ST19-02 Water Mgmt-SY190608Marc
City of Coppell, Texas
water System
asset management plan
DRAFT
April 2019
Project #:0816-006-01
May 2019
Prepared By:
Ellen T. McDonald (TX 84731)
Dexter F. May (TX 131425)
Cody J. McCann, E.I.T.
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................... iii
List of Acronyms .......................................................................................................................................... iv
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 The City of Coppell Water Distribution System .......................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Organization of the Asset Management Plan ............................................................................ 1-4
2. Asset Management Approach ............................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1 What Is Asset Management? ..................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Benefits Derived From Asset Management ............................................................................... 2-2
2.3 USEPA Asset Management Principles ...................................................................................... 2-2
2.4 Goals for the Asset Management Plan ...................................................................................... 2-3
3. Distribution System Inventory ............................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Asset Inventory Data .................................................................................................................. 3-2
4. Distribution System Condition Evaluation .......................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Staff Interview Results ............................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Compilation of Available Condition Data .................................................................................... 4-4
4.3 Condition Evaluation – Conclusions ........................................................................................ 4-10
5. Distribution System Risk Assessment ............................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Risk Assessment Process .......................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Distribution System Risk Results ............................................................................................... 5-5
6. Asset Management Implementation .................................................................................................. 6-1
6.1 Asset Information Management ................................................................................................. 6-1
6.2 Asset Management Business Processes ................................................................................... 6-3
7. Asset Inspection and Investment Plan ............................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Near-Term Inspection Program.................................................................................................. 7-1
7.2 Long-Term Investment Plan ....................................................................................................... 7-5
8. Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................. 8-1
Appendix A. Asset Characteristics .................................................................................................... A-1
Appendix B. Geodatabase Roadmap ................................................................................................ B-1
Appendix C. Staff Interviews and Map Scores .................................................................................. C-2
Appendix D. Detailed Scoring Tables ................................................................................................ D-3
Appendix E. Parameter Score Map Summaries ................................................................................ E-4
Appendix F. High Risk Assets ............................................................................................................ F-5
Appendix G. Cost Basis Tables ......................................................................................................... G-6
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1: Pipe Installation Years Based on Material ................................................................................ 3-5
Table 4-1: Staff Opinion of Condition Scores............................................................................................. 4-4
Table 5-1: Water System Likelihood of Failure Components and Weighting Factors ............................... 5-4
Table 5-2: Water System Consequence of Failure Components and Weighting Factors ......................... 5-4
Table 6-1: Accomplishments and Next Steps for Asset Management Implementation ............................. 6-2
Table 7-1: System Inspection 10-Year Plan – Water Mains, Valves, and Hydrants.................................. 7-2
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Coppell Water Distribution System .......................................................................................... 1-3
Figure 2-1: Coppell Asset Management Framework ................................................................................. 2-1
Figure 2-2: USEPA Ten-Step Advanced Asset Management Process ..................................................... 2-3
Figure 3-1: Distribution System Pipe Material (By Pipe Length)................................................................ 3-3
Figure 3-2: Distribution System Pipe Size in Inches (By Pipe Length) ...................................................... 3-4
Figure 3-3: Distribution System Age in Years (By Pipe Length) ................................................................ 3-5
Figure 3-4: Water Main Age ....................................................................................................................... 3-6
Figure 3-5: Distribution System Pipe Length (Age and Material) ............................................................... 3-7
Figure 4-1: Maintenance Issues Ranked by City Staff ............................................................................... 4-2
Figure 4-2: Poor System Performance Reported by City Staff .................................................................. 4-3
Figure 4-3: Improvements Suggested by City Staff ................................................................................... 4-3
Figure 4-4: Staff Condition Assessment Results ....................................................................................... 4-5
Figure 4-5: Main Breaks ............................................................................................................................. 4-7
Figure 4-6: Water Quality Complaints ........................................................................................................ 4-8
Figure 4-7: Modeled Water Pressure ......................................................................................................... 4-9
Figure 5-1: Risk of Failure Equation .......................................................................................................... 5-1
Figure 5-2: Business Risk Assessment Process ....................................................................................... 5-2
Figure 5-3: Sample Risk Results Matrix ..................................................................................................... 5-5
Figure 5-4: Risk Profile – Water Lines ....................................................................................................... 5-6
Figure 5-5: Relative Risk Breakpoints – Water Lines ................................................................................ 5-7
Figure 5-6: Risk Results Summary – Water Lines ..................................................................................... 5-9
Figure 7-1: Near Term Inspection Plan ...................................................................................................... 7-3
Figure 7-2: Survival Functions – Water Mains ........................................................................................... 7-6
Figure 7-3: Anticipated End of Service Life ................................................................................................ 7-8
Figure 7-4: Anticipated End of Service and Replacement Cost Projections .............................................. 7-9
Figure 7-5: Annual Replacement Cost with Catch-Up Contribution – Water Mains ................................ 7-11
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
iv
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AMP Asset Management Plan
APAI Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
AWWA American Water Works Association
CI Cast Iron Pipe
CIP Capital Improvement Program
City City of Coppell
COF Consequence of Failure
DI Ductile Iron Pipe
DWU Dallas Water Utilities
EST Elevated Storage Tank
GIS Geographic Information System
LF Linear Feet
LOF Likelihood of Failure
LTIP Long-Term Investment Plan
MG Million Gallons
MGD Million Gallons per Day
NTIP Near-Term Inspection Program
O&M Operation and Maintenance
PCCP Prestressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
RCCP Reinforced Concrete Cylinder Pipe
ROF Risk of Failure
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 1-1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Throughout the United States, many utilities are struggling to meet the demands of a growing population
while dealing with the challenges of their aging water infrastructure. Federal, state, and local governments
have invested billions in water infrastructure over the past several decades, but additional investment in
water treatment plants and distribution systems is needed in the coming decades to repair deterioration
and to prevent failure of water systems. According to the American Water Works Association (AWWA),
approximately $1 trillion is needed over the next twenty-five years to maintain America’s drinking water
infrastructure and expand it to meet the needs of a growing population.1 Since 2015, the American Water
Works Association has identified renewal and replacement of aging water infrastructure as the most
significant issue facing the water industry in its annual State of the Water Industry report.2 On a similar
note, the American Society of Civil Engineers’ 2017 Infrastructure Report Card gave t he nation’s water
infrastructure a rating of a ‘D,’ which is indicative of poor conditions. These reports suggest that, although
the United States has taken great strides in modernizing its water treatment plants and distribution
pipelines in recent decades, a great deal of work and investment are still needed. Adequate water
infrastructure plays a vital role in thriving communities, and the case for investment and management of
water assets is compelling and well-established: if existing systems are not adequately maintained,
rehabilitated, and expanded in the coming decades, then public health, the environment, and the
economy will be impacted.
Due to the need for understanding distribution system condition and prioritizing rehabilitation or
replacement projects, the City of Coppell (City) turned to asset management. This Asset Management
Plan (AMP) was developed according to basic asset management principles and summarizes the results
of a comprehensive asset inventory of the City’s distribution system. The AMP presents the results of a
business risk assessment of the distribution system pipelines and provides recommendations for
near-term action items, along with future investment profiles for asset rehabilitation and replacement. The
AMP focuses on the City’s distribution system pipelines, and does not include evaluation of pump
stations, valves, hydrants, or storage. An AMP was also completed for the City’s wastewater collection
system in tandem with the water distribution system, but was released as a separate report.
1 Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge. American Water Works Association,
2012.
