Manual of Water Supply Practices

M77

Condition Assessment of
Water Mains

Copyright © 2019 American Water Works Association. All Rights Reserved.

Manual of Water Supply Practices—M77

Condition Assessment of Water Mains

Copyright © 2019 American Water Works Association

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any
means, electronic or mechanical, including scanning, recording, or any information or retrieval system.
Reproduction and commercial use of this material is prohibited, except with written permission from the
publisher.

Disclaimer
The authors, contributors, editors, and publisher do not assume responsibility for the validity of the content
or any consequences of their use. In no event will AWWA be liable for direct, indirect, special, incidental, or
consequential damages arising out of the use of information presented in this book. In particular, AWWA
will not be responsible for any costs, including, but not limited to, those incurred as a result of lost revenue.
In no event shall AWWA’s liability exceed the amount paid for the purchase of this book.

If you find errors in this manual, please email [email protected]. Possible errata will be posted at www.
awwa.org/resources-tools/resource-development-groups/manuals-program.aspx.

Managing Editor – Book Products: Melissa Valentine

Project Manager/Technical Editor: Suzanne Snyder
Cover Art: Michael Labruyere
Production: Innodata
Senior Specialist – Manuals: Willadee Hitchcock

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Ellison, Dan, author. | American Water Works Association, issuing body.
Title: Condition assessment of water mains / by Dan Ellison.
Other titles: AWWA manual ; M77.
Description: First edition. | Denver, CO : American Water Works Association,
[2019] | Series: Manual of water supply practices ; M77 | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2019001636 | ISBN 9781625763310 (alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Water-pipes--Monitoring.
Classification: LCC TD491 .E42 2019 | DDC 628.1/5072--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019001636

Printed in the United States of America

ISBN 978-1-62576-331-0 eISBN-13 978-1-61300-503-3

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be

reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including scanning, recording, or any
information or retrieval system. Reproduction and commercial
use of this material is prohibited, except with written permission
from the publisher. Please send any requests or questions to
[email protected].

American Water Works Association

6666 West Quincy Avenue
Denver, CO 80235-3098
awwa.org

Copyright © 2019 American Water Works Association. All Rights Reserved.

 Contents

List of Figures, vii

List of Tables, xi
Preface, xiii
Acknowledgments, xv
Chapter 1 The Benefits of Condition Assessment for Water Mains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Definition of Condition Assessment, 2
The Benefits and Costs of Condition Assessment, 3
Condition Assessment as Part of an Assess-and-Fix Strategy, 6
Additional Considerations When Using Condition Assessment, 7
References, 8
Chapter 2 Building Support for a Condition Assessment Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Making a Business Case for Condition Assessment, 9
Accounting Treatment: Ways to Account for Condition Assessment
Costs, 12
Budgeting for a Systematic Condition Assessment Program, 13
Gaining Support From Policy Makers, The Public, and Other
Stakeholders, 14
Summary, 16
References, 16
Chapter 3 Planning a Condition Assessment Project or Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Levels of Condition Assessment, 19
Choosing an Assessment Method, 21
Available Technologies, 23
Planning of Field Work/Communications, 27
Contract Guidelines, 29
Summary, 30
Reference, 30
Chapter 4 Desktop Condition Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Overview, 32
Data Cleanup and Assessment, 32
Setting Level of Service Goals, 36
Evaluating the Likelihood of Failure Desktop Score, 37
Long-Term Renewal Planning, 43
Chapter 5 External Corrosion Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
External Corrosion Direct Assessment, 47
Economic Benefits, 55
References, 55

AWWA Manual M77 iii

Copyright © 2019 American Water Works Association. All Rights Reserved.

CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF WATER MAINS

Chapter 6 Spot Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Strategies for Effective Spot Assessment, 58
Testing Procedures, 60
Post Assessment and Interpretation of Results, 73
References, 75
Chapter 7 Leak Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Why Leak Data Are Important for Condition Assessment, 78
How and When to Perform Leak Detection, 79
Acoustic Leak Detection, 79
Non-acoustic Leak Detection, 91
Summary, 96
References, 96
Chapter 8 Internal Remote Visual Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Internal Visual Inspection as a Condition Assessment Tool, 98
Recent Advances in Remote Visual Inspection Technology, 99
Logistical Considerations for Performing Remote Internal Visual
Inspection, 100
Current Methods and Technologies Available for Internal Visual
Inspection, 101
Implementation Strategies for Internal Remote Visual Inspection, 110
Summary, 112
Chapter 9 Physical Entry Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Overview: Physical Entry Inspections, 116
Summary, 124
References, 124
Chapter 10 Acoustic Velocity Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
History, 126
Background, 127
Performance, 130
Requirements and Limitations, 132
References, 133
Chapter 11 Electromagnetic Testing Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
History and Current Use of EM Testing in Water Mains, 136
Technology Overview, 140
Defect Resolution Considerations, 146
Advantages and Limitations, 146
References, 147
Chapter 12 Magnetic Flux Leakage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Current State of the Art, 150
MFL Application Considerations and Inspection Logistics, 150
Data Output and Post Processing, 157
Planning and Delivering a Quality MFL Project, 160
Reference, 162
Chapter 13 Condition Assessment of PCCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
PCCP Construction, 163
PCCP Deterioration And Failure Modes, 165
Inspection and Assessment, 166

iv AWWA Manual M77

Copyright © 2019 American Water Works Association. All Rights Reserved.

 CONTENTS

Strategies for Managing Distressed PCCP, 178

References, 182
Chapter 14 Hydrostatic (Pressure) Testing of Existing Pipes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
The Basics, 186
Hydrostatic Examination, 187
Procedure Development, 188
Pressure Limits, 190
After the Initial Tests, 191
References, 191
Chapter 15 Strategies for Economical Assessments of Low-Value Pipes . . . . . . . . 193
Nondisruptive Sampling Methods, 194
Nondisruptive Screening Techniques, 195
Leveraging Condition Assessment Data, 196
The Assess-and-Fix Approach, 197
Forensic Analysis of Breaks, 198
Reference, 200
Chapter 16 The Next Steps: Using Condition Assessment Information . . . . . . . . . 201
Purpose of Condition Assessment Information, 201
Leveraging Data, 202
Data Analysis, 203
Presentation of Results, 203
Example Approaches, 204
References, 206
Appendix A Other Assessment Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Acoustic Resonance Testing, 207
Pipe Wall Analysis Using Magnetometry, 207
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
List of AWWA Manuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

AWWA Manual M77 v

Copyright © 2019 American Water Works Association. All Rights Reserved.

Preface

Water main condition assessment currently ranks among the most important subjects
to water utilities, and interest in this subject is rapidly growing. As the average age of
their infrastructures increases, utilities are increasingly challenged to maintain levels of
service while keeping water affordable to all. Condition assessment helps utilities meet
this challenge by identifying more precisely where money is best spent, leaving in place
pipelines that have adequate integrity and preventing the unnecessary failures of others.
The assessment of buried pipelines is never simple, and water mains are particularly
challenging. They are difficult to access, and concerns exist regarding water contamination
and the need to maintain water service for sanitation, commerce, and fire protection. Because
water main condition assessment is relatively new, there’s a scarcity of authoritative, peer-
reviewed material to guide utilities. Instead, utilities often are left to rely on the claims
of inspection companies, some of which are not well established. This manual fills an
important need, providing a comprehensive overview of the many methods that can be
used to assess water mains.
Methods range from desktop studies to leak detection to full-length, high-resolution
scans from inside the pipes. The choice of method and the interpretation of results are
both art and science, with decisions based on economics and risk tolerance. This manual
provides the technical information utility managers and engineers need to make informed
decisions, along with practical information about how methods can be deployed.
For assessment of most pressure pipelines, a multistep approach is recommended.
By starting with simpler, less-expensive examinations, then progressing if necessary to
more expensive techniques, resources can be leveraged. Assessment is meant to answer
questions about questionable pipes, where a decision is needed that affects service or
cost. Assessment is usually less useful when applied to pipes that are known to be in very
good or very poor condition. Pipes may be distribution or transmission mains, where the
consequences of a break range from mundane to intolerable. In either case, with condition
assessment, decisions can be made more confidently and the likelihood of a poor decision
reduced. Risks are better managed.
This manual is largely organized around the various inspection methods, with
chapters also devoted to program management. The physical inspection techniques focus
on detecting degraded materials—corroded metal in particular. Readers should keep
in mind that other causes of main failure, including ground movement (pipe bending),
pressure surges, casting defects, poorly made welds, and other joint problems may be
difficult (if not impossible) to detect in advance of failure.
It is important to understand the limitations of the various inspection methods:
what sizes and types of defects might be missed; whether the method has been verified
by independent, third-party verifications (dig-ups); and where blind spots exist. Several
methods, for instance, have difficulty finding defects near pipe joints. Irregularities such
as riveted seams or heavy scales may produce “noisy” data. No method is perfect, and
no inspection method finds all possible defects. The methods and techniques included
in this manual have been reviewed by the Water Main Condition Assessment Committee
and found to be worthy of consideration, but not all have been proven through years of
use and independent testing. Inclusion in this manual does not imply AWWA or committee
endorsement of any particular method or the companies that provide it. Utilities are
encouraged to start with the information presented in this manual, consult other
publications, seek referrals, and ask hard questions before investing.

