Asset Management Planning ± providing the evidence to support robust and risk-based investment decisions

Testo completo

(1)E3S Web of Conferences 7, 14006 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0714006. Asset Management Planning providing the evidence to support robust and risk-based investment decisions 1,a. 1. 1. 2. 2. 3. Chrissy Mitchell , Kevin Woodley , Owen Tarrant , Jon Wicks , Petra Neve , Jonathan Simm and Jaap Flikweert. 4. 1. Environment Agency, Kingsmeadow House, Kingsmeadow Road, Reading, RG1 8DQ, UK CH2M, Burderop Park, Swindon, SN4 0QD, UK 3 HR Wallingford, Howbery Park, Wallingford, Oxfordshire OX10 8BA, UK 4 Royal Haskoning DHV, Rightwell House, Bretton, Peterborough, PE3 8DW, UK 2. Abstract.

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6) Development programme has been developing methods to support a move to a risk-based approach to flood defence asset management. Looking to ensure ILQGDQGIL[¶ and made to those assets where the biggest risk reduction can be made for the money available. In addition, providing the capability to articulate the benefits of investing in these assets quantitatively and transparently. This paper describes how the Asset Performance Tools (APT) project [1] is delivering practical methods, prototype tools and supporting guidance which, together with related initiatives such as the Environment . !" programme [2]

(7) # $ % !#%" [3] supportive datasets, will enable a risk-&

(8) ' predict and SURWHFW¶ approach to asset management. A key advance is the ability to bring in local knowledge to make national generic datasets locally relevant. The paper also highlights existing outputs that can already be used to support a more proactive approach to asset management. It will summarise the ongoing work which will further develop and fine tune performance assessment and investment decision processes within an integrated conceptual framework aligned with ISO55000, deliverable via CAMC and whose concepts can be used by all risk management authorities.. 1 Asset Management Development Recent flood events have tested a large proportion of flood and coastal assets, increasing the pressure on investment to maintain assets at an appropriate standard. To enable the effective prioritisation of our current and future investment we must be able to assess the likely performance of individual assets in their current and improved states as well as understanding this performance within the context of the asset system. Research is under way to develop an integrated framework to guide a flood and coastal erosion risk management (FCRM) authority in selecting the appropriate tools to determine: 1) How should the assets be performing? 2) How are the assets performing? 3) What is the most cost effective way of closing the gap between desired and actual performance? The fully integrated framework allows users to understand the improved FCRM decision making process. It illustrates information flows, and how and a. when the tools and methods should be used to support decision making.. 2 Reviewing Asset Management Tools There already exist a number of tools available to support FCRM asset management decision making, for a range of assets and asset systems, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. This research reviews the functionality of existing tools and identifies what adaptive measures are required to maximise their capability and performance. This includes; how to integrate them into an asset management framework that better supports asset management decision making, and where and how it will be most beneficial to improve FCRM asset management tools and processes.. Corresponding author: christabel.mitchell@environment-agency.gov.uk. © The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)..

(9) E3S Web of Conferences 7, 14006 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0714006. management regimes. This information, together with the improved asset performance assessment methodology, is used to develop a whole life cost tool to compare the benefits of different investment scenarios. Expressing the flood risk reduction benefits of maintenance, using the same terminology as for capital investment, will create a stronger investment business case. This can help justify cost effective maintenance practices that could reduce total expenditure within an FCRM system, freeing funds to reduce flood risk elsewhere.. 3 Asset Management Planning To ensure the most cost effective asset investment regime is adopted, FCRM authorities need to be able to quantify and compare the benefits of both capital and maintenance activities, considering the likelihood and the probability and consequence of assets failing to perform as required. This research looks to improve existing benefit modelling tools, such as the modelling decision support framework (MDSF2) [4] to efficiently assess the benefits (risk reduction) of implementing different asset. 4 Asset Inspection assessment cycle and directs the user to the appropriate level of activity according to assessed risk through a process of tiering (Fig.1.). Advancement up the three tiers is made in response to increasing levels of assessed risk.. New guidance is available on asset inspection [5]. The guidance incorporates the findings of current best practice, offering recommendations for improvement. The tiered framework on which the recommended asset management cycle is based integrates key activities in the. Figure 1. )* $+ $ , 'performance and risk assessment, and planning and investment decision making; information management lies at the heart. The Propeller shows how these activities relate. It also shows that inspection, performance assessment and planning typically involve a tiered approach: using basic methods for the majority of assets at low risk (where the wing is wide and green - tier 1), but more specialist methods for the small number of high risk assets where needed (where the wing is narrow and red - tier 3).. 2.