2 State of the Water Industry Report, 2018. American Water Works Association, 2018.
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 1-2
1.2 The City of Coppell Water Distribution System
The City is located primarily in Dallas County with small areas of the City’s limits falling within Denton
County. The City was not officially incorporated until 1955 but a small commu nity has lived in the area
since the early 1800s. The earliest families were primarily farmers, but more people began to settle in the
area in the 1840s and 1850s. With the establishment of the Cotton Belt Railroad, part of the St. Louis and
Southwestern Texas Railroad, the area was designated as Coppell in 1892. Today, the City has a
population of over 42,000 with continued growth. A major selling point is the City’s proximity to the DFW
International Airport, with some of the airport property located within the City limits.
The Coppell Utility Operations Department operates and maintains the City’s water distribution system,
which includes water lines ranging from 1 to 48 inches in diameter. The City’s water system consists of
over 200 miles of water lines, approximately 16,418 connections, and elevated storage tanks (EST) of 2
million gallons (MG) and 1.5 MG, respectively. Potable water is supplied to the City by Dallas Water
Utilities (DWU). Currently, the average day water demand is 8.9 million gallons per day (MGD), and the
maximum day water demand is approximately 18.5 MGD, according the TCEQ’s Texas Drinking Water
Watch. The City’s water distribution system is shown in Figure 1-1.
Water mains in the City’s system distribute potable water for residential and commercial customers
throughout the City. The municipal distribution system provides water service to each residential and
commercial customer at a water meter, generally located within the right of way or easement near the
property or delivery point. The property owner is responsible for line maintenance from the building up to
the water meter. The City maintains the water line connection from the meter to the connection with the
water main.
!(
!(
!(
Figure 1-1: Water Distribution System
1320 S. University Dr., Suite 300Fort Worth, TX 76107Coppell Water Asset Management Plan
¹
0 3,500 7,0001,750
Feet
4/4/2019 Document Path: F:\projects\0816\006-01\2-0 Wrk Prod\2-9 GIS\MXD\Report Figures\Figure1-1 Water Distribution System.mxd*Only active distribution lines ownedby Coppell with a diameter of 4inches or larger are shown. A rawwater line to North Lake is also notshown.
!(Pum p Station
!(Elevated Storage Tank
Water Distribution System*
City Boundary
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 1-4
1.3 Organization of the Asset Management Plan
This AMP is presented in seven sections:
1. Introduction
2. Asset Management Approach – provides an introduction to asset management concepts and
the approach followed in the plan.
3. Distribution System Inventory – summarizes the asset inventories performed for the water
distribution system.
4. Distribution System Condition Evaluation – provides a summary of the staff condition
assessment and system performance data for the water distribution syste m.
5. Distribution System Risk Assessment – presents the detailed results of the water system risk
analyses to prioritize assets for further investigation.
6. Asset Management Implementation – identifies information systems, policies, and business
processes to support implementation of the asset management program.
7. Asset Inspection and Investment Plan – summarizes the near-term inspection and long-term
asset investment requirements for existing system assets.
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 2-1
2. ASSET MANAGEMENT APPROACH
This AMP summarizes the initial phase of asset management development for the City, with a focus on
the first six steps of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Ten -Step Asset
Management Process. These steps focus on cataloging and assessing the City’s existing water
distribution system assets and prioritizing asset renewal. Figure 2-1 provides the overall framework that
guided the initial phase of asset management development. This section describes the approach used to
develop the data, information, results, and recommendations of the Coppell AMP. The USEPA Ten -Step
Asset Management Process will be discussed in greater detail in Section 2.3.
Figure 2-1: Coppell Asset Management Framework
2.1 What Is Asset Management?
The City’s system, which includes just over 200 miles of water main, was designed and constructed to
meet prescribed performance objectives in support of the City’s overall water system performance goals.
However, as assets age and performance diminishes over time, increased operation and maintenance
attention is required. As assets continue to deteriorate, they become unreliable and require a major
rehabilitation or complete replacement.
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 2-2
Asset management can be described as:
1. A management philosophy coupled with business processes, practices, and tools that are
applied to the entire portfolio of infrastructure assets at all levels in the organization.
2. A sequential optimization process that continuously improves the infrastructure inventory,
condition, performance, and maintenance knowledge of each asset in the water main
distribution system.
3. A management practice to a) minimize the total life-cycle cost of owning and operating
infrastructure assets, b) deliver the desired levels of service and performance, and
c) maintain an acceptable level of risk to the or ganization.
2.2 Benefits Derived From Asset Management
Achieving the lowest life-cycle cost for a given infrastructure asset requires informed decisions on the
appropriate levels of maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and the ultimate replacement and disposal of an
asset. Asset management provides the framework for making appropriate decisions on the investments
required for rehabilitation, repair, or replacement of an asset. Asset management allows a utility to shift
from a reactive infrastructure management approach that relies primarily on staff experience and
knowledge, to a more proactive approach that predicts asset investment requirements as a means to
achieve and fund sustainable infrastructure. As an asset management program evolves in an
organization, it incorporates detailed asset inventories, operation and maintenance functions, and long-
range financial planning to build system capacity, and it puts systems on the road to sustainability.
A number of benefits can be derived from an effective asset management program:
1. Support rehabilitation, repair, and replacement decisions through prolonged asset life
2. Achieve performance demands through a sustainable system
3. Develop capital, operations, and maintenance costs based on sound data
4. Determine long-term budget forecasts with a focus on sustainability
5. Meet service expectations and regulatory requirements
6. Improve emergency response
7. Reduce overall costs for operations and capital expenditures
8. Prioritized approach to asset inspection and renewal
2.3 USEPA Asset Management Principles
The USEPA has developed asset management principles and practices for the water utility industry. The
USEPA asset management principles are centered on a framework of five core questions, which provide
the foundation for many asset management best practices:
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 2-3
1. What is the current state of the asset?
2. What is the required "sustainable" level of service?
3. Which assets are critical to sustained performance?
4. What are the minimum life-cycle costs?
5. What is the best long-term funding strategy?
These five principles form the basis for the USEPA’s Ten-Step Process for advanced asset management
illustrated in Figure 2-2. This initial AMP effort for the City’s water distribution system focuses on an
assessment of existing assets for prioritized renewal.
Figure 2-2: USEPA Ten-Step Advanced Asset Management Process
As the City’s asset management program evolves, it will provide a decision framework that includes
planning, engineering, construction, operations, and maintenance. Asset management is not a software
program or a concept limited to a single project or program. It is a coordinated action plan that will help
the City to consistently deliver the desired levels of customer service at acceptable life-cycle costs.
2.4 Goals for the Asset Management Plan
The City’s goal in developing an AMP is to provide a clear picture of its exis ting water main distribution
system assets and to assess the future investments needed to sustain performance of the system. The
AMP consolidates the currently available information about the City’s existing water main assets into a
single, concise document. The AMP defines the intended asset management strategies for infrastructure
assets based on the City’s understanding of customer requirements, regulatory compliance issues, and
the ability of the assets to meet performance goals. The AMP can also serve as a communication tool
between the City, regulators, and stakeholders. This initial AMP represents the beginning of a dynamic
planning process and should be routinely updated to account for system improvements and changes in
the condition of the City’s water assets.