AWWA Manual M77 xiii

Copyright © 2019 American Water Works Association. All Rights Reserved.

CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF WATER MAINS

The applicability of these methods varies depending on pipe material. Some methods
apply to all types of pipe, while others apply more narrowly to metal or reinforced concrete
pipes. The focus is also on water mains (large and small). It is usually not economical to
assess small service laterals with these methods. Chapter 3 provides guidance regarding
which methods can be used for which types of pipe and also regarding selecting and
procuring services. This manual focuses on methods that are commercially available in
North America, and because the field is rapidly evolving, other methods are expected to be
introduced in the next few years. A few of these are listed in Appendix A.
Unlike the other chapters in this manual, Chapter 13 addresses one specific material:
prestressed concrete cylinder pipe (PCCP). PCCP has been particularly problematic due
to its propensity to fail without warning and in a catastrophic manner. As a result, much
attention has been paid to the assessment of PCCP, and many tools and techniques specific
to this type of pipe have been developed. Some of these tools are now being applied to
other types of material, particularly bar-wrapped steel cylinder concrete pipe.
Through the publication of this manual, AWWA hopes to provide practical
information that water utilities will use to better manage their systems. AWWA also seeks
your feedback regarding this manual and other ways to advance this important discipline.
This marks the start of a continuous, dedicated effort to collect and disseminate reliable
information on water main condition assessment. Your participation in this process is
welcomed and encouraged.
—Water Main Condition Assessment Committee
Dan Ellison, PE – Chair

xiv AWWA Manual M77

Copyright © 2019 American Water Works Association. All Rights Reserved.

Acknowledgments

This manual is a product of the Water Main Condition Assessment Committee. Special
thanks to the following individuals who devoted considerable time to the endeavor.

Committee Chair and Editor: Dan Ellison, HDR, Ventura, Calif.

Chapter Lead Authors:

Chapter 1—Jeff Leighton, Portland Water Bureau (retired), Portland, Ore.

Chapter 2—Kurt Vause, Anchorage Water and Wastewater Authority,
Anchorage, Alaska
Chapter 3—Dan Ellison, HDR, Ventura, Calif.
Chapter 4—Celine Hyer, Arcadis, Tampa, Fla.
Chapter 5—Jeff Giddings, HDR, Omaha, Neb.
Chapter 6—Mersedeh Akhoondan, HDR, San Diego, Calif.
Chapter 7—Ahmad Habibian, CDM Smith, Fairfax, Va.
Chapter 8—Andi Corrao, infrastructureMD, San Diego, Calif.
Chapter 9—Derek Wurst, Black & Veatch, Walnut Creek, Calif.
Chapter 10—Frank Blaha, Water Research Foundation, Denver, Colo.
Chapter 11—Ricardo Hernandez, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California,
Los Angeles.
Chapter 12—Chris Macey, AECOM, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, and Rod Jackson, CH2M
Hill (now Jacobs), Sacramento, Calif.
Chapter 13—Bethany McDonald, Black & Veatch, Phoenix, Ariz.
Chapter 14—Andrew Romer, AECOM, Orange, Calif.
Chapter 15—Dan Ellison, HDR, Ventura, Calif.
Chapter 16—Nathan Faber, San Diego County Water Authority, Escondido, Calif.

Chapter Coauthors:

David Conner, AECOM

Andi Corrao, infrastructureMD
Tracy DeLa Torre-Evans, Seattle Public Utilities
Kris Embry, Hibbard Inshore
Nathan Faber, San Diego County Water Authority
Chris Garett, PICA
Duane Gilles, Evansville Water & Sewer Utility
Mark Grabowski, Electro Scan
Michael Grahek, Los Angeles Department of Water & Power

AWWA Manual M77 xv

Copyright © 2019 American Water Works Association. All Rights Reserved.

CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF WATER MAINS

Sylvia Hall, PE, Sylvia Hall Engineering

Margaret Hannaford, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Yakir Hasit, American Water
Phil Hoyt, Electromechanical Technologies
David Hughes, American Water (Retired)
Rod Jackson, CH2M Hill (now Jacobs)
Dave Johnston, Echologics, Division of Mueller
Peter Kraft, The Confluence Group
David Kroon, Aegion (Corrpro)
George Kunkel, Kunkel Water Efficiency Consulting
Kevin Laven, Echologics, Division of Mueller
Jeff Leighton, Portland Water Bureau (retired)
Joanna Line, City of Calgary
John Marciszewski, Echologics, a division of Mueller
Ashan McNealy, Pure Technologies
Mike McReynolds, Brown and Caldwell
Paul Meschino, Utility Service Group
Kenneth Morgan, KCM Consulting Services
Trent Nedens, Ballard Marine Construction
Rasko P. Ojdrovic, Simpson, Gumpertz, and Heger
Elly Perets, Utilis
Noy Phannavong, V&A Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Emma Quail, Pure Technologies
Annie Raven, InfraPlan
Martin Roubal, Rock Solid Group
Piero Salvo, GAME
David Spencer, HDR
Allison Stroebele, Pure Technologies

Other Contributors/Technical Reviewers

Scott Arnold, Aegion (Fyfe)

Graham Bell, HDR
Tom Bowman, JD7
Roy Brander, City of Calgary
Keith Browning, Orlando Utilities Commission
Jim Eggen, City of Joliet
Matt Gaughan, Plus Six Engineering
Chuck Hansen, Electro Scan
Gordon Henrich, Pipeline Integrity Technology Associates
Jeremiah Hess, Portland Water Bureau
Dave Kozman, Hammerhead Trenchless
Daniel Krywyj, Aquam Pipe Diagnostics
George Kunkel, Kunkel Water Efficiency Consulting
Bryon Livingston, Black & Veatch

xvi AWWA Manual M77

Copyright © 2019 American Water Works Association. All Rights Reserved.

 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

George Mallakis, T.T. Technologies

John C. Matthews, Trenchless Technology Center
Mo Najafi, University of Texas
Chris Nastally, Great Lakes Water Authority
Fred Pfeifer, Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
Dave Russell, Russell NDE Systems
Russell Titus, New Jersey American Water
Jon Turner, Phoenix Civil Engineering
Travis Wagner, Pure Technologies
Cameron White, Pure Technologies

AWWA Staff: Sue Weikel, Jim Siriano, Michelle Sheehy, Mindy Burke, Janet Greifinger,
Jennifer Santini, Willadee Hitchcock
Dedication: This manual is dedicated to Phil Hoyt, who pioneered the use of magnetic flux
leakage for water pipeline inspections. Phil contributed greatly to this manual and, sadly,
passed away before seeing its completion.

AWWA Manual M77 xvii

Copyright © 2019 American Water Works Association. All Rights Reserved.

 AWWA MANUAL

M77

M77 Chapter 1

The Benefits of
Condition Assessment
for Water Mains
Jeff Leighton, Chapter Lead, Portland Water Bureau (retired)
Nathan Faber, San Diego County Water Authority
Yakir Hasit, American Water
David Conner, AECOM

This chapter describes generally what condition assessment is and what it can accomplish.
In brief, condition assessment involves the deployment of methods to ascertain the physical
condition of a water main. By performing condition assessment of water mains, a utility can
• estimate the likelihood that a water main may continue to provide satisfactory
service, both now and in the future;
 help determine the remaining service life of the water main;
• make better decisions regarding main renewals;
 allow some water mains to remain in service longer;
 prevent some pipeline failures from occurring by intervening sooner;
 make decisions more confidently (with less chance of error);
• find active leaks; and
• tailor renewal projects and methods to better match the conditions of the mains.

Copyright © 2019 American Water Works Association. All Rights Reserved.

