categorization

3
 Water Main Deterioration
Process

Deterioration Processes for Water Mains

Water main deterioration processes are greatly

influenced by the type of pipe material.

Typical Deterioration Mechanisms:
 Corrosion Metallic Pipes and Pre-stressed
Concrete Pipe
 Cementious Material Degradation  Concrete Pipe

4
 Deterioration Processes for Water Mains

Difficulty to detect
Initial defect defects in early stages
formation

Defect
Manifestation

Structural Failure

Pipeline Corrosion

Types of Corrosion:
 Based on location:

Internal Corrosion

External Corrosion

 Based on Cause:

Galvanic

Electrolytic

Microbiological

5
 Galvanic Corrosion

Galvanic corrosion is an electrochemical process which

can occur when dissimilar metals are electrically
connected and immersed in a uniformly conductive soil,
or when a metal is immersed in a conductive soil of non-
uniform character.

Identical to an electrical battery

Basic Corrosion Cell

6
 Common Corrosion Cells -
Dissimilar Metals

Common Corrosion Cells -

Dissimilar Metals

7
 Galvanic Series of Metals

Material Potential
(volts)
Magnesium (commercially pure) -1.75 Most corrosive
Zinc -1.10 Less noble
Aluminum (commercially pure) -0.80
Mild steel (clean) -0.50 to -0.80
Mild steel (rusted) -0.20 to –0.50
Cast iron -0.50
Lead -0.50
Copper -0.20
Type 316 Stainless (passive) -0.12 More noble
Carbon (graphite) +0.30 Least corrosive

Electrolytic Corrosion

Occur in a water main if the main picks up “stray”
electrical current from a direct current (DC) source such
as impressed current cathodic protection systems on an
adjacent pipeline, electric railway or subway systems.

Sometime referred to as ‘stray current’ corrosion

Similar to galvanic corrosion except that outside current
sources drive the electrolytic cell whereas chemical
reactions drive the galvanic cell.

8
 Internal Corrosion

Same process as external corrosion but driven by fluid
inside pipe acting as the electrolyte.

Problems with internal corrosion:
 Pitting and loss of pipe wall thickness
 Tuberculation  Hydraulic Capacity
 Corrosion by product release (red water)

Internal Corrosion

New metallic pipes manufactured with

coatings to protect from internal corrosion
 Cement Mortar
 Epoxy

In some cases, a protective layer of Calcium
Carbonate may form on the internal pipe wall,
which helps to arrest internal corrosion.

Pipe cleaning/flushing programs may result in
damaging this layer and kick-starting internal
corrosion

9
 Water Main Flushing

What can be done to mitigate corrosionG

Corrosion in municipal
settings is often a very
localized phenomena

This often makes
alternative strategies to
complete replacement
worth a look

10
 Cathodic Protection

Cathodic Protection

11
 Where is cathodic protection likely to be
feasible?

At leak repairs

In systems where the failures have tight spatial
groupings

In low resistivity environments
 The worse the corrosion problem, the more effective CP is at
failure mitigation
 Attack areas where failure rates are the highest not the lowest

Cathodic protection is not a one time fix, for it to be
effective it has to be practiced regularly

Deterioration Processes for Water Mains

Why are deterioration mechanisms for water

mains somewhat different than for sewer mains?
 Shallow burial depths
 Pressurized pipe reduces the effect of external
loading
 Pressurized pipe introduces new failure mechanisms
 Smaller diameters  more susceptible to bending
failure

12
 Structural Failure Modes for Water Mains

Structural Failure Modes for Water Mains

13
 Factors Contributing to
Water Main Deterioration

Physical Deterioration Factors

14
 Environmental Deterioration Factors

Operational Deterioration Factors

15
 Water Main Condition
Assessment Technologies

Condition Assessment Technologies

Assessment technologies that focus on the

structural integrity of a pipe can measure:
 Deterioration Factor: An external variable that will
likely cause an accelerated deterioration of the pipe
 Distress Indicator: An actual defect in the pipe

The next few slides will focus on distress indicators

16
 Leak Detection Technologies

Acoustic technologies
 ListeningDevices
 Noise Loggers
 Leak noise correlators

Non-acoustic techniques
 Thermagrophy
 Tracer gas technique

Leak Noise Correlators

Leakfinder System

17
 Sahara Leak Detection

Smart Ball

18
 Electromagnetic Technologies for detecting
wire breaks in PCP

The technology relies on the ability of prestressing wires to transmit
electromagnetic signals. In essence the technology functions much
in the same way as a radio transmitter and receiver. The
"transmitter" produces an electromagnetic field. The prestressing
wires in the pipe amplify the signal. If there are broken pre-stressing
wires, the signal does not come through cleanly and the "receiver"
picks up static, or noise. Trained technicians are able interpret the
resulting signal and estimate the number of broken wires per pipe
section.
Monitoring

Inspection

Ultrasonic pipe wall thickness measurement

Ultrasonic measurement instruments work on the

principle of the measurement of the time difference
between an ultrasonic signal being transmitted through a
piece of material, and the return of an echo reflected by
the opposite face of the material or the interface between
different materials such as metal and corrosion product.
This time difference is proportional to the distance
travelled by the signal, which relates to the thickness of
the material. Different materials conduct the ultrasound
signal at different rates so a ‘velocity of sound’ setting is
provided for calibration to the properties of the material
under test.