The AMP provides a rational framework that the City can use in moving forward to make decisions on its
water distribution system investments, based on the following:
Step 1
Develop Asset
Registry
Step 2
Performance
Assessment
Step 3
Determine
Residual Life
Step 4
Determine
Replacement
Costs
Step 5
Identify
Performance
Levels
Step 6
Conduct Risk
Analysis
Step 7
Optimize O&M
Investment
Step 8
Optimize
Capital
Investment
Step 9
Develop
Funding
Strategy
Step 10
Prepare AM
Plan
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 2-4
1. An inventory of all water main assets that the City owns and their required performance
levels
2. An estimate of the value of each asset based on its replacement cost
3. The current and future requirements for water main assets, with a focus on those assets
most critical for providing service to the City’s customers
4. An estimate of the short-term and long-term financial investments necessary to maintain the
water main assets at their required level of performance
5. An assessment of the relative business risk exposure for the City’s water main system
assets, to prioritize more detailed evaluations and options for asset renewal
The AMP provides the baseline asset inventory, condition evaluation, and risk of failure analysis for the
City’s water main system assets. Development of the detailed system inventory has progressed the City
towards an asset-centric management program with the ability to maintain system integrity and
performance on an asset-by-asset basis.
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 3-1
3. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM INVENTORY
The development of an inventory of the individual assets in the system is the first key step in any asset
management program. Per the scope of this project, a detailed asset inventory was developed for the
City’s water distribution system main assets.
The detailed asset inventory was developed using existing data and information obtained through the
City’s geographic information system (GIS), geocoded work order data, the staff knowledge workshop,
and staff communication and feedback. The basic steps involved in developing the asset inventory
included:
1. Identifying and organizing sources of inventory data
2. Defining the unique asset identifiers
3. Developing the asset inventory using the existing unique asset identifiers
4. Identifying data gaps and completing asset data tables
5. Developing the asset data through review, gap-filling, and data refinement
Available data that helped to characterize the assets, such as size, material type, and other attributes
were collected as the asset inventory was developed. A sum mary of the data and information collected
for each asset is described in the following section. There were seven essential pieces of information
common to all assets that were developed during the inventory process:
1. Asset identification – a unique number assigned to each asset based on the City’s
database standard asset numbering convention [PPMID].
2. Asset owner – ownership data is essential to the proper selection of water mains to be
evaluated as part of the AMP.
3. Year installed and asset age – age is a critical factor in evaluating the current state of an
asset relative to its overall life cycle.
4. Asset material – asset material is an indication of common deterioration or aging
characteristics.
5. Asset useful life – average useful life data were developed based on industry standards
adapted for the City’s system by operations and maintenance staff.
6. Asset remaining useful life – Average useful life minus the current asset age.
7. Asset replacement cost – Opinions of probable replacement value were estimated for each
asset and included in the overall inventory.
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 3-2
The asset inventory effort created an essential first snapshot of data required to manage the City’s water
main infrastructure on an asset-centric basis. The City can now build on the foundation of this initial
inventory effort. An asset management business process will need to be established to maintain asset
data and incorporate any changes or improvements made to each asset in the City’s system. In general,
the City’s GIS inventory is well organized and contains few information gaps.
3.1 Asset Inventory Data
Much of the inventory data compiled was gathered from the City’s GIS. Asset inventory efforts also
included the City’s geocoding of work order data, which were used during the likelihood and consequence
of failure analyses. All pipelines were scored and assessed at the individual asset level. Valves were not
used for any part of this analysis.
3.1.1 Age, Material, and Size Distribution
An asset identification number is used to associate asset condition and characteristics, such as material
and age, with each individual pipeline. The City provided the established asset ID numbering system
which was used throughout the analysis (PPMID). It is recommended that the City continue to use these
asset IDs to maintain and improve asset data, as well as manage each asset.
Material type was included in the City’s data for all of the distribution system mains. Eight different pipe
materials are represented in the distribution system; the percentage of pipe material by length is shown in
Figure 3-1. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) has historically been a commonly used distribution pipe material,
representing about 73 percent of the system by length. A smaller percentage of ductile iron (DI), 17.2%, is
used throughout the system, and the remaining system materials consist of reinforced concrete cylinder
pipe (RCCP), cast iron (CI), prestressed concrete cylinder pipe (PCCP), asbestos cement, steel, and
copper. A detailed tabular summary of the material distribution of pipelines is provided in Appendix A.
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 3-3
Figure 3-1: Distribution System Pipe Material (By Pipe Length)
PVC
73.5%
DI
17.2%
RCCP
6.7%
CI
2.4% Other
0.2%
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 3-4
Distribution line diameter was also included in the GIS data provided by the City. T he size distribution of
the system pipelines is summarized in Figure 3-2. The majority of the system is comprised of 8-inch
diameter pipe, which accounts for 55.9 percent of the system. Nearly 90 percent of the system is
comprised of pipelines with a diameter of 12-inches or smaller.
Figure 3-2: Distribution System Pipe Size in Inches (By Pipe Length)
The age of a pipeline is critical for understanding its condition. P ipe installation dates were available for all
assets within the City’s GIS data. The installation years based on pipe material are shown below in Table
3-1.
0.8%
11.5%
55.9%
19.2%
11.2%
1.3%
<6
6
8
10-12
16-30
36-48
Pipe Diameter
(Inches)
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 3-5
Table 3-1: Pipe Installation Years Based on Material
Pipe Material
First Year of
Installation
Most Recent
Installation Year
Total Linear Feet
Installed in System
Ductile Iron (DI) 1972 2014 184,479
Reinforced Concrete Cylinder Pipe (RCCP) 1956 2010 71,484
Cast Iron (CI) 1965 1984 25,886
Prestressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe (PCCP) 1988 1997 1,259
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) 1967 2017 787,932
Asbestos Cement 1977 1977 677
Steel 1990 1990 417
Copper 2001 2001 247
TOTAL 1,072,381
A tabular summary of the age distribution of pipelines is shown in Appendix A. An age distribution pie
chart is shown in Figure 3-3, and the pipelines are color coded by age in Figure 3-4. Additionally, Figure
3-5 shows the total pipe length currently in the ground. Most of the system is categorized as 21 to 40
years old, and about 71 percent of the system is characterized as 21 years or older. The maximum
pipeline age in the system is 63 years old, installed in 1956. The largest expansion of active lines in the
City’s distribution system in a single year occurred in 1985 when just over 16 miles were installed.
Figure 3-3: Distribution System Age in Years (By Pipe Length)
11.9%
17.1%
30.3%
35.7%
5.0%
2-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
41-63
Pipe Age
(Years)
1320 S. University Dr., Suite 300Fort Worth, TX 76107
Figure 3-4: Water Main Age
Coppell Water Asset Management Plan
0 3,500 7,0001,750
Feet
¹
4/2/2019 Document Path: F:\projects\0816\006-01\2-0 Wrk Prod\2-9 GIS\MXD\Report Figures\Figure3-4 Water Main Age.mxdWater M ain Age (Years)
0 - 15
16 - 25
26 - 35
36 - 45
46 - 54
Coppell City Boundary
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 3-7
Figure 3-5: Distribution System Pipe Length (Age and Material)
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
Linear Feet Installed Installation Year
Other CI RCCP DI PVC
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 3-8
3.1.2 Water Valves and Fire Hydrants
Water distribution valves and fire hydrants are an integral part of the City’s water distribution system. The
City’s GIS database includes an inventory of all the water distribution system valves and hydrants,
amounting to 5,425 valves and 2,927 hydrants. The water valves and hydrants were not evaluated
individually or included in this AMP.
3.1.3 Data Review
As a part of the AMP analysis, the GIS and work order data provided by the City were checked for
accuracy. A description of the GIS feature layers used in the risk assessment is provided in Appendix B.