2 CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF WATER MAINS

DEFINITION OF CONDITION ASSESSMENT

The emphasis of this manual is on methods of pipeline condition assessment to identify
physical condition. Condition assessment may be defined as the identification of the like-
lihood that an asset will continue to perform its required function. As part of condition
assessment, data and information are collected through direct and/or indirect methods
and then analyzed to determine the physical characteristics of the pipe and how they may
impact the pipeline’s likelihood that it will leak, break, or otherwise fail to perform. Exam-
ple characteristics include current or future structural, water quality, and hydraulic status
of an individual pipe, segment, or collection of similar pipes, among other characteristics.
Condition assessment may be performed in the field, via desktop, or both. The
important objective is to do it, update it, and improve upon it as needed. Field condition
assessment involves direct and indirect observations of the asset and its environment to
determine and document its condition. Desktop condition assessment relies more heav-
ily on existing data and institutional knowledge to make the same determination using
design documents, staff knowledge, information systems, industry experience, and other
resources to determine or approximate the condition of the pipelines without viewing
them physically. Beyond these efforts, condition assessments may use more advanced
study and testing to more fully identify pipeline condition.
Some examples of how a condition assessment is used include
• to identify loss of integrity, and that water is leaking—water loss may be observed
or detected indirectly through acoustic methods;
• to identify loss of structural competence or weakening of the pipe or that the
wall thickness is diminished—wall loss may be established through a variety of
methods;
• to find evidence of liner or coating failure—may be visually observed; and
• to recognize other conditions of concern, e.g., pipe is unacceptably out of round.

Condition Assessment and Monitoring as Part of a Risk-based

Asset-Management Strategy for Pipes
A fundamental activity for any water utility is to determine the risks associated with asset
failure. Understanding the risk of asset failure and determining an acceptable level of
risk for the utility allows the balancing of conflicting goals of minimizing lifecycle costs
of assets versus delivering the stipulated levels of service (LoS). Risk analysis is used to
understand the cause, effect (consequence), and likelihood of events adverse to attainment
of LoS; managing such risks to an acceptable level; and providing an audit trail for the
management of risks.
Mathematically, risk from a failure can be expressed as the product of the conse-
quence of the failure (CoF) and the likelihood of the failure (LoF):

Risk = CoF × LoF

Risk analysis is used to rank assets by their risk of failure and to identify high-risk
assets (i.e., assets with a risk of failure above an acceptable level of risk). In assessing risk,
CoF and LoF are quantified separately, and the results can be multiplied to calculate the
risk-of-failure score of a specific asset.
An asset is considered to be failing if it cannot, or does not, provide the requisite LoS.
For water mains, this failure is measured by physical condition, hydraulic performance,
and quality of water. Thus, when determining the LoF of a pipeline, these three factors
should be assessed, with the physical condition being the most prominent one.

AWWA Manual M77

Copyright © 2019 American Water Works Association. All Rights Reserved.

 THE BENEFITS OF CONDITION ASSESSMENT FOR WATER MAINS 3

The risk associated with each water main can be quantified by multiplying the CoF
and LoF values to arrive at a relative risk score. Often a scale such as 1 to 5 is applied to
both CoF and LoF. Applying the risk equation to each of the water mains under consid-
eration allows for a comparison of the mains by their relative risks. Because the scoring
is somewhat subjective, the absolute risk score value itself is not as important as is the
relative risk ranking of a main. Listing the mains by their relative risk score usually makes
clear which mains are posing the highest risk, which are posing the next highest risk, and
so on. The relative risk score is then used to help identify options for risk mitigation.
When computing LoF scores, water utilities typically have limited condition infor-
mation on all the water mains in their system. This information might consist of break and
leakage data for some of the mains, field condition analysis data on a few critical mains,
etc. Furthermore, some asset data used might be dated, incomplete, or unreconciled, and
therefore less reliable. For the remainder of the mains, most of the information that is used
is typically based on institutional knowledge and the application of cohort analysis tech-
niques. Thus, when the risk score is calculated for all the water mains in a system, these
scores need to be vetted, especially for the high-risk mains for which mitigation measures
such as rehabilitation or replacement might be considered. Before making any significant
investments for mitigation, it is important to verify the validity of the data used by con-
ducting further condition assessment activities on these mains.
Condition assessment is a fundamental element of the strategic asset-management
effort. It helps capture and make available timely information including pipeline condi-
tion and pipeline attributes (e.g., identifiers, sizes, materials, and uses) that are used to
implement an asset management program. Condition assessments can be recurring and
may be improved upon in future iterations. Initial condition assessment will provide key
elements of asset management to establish minimum initial awareness of asset condition
and needs, as well as a baseline of these for future comparisons. Condition assessments
are also useful to
• show and realize progress in and benefits of asset management;
• engage staff members and attract their participation, contributions, and buy-in;
and
• increase value in the short-term and long-term pipe-renewal investments for the
asset-management effort.
The accomplishments of condition assessment contribute to the organizational aspects
of service levels, strategy, risk, prioritization, process efficiency and effectiveness, quality
information systems and tools, performance monitoring, and others.

