Current State of Assetswork history & predictive programs for performance scoring 10 DESCRIPTION...

Current State of Assets

GCWW’s Approach to

Asset Inventory and Condition Assessment

Agenda

• Asset Management Framework/Approach

• Drivers for the Project

• Applying Risk for Capital Planning• Focus on Probability of Failure

EPA / WERF/ WaterRF Framework

DetermineAsset Risk

OptimizeO&M

Investment

OptimizeCapital

Investment

DetermineFundingStrategy

Build AMPlan

Developasset registry

Assess Condition andfailure modes

Determineresidual

life

Determine lifecycle and

replacement costs

Set targetLevels of

Service (LoS)

Root cause analysisReliability centered andPredictive maintenance

Optimized decision-making

Confidence level ratingStrategic validationOptimized decision

making

System layoutData hierarchy

Standards inventory

Demand analysisBalanced scorecardPerformance metric

Valuation, lifecycle costing

Expected lifetables,

decay curves

Condition assessmentProtocol

Rating methodologies

Failure mode and effects analysisBusiness Risk

Desktop / Interviews

Renewal annuity

Asset management plan

Policies and strategiesAnnual budget

1. What is the current state of my assets? 2. What is the required LOS?

3. Which assets are critical? 4. What are my best CIP and O&M strategies?

5. What is my best funding strategy?

What is an asset?• The following three questions can be

used as a guide in defining assets:

1. Will a work order be written to this specific item?

2. Will a separate condition assessment need to be performed on this item?

3. Will depreciation or costs need to be tracked separately on this item?

4

Typical “Parent-Child” Asset HierarchyVirtual Levels - Level 1 to Level 6:▪ Performance Centers for rolling-up

costs and other data required for reporting.

▪ Maintenance Work Orders –generally NOT written here

▪ Other Work Order Types can be tracked here

Real Assets - Level 7 to Level 8:▪ Maintenance work orders are

written here.Important to Note:▪ A good asset hierarchy is

performance driven rather than location driven.

▪ Components: optional - depends on

CMMS capabilities.

1. Utility

2. Division

3. Facility

4. Area

5. Process

6. Group

7. Asset

8. Component

Virtual

Assets

Real

Assets

Asset Attribute Data Categories

Asset Management Attributes:

▪ Physical Condition

▪ Performance Condition

▪ Consequence of Failure

▪ Risk

Financial Attributes:

▪ Install Date

▪ Install Cost

▪ Replace Cost

▪ Estimated Useful Life

▪ Physical Attributes:

▪ Facility ID

▪ Asset ID

▪ Asset Name

▪ Asset Type

▪ Capacity/Size

▪ Etc.Location Attributes:

▪ Asset Location

▪ Community

▪ Watershed

Maintaining Asset Inventory

Group Info collect/format Who collectsWhere does

Information go?

Supply CMMS Support -Retire Asset

Hard copy scrap asset form filled out by Project Manager. Asset is then made 'inactive' in Maximo. Form sent to Acct.

Project Manager

Maximo, Accounting

Leading Practice Asset Management Should Be Risk-Based

• Probability of Failure• Based on asset condition and

performance standards

• Consequence of Failure• Based on Triple Bottom Line principles:

• Economic

• Environmental

• Social

Probability ConsequencexRedundancy/

Mitigationx =

Asset

Risk Score

Risk-Based Approach and CIP Planning Evaluates All Potential Failure Modes

Condition Type

Failure Mode

DescriptionTypical Assessment

Method

Performance

CapacityDoes not meet demand (flow, loading,

storage volume, etc.)Test or Desktop

Level of

Service

Does not meet functional needs

(permits, levels of service)Desktop

Efficiency

Not lowest cost alternative (chemicals,

power, labor, availability,

obsolescence)