(10) E3S Web of Conferences 7, 14006 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management. The guidance recommends the triggers for moving from routine visual inspections (tier 1) to more advanced inspections at an intermediate (tier 2) or higher (tier 3) . /

(11) &

(12) *

(13) 0 0

(14) * * * 0 1 - $ e.

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18) . The structure of the guidance document is in line with the grouping of asset types in the Environment /$ # (AIMS), that is: 3 channel and culverts 3 linear defences 3 coastal defences. Research shows that inspections can be targeted to need and interventions can be timed to pre-empt expensive and often distressing asset failure, rather than dictated by routine alone. Inspections are driven by a considered balance of investment and flood risk, offering the greatest impact on risk reduction at least cost. Each flood risk management asset should have a target condition set for it taking into account risks and consequences. Application of the asset inspection process will ensure efficient management of assets through proactive planning and application of a risk-based approach rather than relying on a reaction to a failing asset, or one falling below its target condition. 3 3. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0714006. beach structures structures and point assets As a result of this research the following outputs are currently being put in place operationally: x

(19) &&0 the Asset Inspection Tablet currently being developed to improve mobile working for asset inspectors. This will enable a better data consistency, allow faults (either data or asset condition) to be reported and fixed more efficiently, and improve reporting capabilities. x Reviewing the recommendation for a consistent Asset Defect Form. This is to be built into the CAMC system, so that defects can be raised and flagged up to the Asset Performance Teams immediately. This allows quick decision making on the next course of action -which can follow the principles of the APT report (i.e. triggering a tier 2 inspection, or immediate remedial work) x In the longer term, to use the Engineering Integrity Matrices - turning them into additional pages of the Condition Assessment Manual (Fig.2.) to allow inspectors to spot likely failure modes for each asset type, and to determine what further action may be required. This not only increases the skills of the Inspector group, but also moves the business towards more $ &

(20) .. Further information within the guidance includes: 3 the relationship between condition and performance and why their monitoring is vital 3 the risk-based approach to frequency of inspection 3 how to inspect for engineering integrity 3 different types of tier 2 and tier 3 inspections 3 health, safety and environmental considerations To establish relative priorities and confidence in the asset management process, consistent reporting and decision making is essential. It is also important to be able to demonstrate how decisions have been made for auditing reasons. Embedded in the guidance document is a prototype tool in the form of a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. This tool is intended to serve as a baseline model for developing a consistent interface between

(21) $

(22) . .)& $

(23)

(24)

(25) $ picklists designed to bring consistency and direction to actions following tier 1 inspections.. 5 Current developments The following sections of this paper refer to the products being developed under the current phase of research, completing Autumn 2016. The way that the research and associated products fit together is outlined in Figure 3.. Figure 2. The Environment Agency condition assessment manual, used by asset inspectors to provide an asset condition graing from 1-5. Environment Agency, 2006.. 3.

(26) E3S Web of Conferences 7, 14006 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0714006. Figure 3 The framework of research, highlighting which tiers of the propeller diagram (Fig.1) are being developed (shaded parts of mini propellers within this figure). The product numbers 2.1-4.5 highlighted at the top of each box are referenced throughout this paper..

(27)

(28)

(29)

(30) "

(31)

(32)

(33) #

(34)

(35) .

(36)

(37)

(38) $

(39)

(40) %

(41)

(42)

(43)

(44) &' ()*+,( -.*/, 0' *1,2

(45)

(46)

(47)

(48)

(49) & 2. 5.1 Raised defence performance assessment method (Fig.3, Product 2.1)

(50)

(51)

(52)

(53)

(54)

(55)

(56)

(57)

(58)

(59) .

(60)

(61)

(62)

(63)

(64)

(65)

(66)

(67)

(68)

(69)

(70)

(71)

(72)

(73)

(74)

(75)

(76)

(77)

(78)

(79)

(80)

(81)

(82)

(83)

(84)

(85)

(86)

(87) !