THE BENEFITS AND COSTS OF CONDITION ASSESSMENT

Benefits of Condition Assessment
The overarching benefit of condition assessment is the ability to gather data for risk-based
decision making. Condition assessment data can therefore lead to better and more defensi-
ble decisions and the reduction of risks associated with water mains. Most agencies strive to
achieve efficient operations through main break avoidance and efficient renewal planning.
Condition assessment data can lead to break avoidance by identifying and proac-
tively repairing pipes that are likely to fail. Avoiding breaks can also lead to customer
benefits including more reliable service, reduction of unplanned outages, and positive
customer perceptions. The financial benefits of break avoidance include lower repair costs
for planned repairs, less damage to surrounding infrastructure, and more defendable

AWWA Manual M77

Copyright © 2019 American Water Works Association. All Rights Reserved.

4 CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF WATER MAINS

claims from private parties stemming from pipe failures (Martel 2014). Social impacts of
pipe breaks include traffic and business disruptions. Also, there are environmental bene-
fits to avoiding breaks, such as habitat damage, unnatural sediment buildup, and negative
water quality impacts from discharged water.
Another key benefit of condition assessment data is efficient renewal planning. Con-
dition assessment provides data to support and justify better planned pipe-restoration
projects. Utilities can focus renewal efforts on pipelines that need repair rather than bas-
ing decisions on general characteristics that may not correlate to actual condition such
as age. In many cases, condition assessment efforts reveal that most of the pipeline is in
good condition. This information helps utilities avoid unnecessary pipe replacements. If
only a small part of the pipeline needs repair, utilities can focus their repair efforts on
these areas and benefit from extended use of the sections of the pipeline that are in good
condition. Understanding the repair needs for the long term (10–20 years) helps the utility
plan and execute those projects and schedule projects in a sustainable way with regard to
resources. Condition assessment data can also help define project boundaries and bundle
similar projects to reduce community impacts and lower project mobilization costs. The
condition assessment data also support the utility’s decision for a renewal project to both
internal and external stakeholders. In many cases, the utility can physically show the data
to stakeholders to effect understanding and context of the repair need. Finally, condition
assessment data can confirm or even extend the assumed life of a pipeline. For example, a
condition assessment effort might indicate that an old pipeline previously thought to need
replacement is in good condition and can continue to provide service for decades longer.

Costs of Condition Assessment

The costs of condition assessment vary greatly depending on the type of condition assess-
ment, location, size, requirements, access, environment, assessment methods, and system
complexities. This section is meant to serve as a guide to the various costs that may apply.
The utility owner should determine whether a given cost applies and develop an estimate.
Table 1-1 provides a list of important items that the utility should consider including in a
condition assessment project.
Cost-benefit examples. To illustrate the justification for condition assessment, two
simple cost-benefit comparisons were developed: one for a large-diameter case and one
for a small-diameter case. We are using two techniques, magnetic flux leakage (MFL) and
remote field technology (RFT), for illustrative purposes only. The case for using other tech-
niques can also be made. The point is that the cost of condition assessment (for these two
techniques and for others) can be justified. The first analysis looked at a future MFL con-
dition assessment project. The comparison is for a 10-mile, steel, large-diameter (84-in.)
pipeline over a 10-year term. The costs were based on past project costs and included pre-
paring, draining, accessing, and filling the pipelines. The assumption was made that as a
result of this condition assessment, four locations of significant corrosion would be iden-
tified and repaired. For prevention of a pipeline leak, the low repair costs were based on
fixing four leaks over 10 years, each at a cost of $300k, which includes a pipeline shutdown,
draining, access, repair, filling, and property damage/claims due to leaks. The high estimate
of $6 million is due to an estimated $1.2M for each leak in additional property damage
and claims impacting several homes, structures, businesses, and other utilities. Proactive
repairs based on an MFL condition assessment would have a benefit of avoided repair and
damage costs ranging from $1.2M to $6M over a 10-year period. The life extension benefits
are based on the estimated cost of constructing a replacement pipeline, which would last
100 years, with new construction costs of $88M in a rural area and $120M in an urban area.

AWWA Manual M77

Copyright © 2019 American Water Works Association. All Rights Reserved.