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 4-1
4. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM CONDITION E VALUATION
Establishing the condition of each asset is a key to understanding the overall state of the water main
system assets. The initial, top-down assessment of asset condition reported herein was applied to
approximately 200 out of the 203.1 miles of distribution system pipeline assets provided by the City. After
meeting with City staff to discuss the distribution system data, the City requested to exclude assets with a
diameter of less than four inches and a raw water line to North Lake, which resulted in the exclusion of
approximately 3.1 miles of pipe. The remaining data, along with staff knowledge, were used to develop an
overall system condition evaluation. Asset condition data were developed from available operation and
maintenance data and from the results of a staff knowledge workshop held on November 19, 2018.
Through the staff knowledge workshop, operations and maintenance staff shared hands-on knowledge
and experience in dealing with individual assets. The condition data available for each asset were then
incorporated into an overall system condition evaluation.
4.1 Staff Interview Results
Through the staff knowledge workshop, the feedback provided by twelve Coppell staff members included
a ranking of water maintenance issues, an identification of issues within the City’s system, and a
prioritization of the water mains. Staff members were asked to rank a variety of industry standard water
distribution operations and maintenance issues from 1 to 10 relative to their experience, with 10 being the
most significant issue and 1 being the least significant issue. Figure 4-1 provides the average rankings by
City staff for the most frequently encountered maintenance issues . Meters and service lines followed by
valves and water leaks were ranked highest by the staff.
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 4-2
Figure 4-1: Maintenance Issues Ranked by City Staff
Staff members were then asked to identify in their own words the top five performance issues
encountered within the City’s water distribution system. The individual results were grouped into similar
performance issue categories. Figure 4-2 shows the relative ranking (total number of times the issue was
identified by staff as a problem) as an indicator of significance. Valves, low use, and the age of the
system were identified most frequently as a cause of poor performance for the water system.
Following identification of the top operation and maintenance issues, the staff members were asked to
identify in their own words the top five ways that the City can improve its water distribution system. Figure
4-3 shows that valve maintenance followed by flushing and addition of an offsite chlorination system were
identified as the most useful system improvements. Full responses from the staff surveys are included in
Appendix C.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Storage Tanks
Pump Stations
Customer Water Quality
Internal Pipe Corrosion
Pipe Joints
Main Breaks
External Pipe Corrosion
Water Leaks
Valves
Meters & Service Lines
Average City Employee Rank
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 4-3
Figure 4-2: Poor System Performance Reported by City Staff
Figure 4-3: Improvements Suggested by City Staff
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Soil Movement
PVC Parts
Other
Leaks
Low Usage
System Age
Valves
Number of Times Reported
0 1 2 3 4
Other
Service Lines
Inspection and Maintenance
Offsite Chlorination System
Flushing
Valve Maintenance
Number of Times Reported
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 4-4
4.2 Compilation of Available Condition Data
In lieu of actual condition inspection data, data from other sources were compiled to provide an indication
of system condition and performance. The data consisted of information that was gathered as part of the
staff knowledge workshop, historical work order data, hydraulic modeling data, and other system
performance data.
4.2.1 Staff Condition Scores
The water system operations staff members were asked to rate the condition of the water distribution
system assets according to a grid system overlaid on the distribution system (Figure 4-4). The staff
scores were then averaged to produce a condition score by grid cell. Staff members assigned condition
scores for grid cells using the condition descriptions listed below.
Score 1 – Good Condition: Pipe is in good structural shape, no breaks or leakage, major rehab
or replacement will not be needed for at least 10 years.
Score 2 – Fair Condition: Normal pipe wear but structurally sound, may have some minor
leakage or other problems, and will probably need work within the next 10 years.
Score 3 – Poor Condition: Structural issues, leakage or breaks are a concern, and other
problems are common; should be rehabilitated or replaced within the next 5 years.
The results of the staff scoring are summarized in Table 4-1. Figure 4-4 provides a map of the results for
all assets. Map scores and completed interviews from City staff are provided in Appendix C.
Table 4-1: Staff Opinion of Condition Scores
Average Score Range Assets
Linear Feet %
1. Good Condition - green 1.0 to 1.5 454,104 43.0%
2. Fair Condition - >1.5 to 2.5 394,540 37.4%
3. Poor Condition - red >2.5 to 3.0 207,570 19.6%
The green, yellow, and red coding for asset condition and risk scores indicates good, fair, or poor
condition, respectively. The condition scoring is relative to the City’s system, meaning that most of the
pipelines in the red grid squares are believed to be in the poorest condition of the City’s system and most
of the pipelines in the green grid squares are believed to be in the best condition in the system. Though
the condition scoring may not be entirely representative of the system because the scoring is subjective
and because the pipelines are grouped for ease of scoring, the intent is to capture and quantify the staff’s
institutional knowledge of the distribution system condition in the absence of condition data from
individual inspection of assets.
1 432
98765
11
23 24
10
16
30
32 33
18 19 20 21 22
31
34
2928272625
1715141312
1320 S. University Dr., Suite 300Fort Worth, TX 76107
Figure 4-4: Staff Condition Assessment Results
Coppell Water Asset Management Plan
¹
0 3,500 7,0001,750
Feet
Map Grid
Staff Input Ave rage Sc ores
Good (1.0 to 1.5)
Fair (>1.5 to 2.5 )
Poor (>2.5 to 3.0)
Water Distribution System
3/29/2019 Document Path: F:\projects\0816\006-01\2-0 Wrk Prod\2-9 GIS\MXD\Report Figures\Figure4-4 Staff Assessment.mxd
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 4-6
4.2.2 Performance of Pipeline Assets
Three criteria were used to assess the historical performance of the water distribution system:
4.2.2.1 Number of Main Break Repair Work Orders
In general, maintenance work orders are an indication of maintenance repair intensity and provide an
indication of overall performance. The City provided APAI with distribution system work orders recorded
between 1997 and 2016. The work orders were filtered to only include responses to main breaks. After
filtering, 154 water main breaks were identified between 2000 and 2013. This work order data was not
tied to a specific asset ID number, but rather to a mailing address. APAI created a GIS file from the main
break work orders by geocoding based on address and assigning the work order to the closest pipe. A
map of the work orders is illustrated in Figure 4-5.
4.2.2.2 Customer Aesthetic W ater Quality Complaints
Aesthetic water quality complaints can also be used to assess performance of the distribution system.
The work order database from the City was filtered to only include complaints related to visual color
quality of the water as well as taste and odor problems. A total of 271 complaints were logged between
1997 and 2016. A map of water quality complaints is provided in Figure 4-6.
It is difficult to determine a trend from the water quality complaint data, though a couple comments could
be noted. Very few complaints were recorded in the extreme western edge of the City, which is
dominated by commercial and industrial properties with little residential area. Additionally, it is surprising
to note that relatively few complaints have been recorded in the immediate area surrounding Duck Pond
Park, which contains some of the oldest pipes in the City. It appears that the largest grouping of customer
complaints has occurred in the northeast corner of the City.
4.2.2.3 Hydraulic performance
Model results from the City’s hydraulic model were used to identify areas with high water pressure.
Specifically, the City wanted to identify areas with pressure greater than 80 pounds per square inch (psi)
during an average day. The City is more concerned about areas with high pressure putting strain on the
water pipelines. During the average day scenario, the model indicated that pressures above 80 psi
typically occurred north of Sandy Lake Road and east of Mockingbird Lane (Figure 4-7).