(88) . 4.

(89) E3S Web of Conferences 7, 14006 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management. x. Figure 4 -0 $* ' with user friendly slider bars capturing peoples knoiwledge of the asset.. Figure 5 An example of the fragility and deteoriation curves that are the basis of the defence performance assessment.. 5.2 Beach and groyne performance assessment method (Fig.3, Product 2.2)

(90)

(91)

(92)

(93)

(94)

(95)

(96)

(97)

(98) .

(99)

(100) 3 x

(101)

(102)

(103) x

(104)

(105) %

(106)

(107)

(108) 4

(109)

(110) . 5. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0714006.

(111)

(112)

(113) .

(114)

(115)

(116)

(117)

(118)

(119) &

(120)

(121) . 2

(122)

(123)

(124)

(125)

(126)

(127)

(128) &

(129) 2 $

(130) .

(131)

(132)

(133)

(134)

(135)

(136)

(137)

(138)

(139)

(140) .

(141)

(142)

(143) !

(144)

(145)

(146) 567 8

(147)

(148) 8

(149)

(150)

(151)

(152) & -

(153) 0-$.'-. 4 *9, -

(154)

(155) - : *;,- .0*<=,-:00*<<,2 5.3 Raised defence performance assessment tool and guidance (Fig. 3, Product 3.1) An Excel-based tool that can develop fragility and deterioration curves based on readily available asset information and practitioner experience. It use local knowledge to develop asset-specific curves that can ultimately be used to improve the national understanding by improving existing risk models such as MDSF2 and RAFT [4], as well as NaFRA [6] and FaCET [7]. The tool uses the method developed in Product 2.1. T 0 $ matches l of understanding and is supported by user-focused guidance. Involving practitioners directly in the improvement of these vital parts of the planning and risk tools has helped to reduce the perceived & &6 0

(156) confidence in the tools. 5.4 Beach and groyne performance assessment tool and guidance (Fig.3, Product 3.2) $

(157)

(158) 0 '

(159)

(160) ' () 4

(161)

(162) 3 & 2

(163)

(164)

(165)

(166)

(167) & 2

(168)

(169)

(170) >

(171)

(172)

(173)

(174)

(175)

(176)

(177)

(178)

(179)

(180) 0 '

(181)

(182)

(183)

(184)

(185) &

(186)

(187) . 0'"0 7"02

(188)

(189)

(190)

(191) . )(

(192)

(193)

(194)

(195)

(196) & 2

(197)

(198) :

(199)

(200)

(201)

(202)

(203)

(204)

(205)

(206)

(207) >

(208)

(209)

(210)

(211)

(212)

(213)

(214)

(215) !

(216)

(217) !

(218)

(219)

(220) .

(221) %

(222)

(223)

(224)

(225) .

(226)

(227) .

(228) E3S Web of Conferences 7, 14006 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management.

(229)

(230)

(231)

(232)

(233)

(234)

(235)

(236)

(237)

(238)

(239)

(240) .

(241)

(242)

(243)

(244)

(245)

(246)

(247) %

(248)

(249)

(250)

(251) &

(252)

(253) 2 %

(254)

(255)

(256)

(257)

(258)

(259)

(260)

(261)

(262)

(263)

(264) 4

(265) !

(266)

(267)

(268)

(269) ? @@ 5.5 Channel conveyance assessment guidance (Fig.3, Product 3.3) ! %

(270)

(271) .

(272) . %

(273)

(274)

(275)

(276)

(277)

(278) $ 4

(279)

(280)

(281)

(282)

(283) %

(284)

(285)

(286)

(287) ( ) 8

(288)

(289)

(290)

(291)

(292)

(293)

(294)

(295)

(296)

(297)

(298)

(299)

(300) ?

(301)

(302) 3 x &

(303)

(304)

(305)

(306) 2

(307)

(308)

(309)

(310)

(311)

(312) x

(313)

(314)

(315) x

(316)

(317)

(318) 3 x

(319) & 2 .

(320)

(321) %

(322)

(323)

(324)

(325)

(326)

(327) . & 2 x <@

(328) 1

(329) !