Desktop

Physical

Mortality

Current state of repair and operation

as influenced by age, historical

maintenance and operating

environment

Test, Visual, Desktop

Condition Assessment Key Success Factors

• Simple scoring for performance and physical condition ratings

• Establish various assessment classes and frequencies based on COF

• Incorporate maintenance work history & predictive programs for performance scoring

10

DESCRIPTION OF CONDITION

RA

NK

Figure 3.3.4: Condition Rating Model

1 VERY GOOD CONDITION

Only normal maintenance required

2MINOR DEFECTS ONLY

Minor maintenance required (5%)

3MAINTENANCE REQUIRED TO RETURN TO

ACCEPTED LEVEL OF SERVICE

Significant maintenance required (10-20%)

4REQUIRES RENEWAL

Significant renewal/upgrade required (20-40%)

5ASSET UNSERVICEABLE

Over 50% of asset requires replacement

IIMM Provides Concepts for Standardized Condition Scoring

Condition Assessment Methods:

• Desktop Assessment: Considers operating data, maintenance history, staff knowledge, current needs, future needs and industry standards.

• Visual Assessment: Uses a set of standard criteria specific to the type of asset. Results in a comparative ranking of assets on a standard scale (e.g. 1-best to 5-worst). Most effective when applied against a broad asset base with a large quantity of assets.

• Testing: Uses industry accepted methods. Examples include: capacity test and advanced condition testing. Performed on individual assets. Provides an absolute ranking for asset condition. Results can be expressed on a standard scale. Some tests are “failure finding” – not condition assessment.

12 12

Site Assessment

Visual Assessment by Assessment Type• Define Condition Scoring Criteria for Physical and Performance

• Electrical

• Structural

• HVAC

• Mechanical

13 13

Visual Condition – Score 1

• Equipment & Ancillary Items• Like new with tag

14

Condition Assessment Tools

Performance Assessment• Capacity

• Ability to meet current and future needs

• Regulatory• Ability to meet current and future needs

• Availability• Work Orders

• Obsolescence• Spare Parts

• Testing (High CoF Assets)• PdM Testing

• Oil Analysis, Pump Efficiency, Thermography

1 to 5 Scoring Criteria

through Staff Interviews

1616

Current PdM Testing for Condition Assessment

Failure Mode VibrationOil

AnalysisThermography

UltrasonicMotorCircuit

Analysis

Pump Efficiency

Maintenance Rounds (visual)

Mortality X X X X X

Level of Service X

Capacity X X

Efficiency X X X X

Maintenance Program

X X X X X X X

17

Normalized PdM Test Results• Highest Assessment Class Received Testing

Test Result versus% of Expected

Score Definition

>= 90% 1 Very Good

80% to 89% 2 Good

70% to 79% 3 Fair

60% to 69% 4 Poor

< 60% 5 Very Poor

Normalized PdM Test ResultsPredictive Tests Scoring Criteria

Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5

Motor Circuit Analysis

Good Warning Alarm

Oil Analysis (Mech) Severity = 0 Severity = 1 Severity = 2 Severity = 3 Severity = 4

Oil Analysis (Elec) Acceptable Questionable Unacceptable

Pump EfficiencyPE loss < 5% from previous year or

pump curve-

PE loss >= 5% from previous year or

pump curve-

PE Loss >= 10% from previous year or pump

curve

Ultrasonic 0 leaks - 1 leak - > 1 leaks

Thermography No hot spots found -

Temperature increase since last

test, but no hot spots

-Hot spot detected or

indication of equipment damage

Combining Results from Multiple Assessments: Worst Score Wins

20 20

Methods Criteria Score

Field Test Vibration 3

Visual Corrosion 2

Desktop Capacity 4

Overall Score 4

Condition AssessmentGuidelines

21

• Asset Definition

• Scoring Definitions

• Scoring Criteria/Sheets

• Condition Assessment Procedures

Risk Assessment Results: Greater Cincinnati Water Works

Summary Results of Condition Scoring

23

• 685 Total Assets

Scored

• Processes

Evaluated at

Richard Miller

• Lamella

• ORP

• Mt Wash PS

• Chem E

• Chem W

• PCF

Summary Results of Condition ScoringBy Assessment Type

24

Summary Results of Condition Scoring By Process

25

Results of Condition Scoring By Assessment Type by Criteria – Excel

26

Results of Mechanical AssessmentsCorrosion & Leakage Most Common Mode of Failure (4 and 5)