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
1320 S. University Dr., Suite 300Fort Worth, TX 76107
¹
0 3,500 7,0001,750
Feet
Figure 4-5: Main Breaks
Coppell Water Asset Management Plan
!(Main Breaks
Water Distribution System
Coppell City Boundary
4/2/2019 Document Path: F:\projects\0816\006-01\2-0 Wrk Prod\2-9 GIS\MXD\Report Figures\Figure4-5 Main Breaks.mxd
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
1320 S. University Dr., Suite 300Fort Worth, TX 76107
¹
0 3,500 7,0001,750
Feet
Figure 4-6: Water Quality Complaints
Coppell Water Asset Management Plan
!(Water Quality Complaints
Water Distribution System
City Boundary
4/2/2019 Document Path: F:\projects\0816\006-01\2-0 Wrk Prod\2-9 GIS\MXD\Report Figures\Figure4-6 Customer Complaints.mxd
1320 S. University Dr., Suite 300Fort Worth, TX 76107
¹
0 3,500 7,0001,750
Feet
Figure 4-7: Modeled Water Pressure
Coppell Water Asset Management Plan
Modeled Pressure
<=80 psi
>80 psi
Lines not Modeled
City Boundary
4/2/2019 Document Path: F:\projects\0816\006-01\2-0 Wrk Prod\2-9 GIS\MXD\Report Figures\Figure4-7 Water Pressure.mxd
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 4-10
4.3 Condition Evaluation – Conclusions
The initial data collection, asset inventory, and performance assessment provided the foundation for the
risk analysis and prioritization of the City’s buried infrastructure. There were no significant gaps in the
data provided by the City, and therefore ample data was available to complete the risk analysis portion of
the Asset Management Plan.
Updates to the Coppell water system asset inventory and attribute data are provided along with the asset
management plan as electronic deliverables. These data should be incorporated in the City’s asset
information management systems. Validation and updating of the asset inventory data should be
maintained as an asset management business process. The data can be enhanced through field
inspections and other data management initiatives. The condition evaluation and risk assessment will
assist the City in targeting the buried assets that require additional field inspection, repair, and
rehabilitation.
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 5-1
5. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM RISK ASSESSMENT
5.1 Risk Assessment Process
For most utilities, it is a challenge to prioritize asset replacement or rehabilitation and to set the timeline
for renewal actions. A business risk assessment can help a utility establish renewal priorities for its
existing assets. The business risk assessment is a standard approach used in advanced asset
management to better manage an individual asset across its entire economic life. The risk assessment
considers the condition of an asset in terms of how likely it is to fail, and it factors in the consequence of
failure of the asset. The following section sum marizes the business risk assessment conducted for the
City’s distribution system assets.
The objective of the business risk assessment process is to quantify the asset’s risk of failure (ROF) using
the equation shown in Figure 5-1:
Figure 5-1: Risk of Failure Equation
The Likelihood of Failure (LOF) assesses an asset’s ability to meet the intended level of service. The
Consequence of Failure (COF) measures the potential impact that an asset failure may have on utility
customers and the surrounding area. Consequence of f ailure is generally related to location. It relates the
impact of asset failure to repair cost, disruption to the public and economy, impairment of system
operation, regulatory compliance, public health and safety, and environmental damage.
The nine-step process shown in Figure 5-2 was used to develop the business risk assessment step in the
USEPA’s ten-step asset management process. As highlighted in the green boxes, this process offered
City staff several opportunities to provide input to the risk assessment and to validate results.
Risk of Failure Likelihood of
Failure
Consequence
of Failure = x
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 5-2
Figure 5-2: Business Risk Assessment Process
LOF and COF components were selected by City staff to develop a custom risk matrix for the water main
system. Table 5-1 and Table 5-2 provide a summary of the water main LOF and COF risk matrix
components and weighting factors. The staff participated in selecting the specific weights that were
applied to each component in the overall risk analysis. To validate the risk scoring approach, detailed
scoring tables for the water main system were developed and reviewed by City staff to define the data
sources and methodology. The detailed scoring tables are provided in Appendix D. The LOF and COF
parameters are based on the data available as well as industry standards for evaluating distribution
system condition and performance. The LOF and COF parameters considered include:
Likelihood of Failure:
1. Staff Opinion – Staff opinion is based on the information provided in the staff knowledge
workshop and is used to assess pipeline likelihood of failure based on its condition.
2. Age – The age of the pipe provides an indication of the asset’s remaining useful life.
3. Material – The pipe material provides an indication of the asset’s theoretical useful life.
4. Number of Main Breaks – The number of main breaks provides information on typical locations
and issues with the distribution system that require pipeline maintenance or replacement, and
may indicate which pipelines are more susceptible to failure.
Prepare Asset
Database
Develop Risk
Matrix with
Utility
Finalize Asset
Database
Refine Risk
Matrix &
Scoring
Review Asset
Component
Scoring
Perform Initial
Risk Analysis
Perform Final
Risk Analysis
Post-
Prioritization
Processing
Finalize Asset
Database
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 5-3
5. Number of Water Quality Complaints – The number of water quality complaints also provides
information on typical locations in the distribution system that may require pipeline maintenance
or replacement, and which pipelines may be more susceptible to failure.
6. Modeled Pressure – Pipelines experiencing high water pressure on an average day were
assigned a higher likelihood of failure score due to the sustained exposure to high pressure.
7. Soil Corrosion of Concrete – This parameter indicates that a pipeline manufactured with concrete
may be more susceptible to failure because the line resides in soils that are prone to external
concrete corrosion.
8. Soil Corrosion of Metal – This parameter indicates that a pipeline manufactured with metal may
be more susceptible to failure because the line resides in soils that are prone to external metal
corrosion.
Consequence of Failure:
1. Public Health and Safety – Maintaining public health and safety is a priority for water system
operation. Pipeline diameter and the land use of the surrounding area are used to represent
public health and safety in the event of pipeline failure.
2. Utility Employee Safety – This parameter represents the potential safety risks to maintenance
personnel with repairing or maintaining a pipeline based on its diameter and burial depth.
3. Modeled Demand – The hydraulic model was used to identify the amount of water flowing
through each asset. Pipelines conveying higher flows were scored with a higher consequen ce of
failure score, since a failure could cause a larger disruption in service.
4. Proximity to Roads and Railroads – This parameter represents the consequence of distribution
pipeline failure near a railroad or a road based on the road type, as well as pipe line diameter.
Pipes failing near a major road will inherently have a higher consequence than a pipe failing near
a local, neighborhood road.
5. Critical Service – Loss of service to critical facilities including schools, clinics, storage tanks, and
pumping stations is represented by this parameter. Additionally, the top five water users were
identified from the hydraulic model and assigned a critical status.
6. Customer Loss of Revenue – This parameter represents the consequence of loss of water
system service to commercial and industrial customers, as this could require business shut
downs or could reduce business revenue.
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 5-4
The risk scoring was conducted in a GIS environment using database tools to compute a risk score for
each individual asset, based on the risk matrix scoring tables and geospatial attributes. The risk results
are presented as a composite LOF and COF score and an ROF score. The se are generated for each
pipeline asset with a diameter greater than or equal to four inches.