(330)

(331)

(332) x

(333) !

(334) x

(335)

(336)

(337)

(338) x

(339)

(340) ?1 8

(341)

(342) ( ! 4

(343)

(344)

(345)

(346)

(347)

(348)

(349)

(350) !

(351) $

(352)

(353) -

(354)

(355) 8

(356)

(357) >

(358) *<@,&!

(359)

(360)

(361)

(362)

(363) >

(364) 2 % ?

(365) 8

(366)

(367) A

(368)

(369) " 7 A

(370) 5.6 Pre-calculated risk datasets guidance (Fig.3, Product 3.4) A

(371)

(372) %

(373)

(374)

(375)

(376)

(377)

(378)

(379)

(380) %

(381)

(382) 8"0(@ $ !

(383) 0 '

(384) ' ()

(385) . 6. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0714006.

(386)

(387)

(388)

(389)

(390)

(391)

(392)

(393)

(394)

(395)

(396)

(397)

(398)

(399)

(400)

(401)

(402)

(403)

(404)

(405) 3 x ( B C $

(406)

(407) &? D12

(408) .

(409)

(410)

(411)

(412)

(413)

(414) x 0

(415) &? DE2

(416)

(417)

(418)

(419)

(420) $80 ?

(421)

(422)

(423)

(424)

(425)

(426)

(427)

(428)

(429)

(430) 5.7 Tool to support pre-calculated risk data guidance (Fig.3, Product 3.4A) '

(431)

(432)

(433)

(434) . 4 & @<1<2

(435)

(436)

(437)

(438)

(439)

(440)

(441)

(442)

(443)

(444)

(445)

(446)

(447)

(448)

(449)

(450) 8"0(@

(451)

(452)

(453)

(454)

(455) ! 8"0(@

(456) 7

(457)

(458)

(459)

(460) .

(461)

(462)

(463)

(464)

(465)

(466)

(467)

(468)

(469) %

(470) !

(471)

(472)

(473)

(474)

(475)

(476)

(477)

(478)

(479)

(480) 8"0(@

(481) 5.8 Raised defence whole life cost planning tool and guidance (Fig.3, Product 4.1, Tier 2) &BC-2 .!

(482)

(483)

(484)

(485)

(486)

(487)

(488)

(489)

(490)

(491)

(492)

(493)

(494)

(495)

(496)

(497)

(498)

(499)

(500)

(501)

(502)

(503)

(504)

(505)

(506)

(507) %

(508)

(509)

(510)

(511) !

(512) BC- (-)8 3

(513)

(514)

(515) BC-

(516) & 0-=+==/92'

(517)

(518)

(519) 3 x

(520) # x

(521)

(522) 4

(523)

(524) ? 1< x

(525)

(526)

(527) # x

(528)

(529)

(530)

(531)

(532) F

(533)

(534)

(535)

(536)

(537)

(538) ? D1 ?

(539)

(540)

(541)

(542) .

(543) 4

(544) .

(545) E3S Web of Conferences 7, 14006 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management.

(546)

(547)

(548)

(549)

(550)

(551)

(552)

(553)

(554)

(555)

(556)

(557) .

(558)

(559)

(560)

(561)

(562)

(563)

(564)

(565)

(566)

(567)

(568)

(569) $. .

(570)

(571) %

(572) G $

(573) H B $

(574)

(575) H 5.9 Coastal whole life cost planning scoping report (Fig.3, Product 4.2, Tier 2)

(576)

(577)

(578)

(579) 4

(580)

(581)

(582)

(583)

(584)

(585)

(586)

(587)

(588)

(589) #

(590)

(591) ? @@ 1@

(592)

(593) )-. @==/ *<1, .!

(594)

(595)

(596)

(597)

(598)

(599)

(600)

(601)

(602)

(603)

(604)

(605)

(606)

(607)

(608) 4

(609)

(610)

(611) !

(612)

(613)

(614)

(615)

(616)

(617)

(618) 5.10 Cross asset risk based investment decision support tool (Fig.3, Product 4.3, Tier 2/3)

(619) .!

(620)

(621)

(622)

(623)

(624)

(625)

(626)

(627)

(628)

(629)

(630)

(631)

(632)

(633)

(634)

(635) .