 THE BENEFITS OF CONDITION ASSESSMENT FOR WATER MAINS 5

Table 1-1 Typical condition assessment project items

Vendor/Contractor Costs
1 Mobilization
2 Work execution
3 Analysis
4 Reporting
Owner Costs
1 Planning/coordination (meetings, schedules, correspondence, plans, calculations, permits, forms, and notices)
1-1 Customers (service interruptions, temporary service, water storage)
1-2 Public (notification, accommodations)
1-3 Regulatory agencies (water discharge, disinfection, work permits, traffic permits)
1-4 Contractors (scheduling and coordination)
1-5 Other needed pipeline maintenance, repairs, and/or upgrades
2 Preparation
2-1 Safety (pipeline isolation, communication, emergency protocols, lockout/tagout, ventilation, trench shoring,
equipment)
2-2 Access to facilities/pipeline (vehicles and equipment) and access inside pipeline (valve removal, excavations,
flange removal)
2-3 Water discharge/erosion control
2-4 Equipment availability/functionality (e.g., generators, pumps, air blowers, trench shoring, trench plates,
discharge filtering, portable restrooms, cranes, small tools)
2-5 Valve testing/functionality/configuration
2-6 Contracts/agreements for water service and/or water supply
2-7 Material needs (gaskets, nuts, bolts, paint, grease, coatings, couplings, paving, sand, gravel)
3 Implementation
3-1 Pipeline access, draining, excavation, ventilation
3-2 Visual inspections
3-3 Planned and unplanned pipeline maintenance, repairs, and/or upgrades
3-4 Contractor/vendor condition assessment work execution
4 Protocols
4-1 Communication and progress reports
4-2 Safety (equipment, rescue teams, lockout)
4-3 Traffic control
4-4 Pipeline disinfection and testing
4-5 Equipment and materials (see above)
5 Data integration
5-1 Review
5-2 Field verification
5-3 Analysis
5-4 Integration with existing data

To calculate the avoided costs based on a life extension for 10 years, these replacement
costs were depreciated (straight-line) over a term of 10 years. Table 1-2 illustrates the simple
cost-benefit comparison.
The second analysis looked at a 12-in. (30.48-cm) diameter cast iron pipeline condi-
tion assessment project using RFT. The comparison is for a 4,000-ft (1,119-m) section of
pipeline over a 10-year term. The simple cost-benefit comparison is provided in Table 1-3.

AWWA Manual M77

Copyright © 2019 American Water Works Association. All Rights Reserved.

6 CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF WATER MAINS

Table 1-2 Simple cost-benefit analysis for condition assessment of a 10-mile, large-diameter
pipeline over 10 years
Description Assumptions Low Cost* High Cost†
MFL condition assessment Total project $1.5M $2.0M
Costs

Steel repairs Internal steel patches $30k $30k

(4 total)
Prevention of a pipeline leak Damage and repair costs $1.2M $6.0M
Benefits

(4 leaks total)
Avoided depreciation cost 10-year life extension $8.8M $12.0M

Net cost savings: $8.5M $16.0M

Benefit/cost ratio: 6.7 9.0
MFL—magnetic flux leakage
* Rural area
†
Urban area

Table 1-3 Simple cost-benefit analysis for condition assessment of a cast iron pipeline over
10 years
Description Assumptions Low Cost High Cost
RFT condition assessment Total project $100k $300k
(access available) (excavation and pipe
Costs

modification for access)

Repairs 3 repairs $120k $150k
Prevention of a pipeline leak Damage and repair costs $120 $840k
Benefits

(3 leaks total) (low consequence) (high consequence)

Avoided depreciation cost 10-year life extension $400k $400k

Net cost savings: $300k $790k

Benefit/cost ratio: 2.4 2.8

RFT—remote field technology

CONDITION ASSESSMENT AS PART OF AN ASSESS-AND-FIX STRATEGY

The objective of assessing the pipe is to understand the condition of the pipe. Some inter-
est exists in the industry to use condition assessment as part of a structured water main
rehabilitation program. The concept is that using condition assessment tools to measure
wall loss can aid in the maintenance of small-diameter, less consequential aging iron
pipes, especially those that have never been lined. Water Research Foundation Project
4473 described and demonstrated this approach: using nondestructive examinations
(remote field technology was the applied technology in the demonstrations) to help the
utility select a lining system based on the assessed pipe condition (Bell 2015). Lining
systems vary from nonstructural methods applicable to mains with little corrosion to
semistructural to fully structural liners to carry the pipe loads where significant corro-
sion and wall loss has occurred.
This strategy is commonly applied to nonpressurized sewer pipes, where rehabili-
tation methods are selected based on video assessment results. Several factors make this
more challenging for pressured water pipes: the high cost of assessments, the difficulty
of putting assessment tools into the pipe, taking mains out of service and associated cus-
tomer impacts, the concern about water quality when tools are introduced into the pipe,

AWWA Manual M77

Copyright © 2019 American Water Works Association. All Rights Reserved.