Table 5-1: Water System Likelihood of Failure Components and Weighting Factors
Likelihood of Failure (LOF) Parameter Weight
Staff Opinion 30%
Age 20%
Material 15%
Number of Main Breaks 10%
Modeled Pressure 5%
Number of Water Quality Complaints 5%
Soil Corrosion of Concrete 7.5%
Soil Corrosion of Metal 7.5%
TOTAL 100%
Table 5-2: Water System Consequence of Failure Components and Weighting Factors
Consequence of Failure (COF) Parameter Weight
Public Health and Safety 25%
Utility Employee Health Safety 25%
Modeled Demand 15%
Proximity to Roads and Railroads 15%
Critical Service 15%
Customer Loss of Revenue 5%
TOTAL 100%
Results from the water main system risk analysis are provided in a variety of formats. The generic risk
result matrix in Figure 5-3 shows an example of the typical red, yellow, and green color -coding used to
communicate risk results on both charts and maps. Red denotes high risk and indicates the assets
assigned a top priority for further evaluation and detailed field inspection, which is recommended to
identify repairs and forecast when a comprehensive rehabilitation program may be required. Yellow
denotes the medium risk assets which should be inspected and evaluated within the next ten years.
Green represents the low risk assets which should be monitored and reevaluated when updates are
made to the renewal forecast. As assets age, LOF scores will normally increase. In contrast, COF scores
do not change over time unless the environment surrounding the asset changes.
Preliminary risk results for water mains were reviewed with the City staff on March 19, 2019. Based on
staff feedback, adjustments were made to the risk matrix scoring table for Modeled Pressure, where the
average day scenario was used in the model instead of the maximum day scenario to better represent the
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 5-5
water main system conditions and risk of failure. Other updates included refinement of pipe material in an
area which was incorrectly categorized in the database.
The final risk scores for water mains were calculated and plotted to indicate the relative state of the
assets in each ROF category. For each LOF and COF category, a map book with score distribution plots
is provided in Appendix E. The composite ROF score for each asset provided the basis for prioritizing or
ranking the assets for future inspection and evaluation. The final risk results were compiled and used to
develop the near-term inspection recommendations.
Likelihood of Failure Score
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Consequence of Failure Score 10
9 High Risk:
Requires near term attention
– investigation and repair
program for future
rehabilitation
8
7
6
5 Medium Risk:
4 Requires future
3 Low Risk:
Periodically monitor,
assess, and update
LOF scores for future
renewal
assessment
2
1
Figure 5-3: Sample Risk Results Matrix
5.2 Distribution System Risk Results
A detailed risk analysis for the distribution system was developed based on the scoring tables shown in
Table 5-1 and Table 5-2. The analysis used a GIS-based risk scoring tool that was customized for
Coppell to compute the LOF, COF, and ROF scores for each of the 10,427 water main line segments in
the system.3 All risk analysis results are unique to the City’s system. This is due to the specific input data
available for the risk analysis, the customized risk matrix parameters, and the customized risk scoring
3 Count of water line segments excludes lines under four inches in diameter and the raw water line to North Lake.
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 5-6
weights. Because of the specificity that is inherent to the risk analysis, the City’s risk results should not be
directly compared with risk results for other cities or water utilities.
Following the City’s review of the preliminary risk scoring results, adjustments and refinement were made
to the scoring tables before the final calculation of risk results. Figure 5-4 shows the risk results profile for
water main assets, in terms of total linear footage in the City’s distribution system. Assets were
segregated into the three risk categories (Low, Medium, and High) by sorting the risk scores from highest
to lowest and designating the top 5 percent (by length) as High, middle 45 percent as Medium, and lower
50 percent as Low.
Figure 5-4: Risk Profile – Water Lines
Figure 5-5 displays the breakpoints selected for relative risk categories, as well as the ove rall risk results
for the 10,427 line segments included in this analysis. The line segments with risk scores in the lower
50%, or less than 0.78, were placed in the Low risk category. Line segments with risk scores in the
middle 45%, or between 2.53 and 0.78, were placed in the Medium risk category. Line segments with
overall risk scores in the upper 5%, which is greater than 2.53, were placed in the High risk category. The
highest ranking pipelines should be inspected in the near term to evaluate the need for line maintenance,
rehabilitation, or replacement.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Consequence of Failure Likelihood of Failure
High (upper 5%)
Medium (middle 45%)
Low (lower 50%)
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 5-7
Figure 5-5: Relative Risk Breakpoints – Water Lines
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Risk Score Middle 45%
Length = 476,753 ft
Lower 50%
Length = 523,892 ft
Upper 5%
Length = 52,843 ft
Risk Score >2.53
Risk Score >0.78
Max Risk Score = 3.97
Cumulative Length
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 5-8
The final risk results were sorted and prioritized according to ROF scores, with the highest score assigned
the rank of 1. The draft risk results and ranks were reviewed with City staff in a post-prioritization
workshop on March 19, 2019. The water main assets designated as High risk are identified in Appendix
F.
Figure 5-6 provides a map summary of the water main risk results, along with supplemental risk score
distribution plots and information. For additional details, the map book and score distribution summaries
for each LOF and COF risk category are provided in Appendix E.
0 0.5 10.25 Miles ¯Coppell Water Distribution SystemFigure 5-6: Risk Results Summary
Risk Score
Low (0.205 to 0.784)
Medium (>0.784 to 2.52525)
High (>2.52525 to 3.965)
Legend
Risk Equation
The combined Risk Score is calculatedby multiplying each asset's COF score bythe LOF score and then dividing theproduct by 10. The top 5% of risk scores(by length) are designated as "High" risk.The middle 45% of risk scores aredesignated as "Medium" risk. The bottom50% are designated as "Low" risk.
Definition
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 6-1
6. ASSET MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
This initial AMP provides the basis to implem ent an advanced AMP for the City’s distribution system.
Development of a comprehensive water main inventory provides the initial step to allow the City to track
and manage individual pipeline assets by unique identification numbers. The asset inventory is housed in
a GIS risk geodatabase (RiskAssessment_Water.gdb) that will be delivered electronically to the City and
provides a substantial amount of attribute data for each asset. Key asset management data including
age, useful life, remaining useful life, and opinions of probable replacement cost have been recorded and
refined for each asset. Available physical and performance data are also included in the asset inventory.
The initial asset condition assessment relied heavily on staff knowledge and experience, as well as on the
available performance data. LOF, COF, and ROF scores are also largely based on top -down or desk top
data. A reliance on input from the people who know the system best provides a level of assurance that
these initial results can be used to target the highest priority assets for routine mainten ance, inspections,
and repairs.
Full implementation of a water distribution system AMP will take a number of years to complete. The work
completed in this project should be viewed as the initial step in a process to develop a long-term program.
Asset management is typically developed through a process of continuous impr ovement. Based on the
USEPA’s 10 steps to implement an asset management process, Table 6-1 summarizes the asset
management work accomplished thus far. A summary of the next steps for implementation is provided in
the final column of the table. Policies and business practices associated with document and information
management, asset management information systems, operations and maintenance integration, and
strategic decision-making should be developed to support continued implementation and improvement of
the overall asset management process.
6.1 Asset Information Management
The City’s GIS database, in conjunction with the work order information software, will be the primary
information management system used to monitor the distribution system assets. The risk parameter
attributes and scores, composite risk scores, replacement costs, and other data that were developed and
refined in the risk geodatabase should be incorporated or linked to the City’s geodatabase. A process to
link the maintenance and performance data in the City’s work order system to the GIS should be
established to maintain asset history based on each asset’s unique identification number (PPMID).