(636)

(637)

(638)

(639)

(640)

(641) ? D<

(642)

(643)

(644) !

(645)

(646)

(647)

(648) !

(649) ' ()0' &

(650) ? 1D

(651) 2

(652) .

(653)

(654)

(655)

(656)

(657)

(658)

(659)

(660)

(661)

(662)

(663)

(664) &

(665)

(666) 2

(667)

(668)

(669) 3 x

(670) x $

(671)

(672)

(673)

(674)

(675) BC-

(676)

(677)

(678) (-)8

(679) x 0

(680)

(681)

(682)

(683)

(684)

(685) ( !

(686) %

(687) %

(688)

(689)

(690) $

(691)

(692)

(693)

(694)

(695)

(696)

(697)

(698)

(699)

(700)

(701) x >

(702)

(703)

(704)

(705) .

(706)

(707) 5.11 4.4). Allocation Prioritisation Tool (Fig.3, Product. 7. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0714006. "

(708)

(709)

(710)

(711)

(712)

(713)

(714)

(715)

(716)

(717)

(718)

(719)

(720)

(721)

(722)

(723) I !

(724) J K

(725)

(726)

(727)

(728)

(729) &

(730)

(731) 2

(732)

(733)

(734)

(735)

(736)

(737)

(738) F

(739)

(740)

(741)

(742)

(743) 4

(744) . 5.12 System based planning & allocation tool (Fig.3, Product 4.5, All Tiers)

(745)

(746)

(747)

(748)

(749)

(750)

(751)

(752)

(753)

(754)

(755)

(756)

(757) . 8"0(@' ()0'

(758)

(759)

(760) .

(761)

(762)

(763) .

(764)

(765)

(766) $

(767)

(768)

(769) ' ()

(770)

(771)

(772)

(773) maintenance. The resulting product provides guidance for end users, including advice on where to obtain the input data. Data input would include such information as the risk attribution to assets and the number of houses protected (put at risk by failing assets).

(774)

(775)

(776)

(777)

(778)

(779)

(780)

(781)

(782)

(783)

(784) $

(785)

(786)

(787)

(788)

(789)

(790)

(791)

(792)

(793)

(794) $

(795) .

(796)

(797)

(798)

(799) &

(800) !E 2

(801) .

(802)

(803)

(804)

(805) 5.13 Integrated Framework (Fig.3, Product 6.1 & 6.2) 8

(806)

(807) ) (

(808)

(809)

(810) $

(811)

(812)

(813)

(814)

(815)

(816)

(817)

(818)

(819) 8

(820)

(821) ) (

(822)

(823)

(824)

(825)

(826) $0: EE===

(827) 8

(828)

(829)

(830)

(831)

(832)

(833)

(834)

(835)

(836)

(837)

(838)

(839)

(840)

(841)

(842)

(843) !

(844)

(845)

(846)

(847)

(848) (-)8 8

(849)

(850) 0 0

(851) # x !

(852)

(853) 8

(854)

(855) ) ( %

(856) .

(857) E3S Web of Conferences 7, 14006 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management. x x x x.

(858) & 2.

(859)

(860)

(861)

(862) <@

(863) 1 .

(864)

(865) !

(866)

(867)

(868)

(869)

(870) . 7

(871) !

(872)

(873)

(874)

(875)

(876) (-.)8.

(877) .

(878)

(879)

(880)

(881)

(882)

(883)

(884)

(885)

(886)

(887)

(888)

(889)

(890)

(891)

(892)

(893) . 6 Acknowledgements. 4

(894)

(895) .

(896)

(897)

(898)

(899) .

(900)

(901)

(902) @=<+

(903)

(904)

(905) ->@8 > ) >

(906)

(907) ">L

(908) >) B

(909) $

(910)

(911)

(912)

(913) ?

(914) 8

(915)

(916) 0 &?802 4 *<D <E,

(917) 4

(918)

(919)

(920)

(921)

(922)

(923) 7

(924) L .

(925) M

(926) -

(927) *E, . 7 Further Information. @. 1. D. E. + /. 9. ; <=. (

(928)

(929)

(930)

(931) 56 4

(932) (

(933) - .

(934) ) 8

(935)

(936) )