 THE BENEFITS OF CONDITION ASSESSMENT FOR WATER MAINS 7

the difficulty of interpreting the assessment data, and the lack of utility experience with
the approach or the availability of guidance. Nevertheless, it is both feasible and often
cost-effective. This will be described in more detail in Chapter 14 of this manual.

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS WHEN USING CONDITION ASSESSMENT

Concerns and Challenges of Condition Assessment
Condition assessment challenges include providing reliable data that have a sufficient
level of detail and locational accuracy to make informed decisions. In many cases, the
utility’s expectations do not align with what the contractor hired to conduct a condition
assessment is planning on providing. A number of factors, including calibration of the
equipment, the accuracy of the data being provided, and the assumptions based on pipe
characteristics, can impact the reliability of the data.
Funding and/or technical issues may limit a utility’s condition assessment options. Oper-
ational complications due to shutting pipelines down, achieving proper isolation, and
recharging and disinfecting the line can be a challenge. In some cases, the utility may not
have the required system information such as pipe plans, manufacturing details, locations,
and/or repair information. At the end of a project, the utility may not understand the signif-
icance of the findings and know how to act on the data. In many cases, the data may not be
compatible with existing data formats, and it may be difficult to integrate them. On some
projects, the utility may not be fully aware of the limitations of the data, and these are not
disclosed before the project.
The contractor sometimes assumes important details about a utility’s system, or the
utility does not properly convey system information such as pipe interconnections, isola-
tion valves, previous repairs, and/or operational parameters. For example, there should
be a clear understanding of when and where the contractor would be allowed to operate
water system valves. Additionally, the data interpretation may be difficult for the contrac-
tor to convey and difficult for the utility to understand.

Predictive Failure Analysis

The knowledge and data derived from condition assessment may be used in predictive
analytics to forecast probable time ranges of likely pipeline failure. Also, trending of the
existing pipelines and trends of historical similar pipelines may be used in this effort. A
variety of modeling and statistics may be leveraged to develop predictions of pipeline
failure. By applying the knowledge of current condition captured in the assessment, these
endeavors help to construct a typically more realistic curve of pipeline failure rather than
assuming a linear degradation over time based only on such attributes as type, material,
age, type of use, etc. They also help to customize the curves more to the particular organi-
zation and its pipelines because they leverage actual information rather than relying solely
on industry generalizations.
These analytics may be advanced to enable scenario analyses based on operation,
maintenance, performance, and other drivers to forecast pipeline failure risk, timing, and
modes, often in almost real-time dashboard environments. Geospatial and hydraulic mod-
eling software may be helpful to access, manage, and communicate the information of the
predictive or real-time analyses. Modeling can also be used to quantify the CoF, helping
the utility to prioritize which pipes should have priority for condition assessment.
Predictive analytics is especially useful in situations where current condition is
unknown, inaccessible, and/or cost prohibitive to capture and is especially useful for
pipe networks. Various studies are exploring predictive analytics, and standards such as

AWWA Manual M77

Copyright © 2019 American Water Works Association. All Rights Reserved.

8 CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF WATER MAINS

International Standards Organization (ISO) 24516, “Guidelines for Management of Assets

of Water Supply and Wastewater Systems,” are giving recognition to the field.
The costs associated with predictive analytics include the capture, management, and
manipulation of various pipeline data and asset condition information and could also
include a myriad of other information depending on the intended scope of the predictive
effort. Costs also include the staff time involved in the predictive modeling and could
increase with the use of geospatial and hydraulic modeling software, though such soft-
ware may already be on-hand.

REFERENCES
Bell, G.E.C. 2015. The Assess-and-Fix Approach: Using Non-Destructive Evaluations to Help Select
Pipe Renewal Methods. Denver: Water Research Foundation.
Martel, K. 2014. Best Practices for Water Utility Legal Protection and Claims Management from
Infrastructure Failure Events. Denver: Water Research Foundation.

AWWA Manual M77

Copyright © 2019 American Water Works Association. All Rights Reserved.