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 6-2
Table 6-1: Accomplishments and Next Steps for Asset Management Implementation
USEPA 10-Step
Advanced Asset
Management
Process
Asset Management Components
Completed in Initial Development
of the Coppell Asset Management
Plan
Asset Management Steps for the
Continued Development of an
Asset Management Program
Step 1. Develop
Asset Registry
Added and refined key asset
attribute data.
Transfer or link the attribute data
inventories to the City’s GIS and
continue to verify, expand, update,
and add inventory data. Develop a
process to update system changes.
Step 2. Asset
Performance
Assessment
Initial condition and performance
assessments were completed and
documented.
Begin more detailed condition
assessments of priority assets and
analyze their potential failure modes.
Step 3. Determine
Residual Life
Asset age and survival curve data
were developed as the basis for
determining asset residual life.
Validate age and useful life data.
Identify conditions that can impact the
useful life of pipes.
Step 4. Determine
Replacement Costs
Initial asset replacement costs were
developed for all assets in the
inventory, as presented in Section 7.
Validate and update replacement cost
data.
Step 5. Set Target
Levels of Service
Initial asset performance data were
compiled and used in the condition
assessment.
Develop target service levels to help
measure progress towards asset
management goals and objectives.
Step 6. Conduct
Risk Analysis
Risk matrices were developed with
LOF and COF components, weights
and scoring criteria. A baseline
business risk assessment was
performed for all assets.
Link or incorporate the ROF data into
GIS and develop a business process
to update and maintain LOF, COF,
and ROF data current in the system.
Step 7. Optimize
O&M Investment -
Link existing work order and
maintenance data into system
inventories and individual pipeline
assets in the GIS inventory.
Step 8. Optimize
Capital Investment
Developed initial capital investment
strategy based on ROF prioritization
of the assets, as presented in
Section 7.
Update the near-term capital
investment program based on the
results of additional field
investigations.
Step 9. Determine
Funding Strategy -
Develop and summarize near-term
capital funding requirements for the
City. Analyze the impact of the
various funding options on the service
rates, tax rates, and long-term
investment requirements.
Step 10. Build AMP The initial AMP was developed. Develop a process to update the AMP
on a five-year cycle.
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 6-3
6.2 Asset Management Business Processes
The AMP components developed in this project cover the initial phase of asset management
development for the City’s distribution system. As the AMP is implemented further, physical inspections
and other condition performance measures can be used to refine the baseline data developed in the AMP
and improve the City’s assessment of the remaining useful life and renewal options for all of its water
system assets.
The initial baseline data summarized in this plan can be enhanced through the development or refinement
of a number of asset management business practices as summarized in the following:
1. Asset Inventory Updates – The updated distribution system asset inventory will be
maintained in the existing GIS database. Validation and updates of the asset inventory data
should be an ongoing process. Field inspection data should be added to the City’s data
development plans.
2. Asset Condition and Failure Assessments – Validation and update of asset condition data
should be continued through maintenance information and field inspections. More detailed
asset failure analyses can be developed for high risk assets.
3. Performance Data Updates – The City’s work order database should be linked to the asset
inventory geodatabase in GIS to enhance the ability to collect and evaluate performance,
service, maintenance, and other asset management data. Once the City’s GIS is updated
from the asset inventory and risk results geodatabase (RiskAssessment _Water.gdb),
guidance on which fields to link should be directed by the new and refined data fields listed in
tabular format for water main polylines (Appendix B).
4. Integrate Operation and Maintenance Practices - The initial distribution system asset
management plan focuses on asset inventories, condition assessment, and risk assessments
to develop capital renewal plans. As the program develops, operations and maintenance
information should be associated with assets for updating performance and to optimize O&M
costs on an asset basis. O&M cost should be combined with the capital cost projections for a
total asset cost forecast.
5. Update Asset Risk Assessment – Performance data combined with inspection and
rehabilitation data should be used to update LOF and COF scores and reprioritize assets
based on new ROF scores.
6. Refine Replacement Costs and Useful Life Data - Tracking asset replacements as they
occur will help update and customize the survival curve projections and actual replacement
cost data. This will allow for a more refined analysis in future years.
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 7-1
7. ASSET INSPECTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN
Based on information presented in previous sections, annual recommendations have been developed to
guide a near-term inspection program (NTIP). The inspection program results will guide a strategic
investment to support long-term repair and rehabilitation of the City’s water distribution system, as well as
to improve the integrity of key data attributes for these assets.
The importance of a NTIP as part of a comprehensive asset management plan must be emphasized. A
study prepared for the USEPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Standards and Risk
Management Division reports that the rate of water main deterioration is not a function of the age of pipe
material. Rather, deterioration results from the cumulative effect of the external forces acting on the pipe
material.4 The Likelihood of Failure evaluation conducted for the City’s AMP heavily weights material and
age due to that information being available at this time. However, the City needs to gather additional and
current condition information to better predict failures.
7.1 Near-Term Inspection Program
The work identified in the proposed NTIP will take place over the next ten years (2020-2029) and focus
on inspecting water mains and their associated valves and fire hydrants. The recommended process for
the NTIP is described below:
The total length of pipelines inspected annually was limited to approximately 53,000 feet (10 miles). By
limiting the annual inspection rate to this value, all of the High risk assets will be inspected during the first
year. By the end of the ten year program, all of the Medium risk assets will be inspected as well.
Due to the operational challenges, logistics, and expense associated with internal inspection of active
water mains and/or taking lines out of service, a two-tiered approach to water main and valve inspection
is recommended:
1. The first tier inspections should consist of above-ground, acoustic leak detection methods. These
methods allow the water mains and valves to remain in service during the inspection and are
relatively inexpensive, allowing for basic condition assessment of a larger number of wat er mains
and valves. First tier inspections should be used to locate potential leaks as well as closed and
undocumented valves, and to identify areas of the water distribution system that may require
internal inspection. As part of the first tier inspectio ns, air and inline valves along with fire
hydrants should be inspected and exercised, and any required maintenance should be
4 Deteriorating Buried Infrastructure Management Challenges and Strategies. United States Environmental Protection
Agency, 2002. Accessed April 8, 2019.
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 7-2
performed. These proactive maintenance measures confirm that valves and hydrants are in good
working order and can help to reduce the consequence of pipeline failure due to malfunctioning
valves or gas pockets.
2. The second tier inspections should consist of internal inspection methods, which can provide
additional information about a pipe but are usually more intrusive and expensive. I nternal
inspection methods include both tethered and free-swimming technologies that are inserted within
the pipe to gather information such as pipe wall thickness, internal condition, and video footage.
Second tier inspections are recommended to further investigate pipe segments in the water
distribution system that are flagged by first tier methods for potential leaks, unacceptable pipe
wall thickness, or malfunctioning valves. For the purposes of the NTIP, five percent of assets
inspected using first tier methods are anticipated to require second tier inspections. Following the
first full year of high risk asset inspections, all of the inspection data that has been gathered
should be used to calibrate and refine the risk assessment matrix and scoring, as well as to guide
the rehabilitation and replacement of water mains.
The Near-Term Inspection Program for the water main system is summarized in Table 7-1 with ten years
of annual assignments and a total cost of $1,701,000. The proposed pipelines to be inspected are shown
in Figure 7-1.
Table 7-1: System Inspection 10-Year Plan – Water Mains, Valves, and Hydrants
Inspection
Year
Risk Rank1
Total
Footage
(LF)
Water
Valves
(Approx.
#)
Fire
Hydrants
(Approx.