19
 Pit Depth Measurement

Measuring the depth of a corrosion pit using a pit gauge

Requires the pipe to be excavated

Indication of external corrosion only

Management of Low
Criticality Water Mains
using Break History

20
 Low Criticality Water Mains

Failure can be tolerated but needs to be ‘managed’

High cost of condition assessment  Not economical to
conduct individual asset assessments

Use number of failures as

an indication for condition

Use past failure history

to predict the future

Life Cycle Management Framework for Low

Priority Water Mains
 Performance Model

Define “condition state” by number of failures.

Model time between successive failures using Life Regression.

Incorporates time since last recorded failure in modeling the time to
next failure.
 Predictive Model

Generate future potential failure histories based on the Performance
Model.
 Economic Analysis

Analyze economic “bathtub” curves to determine the optimum failure
number after which it is more economical to replace than to continue
to repair.
 Minimum Acceptable Levels of Service

Puts an upper limit on number of failures before segment is
designated for replacement.

21
 Approaches to modeling break history

Model breakage rates
Modeling time between

individual breaks
60

Number of Segments
50

40

30

20

10

10

20

30

40

50
Years

Modeling Breakage Rates

•where t is the elapsed time (from a

reference year to for which the
breakage rate is known) in years;

•N(t) is the number of breaks per unit

length per year (km-1 year-1) at time t,

•A is the coefficient of breakage rate

growth (year-1).

22
 Performance Model: Time between breaks
T1

New Pipe 1st

Pipe break
60
history
Number of Segments

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
Years

Performance
T T
1
Model 12

New Pipe 1st 2nd

Pipe break
100 history
90
Number of Segments

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

Years

23
 Performance Model
T1 T12 T23

New Pipe 1st 2nd 3rd

60 Pipe break
history
Number of Segments

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50
Years

Predictive Model: Monte Carlo Simulation

50
45
Number of Segments

40
100 35
30
Select Planning
90
Number of Segments

80 25
60 70 20
Number of Segments

60 15
Horizon (e.g. 50 years)
50
50 10
40 40 5
30 30 0
20
1

11

13

15

17

19

20 10
0 Years
10
1

11

13

102 15

17

19

21

23

25

0
Years
22

32

42

52

62

72

82

92

112

122

Years

Forecast failure
into the future

Current
T34 T45 Tn-1,n

3rd 4th 5th nth

24
 Potential History Generation
195 199 200 200
0 1 0 6

0 1 2 3

201 201 201 201 201

0 2 6 7 7

4 5 6 7 8 9

Analysis Framework

Predictive
Model

Segment-level Network-level
Analysis Analysis Minimum
Acceptable
Level of
Service
$Replace
$Repair
After how many breaks
Long-term Capital
should I replace
Funding Forecast
instead of repair?
Budget
Constraints

Outcomes

25
 Mean time to failure at various states
Mean time to failure
DUCT CISP1 CISP3 CISP2 CIPIT
100
90
80
70
60
Years

50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Interval

Mean time to failure at various states

Mean time to failure
DUCT CISP1 CISP3 CISP2 CIPIT
20
18
16
14
12
Years

10
8
6
4
2
0
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Interval

26
 Comparison of failure states
Weibull fit for time from first to second failure
DUCT CISP3
1
0.9
0.8

% of failed segments 0.7

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Years
β =61.25 β =31.17
α =0.571146 α =0. 0.624835
50% of population failure after 50% of population failure after
32.2 years 17.3 years

Optimum replacement threshold

16 12

14
10
$Rehab:$Repair Ratio

12
$Rehab:$Repair Ratio

10 8

8 6

6
4
4

2 2

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Failure Number for Rehab or Replacement Failure Number for Rehab or Replacement

DUCT CISP3

For a segment < 50m,

Rehab=$600/m, Repair=$5000

27
 Advantages of modeling time between
breaks

Captures the actual dynamic of decreasing time between
failures

Ability to capture effects of pipes that have not yet failed
through including censors

Can be used not only to predict a breakage, but also to
identify its number

More useful as customer–oriented level of service
indicator:
 Time between failures
 Number of failure

Limitations of using break history analysis

Requires that a accurate records are being collected of

breaks

For new pipe materials break history is usually
insufficient to create reliable statistical models

Intensive statistical analysis is required

Model should be updated every 3-5 years based on new
failures

28