Dr Joel Byrnes | Associate Director, AECOM

1. Intelligent Water Networks – is science the key to driving productivity and efficiency in urban water? November 2012 Dr Joel Byrnes| Associate Director, AECOM

3. Intelligent Water Networks – Background • Intelligent Water Networks (IWN) Consortium of Victorian Water Authorities, working with state government • Industry Driver: The increasing costs and consequences associated with operating water, wastewater drainage networks • Traditional approaches to monitoring condition and deterioration are invasive and costly.... • ....But, monitoring technology advances have occurred in other sectors that are now relevant to water/wastewater/drainage networks

4. Intelligent Water Networks – Background Task: Identify, review and prioritise monitoring technologies for enhanced asset management of water/wastewater/drainage networks

5. Mapping technologies to asset types and performance indicators • Water sector avoiding monitoring technologies that simply provide scientific innovation • Technologies providing business benefits merit further development • Identified technologies must be matched to key assets and performance indicators • Satisfy assessment criteria that clearly demonstrate the value of implementing technology • Demonstrate economic efficiency in technology investment

6. Mapping technologies to asset types and performance indicators Use “Failure pathways” to identify system parameters that can be monitored for each asset type

8. Failure pathway diagrams provides constraint for identifying relevant technologies

9. Mapping technologies to asset types and performance indicators

11. Can ensure that technologies are relevant to actual deterioration processes

12. Assessment criteria for monitoring technologies • Have identified/matched monitoring technologies to various stages of failure pathway for key assets • But: Water sector need to assess value proposition in each case and prioritise technologies for further development • Multi Criteria Assessment to compare technologies against: • Potential to save operational response costs and reactive maintenance costs • Potential to save capital through renewal deferral • Relative cost/asset coverage length • Failure pathway coverage & ability for early detection • Potential to reduce social/environmental impacts

13. Assessment criteria for monitoring technologies

14. Prioritised IWN technologies “Detection” technologies to minimise operational response and social/environmental impacts of asset failures “Predictor” technologies for early indication of deterioration and potential failure • Top 6 IWN technologies from MCA prioritisation

15. Digital noise logging for water main leak detection

16. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Technologies • Following Multi-Criteria Assessment, a quantitative analysis also undertaken for the most promising technologies • Intended to predict the financial impact on a water utility during a pilot trial • Costs – capital, operating, maintenance, benefit realisation • Benefits – deferred capital, water saving, ‘tech replacement’ saving, reduced reactive maintenance, environmental and social benefits

17. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Technologies • For each technology, the benefit-cost ratio, net present value ($) and return on investment (years) were assessed • Costs and benefits were calculated for a hypothetical trial area • A sensitivity analysis was also undertaken to identify parameters that exert the greatest influence on NPV outcome

18. Cost-Benefit Tool: Example of Output NPV outcomes most sensitive to reactive maintenance savings, but can be used to select pilot trial areas

19. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Technologies: Recommendations

20. Thank you Dr Joel ByrnesAssociate Director, AECOM t03 9653 8466 0409 842 496 e joel.byrnes@aecom.com.au