Assets Scoring 4 & 5 From Desktop Analysis: Availability and Testing

27

Asset NameCorrective

Hours

Corrective

Work Orders

Reactive

Hours

Reactive

Work Orders

Corrective

Hours

Corrective

Work Orders

Reactive

Hours

Reactive

Work Orders

Availability

Score

PdM Testing

ScoreType of Test

CBE LIME SLAKER 2 44.5 2 35.5 5 45.5 3 35.5 5 4 x

CBE LIME SLAKER 3 21 1 74.5 8 21 1 74.5 8 5 x

CBW CARBON FEEDER-1 S60" 34 1 34 1 4 x

CL2 INJBLDG-CL2 INJECTOR 1-RCM 9 2 9 2 4 x

CL2 INJECTBLDG-PRESS REG 1-RCM 76 1 76 1 4 x

CL2INJECT BLDG-CALI SUPPLY-RCM 35 1 35 1 4 x

MWPS PUMP MOTOR NO.3 79 3 309.5 4 79 3 309.5 5 4 1 MCA, Thermo

MWPS PUMP NO 3 152 2 32 3 152 2 32 3 4 x

MWPS PUMP NO 4 16 3 16 3 4 x

ORP BATTERY CHARGER 0 1 5 5 0 1 5 5 4 1 Thermo

ORP INSTRUMENTATION 34 1 34 1 4 x

ORP PUMP 1 20 1 22 3 29.5 2 22 3 4 x

ORP PUMP 2 13 2 37.5 4 13 2 37.5 4 4 x

ORP PUMP 3 702.5 3 394.5 4 702.5 3 394.5 4 4 x

ORP PUMP 4 55.5 4 63 7 55.5 4 63 7 5 x

ORP PUMP MOTOR 3 51 2 26 2 51 2 30.5 3 4 1 Thermo

ORP PUMP MOTOR 4 60 2 60 2 3 5 Thermo

PCF CHLORINATOR 3 12 2 12 2 4 1 Ultrasonic

PCF DRY CHLORINE SCRUBBER-RCM 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 4 1 Ultrasonic

PCF VACUUM REG 2-RCM 23 1 23 1 4 1 Ultrasonic

PCF VACUUM REG 4-RCM 25 1 25 1 4 1 Ultrasonic

2012 2012 & 2013 (through 8/19)

Risk Score Matrix – Chem East

28

0 Assets 0 Assets 2 Assets 0 Assets 0 Assets

0 Assets 0 Assets 1 Asset 0 Assets 2 Assets

0 Assets 0 Assets 13 Assets 0 Assets 0 Assets

0 Assets 0 Assets 11 Assets 0 Assets 0 Assets

0 Assets 0 Assets 0 Assets 0 Assets 0 Assets

1 2 3 4 5

Co

nd

itio

n S

core

Pro

bab

ilit

y o

f Fa

ilu

re

GCWW CHEM EAST ASSETS

4

3

2

1

5

Future Steps• Integrate Resiliency and Contingency Planning to

Risk Evaluation

• Data based decisions for maintenance and operation strategies, capital planning to reduce risk

ALEX SCHMITZ, P.E.Supervising Engineer, Greater Cincinnati Water Works

alex.schmitz@gcww.Cincinnati-oh.gov, (513) 624-5836

30

Questions?

KEVIN SLAVENAsset Management Practice Leader, Arcadis

kevin.slaven@arcadis.com, (330) 990-2726