#)
Opinion of
Probable
Cost2,3
High Risk
Assets
Inspected
(%)
Medium
Risk
Assets
Inspected
(%)
2020 1 to 297 52,302 226 37 $157,000 100% 0%
2021 298 to 737 52,771 299 55 $181,000 0% 11%
2022 738 to 1,145 52,668 248 55 $166,000 0% 11%
2023 1,146 to 1,547 52,146 237 43 $161,000 0% 11%
2024 1,548 to 2,173 52,640 245 79 $169,000 0% 11%
2025 2,174 to 2,639 52,469 249 83 $171,000 0% 11%
2026 2,640 to 3,095 52,754 232 68 $164,000 0% 11%
2027 3,096 to 3,633 51,452 218 78 $159,000 0% 11%
2028 3,634 to 4,160 52,728 282 87 $181,000 0% 11%
2029 4,161 to 4,767 52,798 307 113 $192,000 0% 11%
TOTAL 524,728 2,543 698 $1,701,000 100% 100%
1 To facilitate field inspection, assets may be located and sorted by the RiskRank field in the GIS database deliverable.
2 Planning level opinions of probable cost adapted from 2016 PURE estimates. 5% of assets inspected using first tier methods ar e
anticipated to require second tier inspections. Average unit costs (2019 dollars) are $0.80/LF for external acoustic leak detection,
$8.20/LF for internal leak detection (Smartball, Tethered), $216/each for valve assessment, and $109/each for hydrant assessment.
Probable cost includes a 10% addition for engineering support, a 15% addition for City staff support, and a 10% addition for site
preparation.
3 All costs are presented in 2019 dollars.
1320 S. University Dr., Suite 300Fort Worth, TX 76107
Figure 7-1: Near Term Inspection Plan
Coppell Water Asset Management Plan
0 0.5 10.25 Miles ¹
Inspection Year
2020
2021
2022
2023-2029
2030+
City Boundary
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 7-4
The water distribution s ystem NTIP for 2020 through 2029 focuses on assessing the physical condition of
the High and Medium risk water main assets with their associated valves and hydrants, as well as the
data integrity of these assets in the City’s GIS records. Through these efforts, asset defects will be
identified, and funding will need to be secured to address rehabilitation and replacement needs.
In addition to identifying any required system repairs, condition assessments will provide a unique
opportunity to verify and refine the integrity of primary GIS data for all water main assets. Refinement of
the GIS data will translate into enhanced accuracy during each risk score and ranking update for the
City’s water main assets.
The following are key data that should be recorded during the water main, water valve, and hydra nt
inspections. These data should be updated in the City’s GIS records for inclusion in the risk score
calibration exercise:
Water Main Inspections
Unique identifier of asset (PPMID)
Condition evaluation using a uniform pipeline assessment system
Number of defects per line
Age
Diameter
Material
GIS text field for hyperlink to detailed inspection data or video
Water Valve/Hydrant Inspections
Unique identifier of the valve/hydrant asset
Unique identifiers of connecting pipelines (PPMID)
Condition evaluation via uniform valve/hydrant assessment criteria
Description of defects per valve/hydrant
The initial year of the NTIP should be viewed as a risk score calibration period. The condition evaluation
for assets inspected by the end of the first year should be cr itically evaluated against this AMP risk score
and rank. If many of the highest risk assets in the system are found to be in poor condition and in need of
rehabilitation or repair, then the City’s risk scoring matrix and weights may not need much refinemen t.
However, if the highest risk assets are found to be in mixed or better condition and appear to have
substantial useful life remaining, then the risk scoring matrix and weights should be adjusted. After
appropriate adjustments are made, the risk scores and ranks should be re-evaluated before proceeding
with the second year condition assessment activities.
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 7-5
An integral component of this NTIP is a timely and consistent review of the condition assessment data as
they are produced, to make any appropriate determinations of potential asset renewals. Actions may be
categorized as follows:
Asset in good condition – no action.
Asset shows sporadic or isolated defects – consider point repairs
Asset shows significant deterioration – prioritize asset for engineering review (internal or external)
to determine best renewal action; determine opinion of probable construction cost and add to
CIP.
Asset shows severe defects – schedule for emergency repair.
Although it is impossible to predict the number and degree of defects to be found during the inspection
program, the AMP does provide some guidance with regard to the possible costs. The Long -Term
Investment Program, as detailed in the following section, provides a preliminary approximation of the level
of rehabilitation costs the City will be facing over future years. Additionally, the opinion of probable cost
prepared for each pipeline as part of the long-term analysis provides the City with both an initial opinion of
the cost for rehabilitation and also a possible rehab ilitation method to utilize in the asset renewal, for
those lines that exhibit significant defects upon inspection.
7.2 Long-Term Investment Plan
The long-term investment plan (LTIP) forecasts the pace and magnitude of long-term (50-year)
investment needed to sustain the City’s water system assets into the future. The LTIP is designed to
predict the level of asset repair, rehabilitation, or replacement required to maintain standards of customer
service and system performance over the coming decades. The LTIP analysis looks at cohorts, or broad
categories, of assets that have similar useful lives and degradation profiles. This high-level overview of
the system is used to forecast costs based on industry replacement data, and it provides justification for
budgetary targets relative to the City’s current investment in its assets. Given that many utilities have
fallen behind with their system renewal efforts, the LTIP can provide the motivation to maintain more
informed renewal budgets over time. It can also help communicate to stakeholders the value of the
existing infrastructure assets and the renewal investment required to sustain those assets in the long -
term.
A long-term investment analysis was conducted for the water main assets. The assets were grouped by
pipe material, assuming that similar pipe materials will have comparable aging characteristics. For each
pipe material group, or cohort, survival function curves were developed based on industry standards.
These curves were adjusted by City staff to reflect t he City’s specific experience. Survival function curves
are based on the number of years from installation to the time when:
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 7-6
1. 100% of the original assets would still be functional, or the number of years until the first major
asset failure.
2. 50% of the assets would still be in service without replacement or substantial rehabilitation, or the
average useful life of the asset group.
3. 10% of the original assets would still be in service without replacement or substantial
rehabilitation, which essentially represents maximum useful life of the asset group.
Figure 7-2 shows the survival functions developed for water main assets in the City’s water distribution
system, which consist of the following pipe materials: PVC, DI, CI, PCCP, RCCP, asbestos cement, and
steel.
Figure 7-2: Survival Functions – Water Mains
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 25 50 75 100 125Percent Pipe Still in Service Pipe Age (years)
PVC
DI
CI, STEEL
PCCP, RCCP,
ASBESTOS
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 7-7
7.2.1 Replacement and Rehabilitation Costs
General replacement and rehabilitation costs for the distribution system were developed using data from
construction cost resource guides and from a variety of regional Alan Plummer Associates, Inc. (APAI)
pipeline projects. A general opinion of probable construction cost was developed for each line segment
based on diameter, depth, and an assumed construction method. The open-cut construction method for a
depth of 0 to 10 feet was selected for the replacement cost. The resulting costs were converted to 2019
dollars and applied to the City’s system to provide an opinion of probable replacement cost for each line
segment. Appendix F provides a table of replacement and rehabilitation costs for the high risk water main
assets in the City’s system, and Appendix G provides the cost basis that was used. The preliminary
opinion of probable cost to replace pipelines for the entire water main distribution system is $216 million.
A general rehabilitation cost was also developed for each line segment and serves as a lower bound to
the opinion of probable cost. The rehabilitation cost was based on diameter, burial depth, material, length,
and pavement coverage. Pavement coverage was estimated according to the primary road class that is
associated with each line segment. The resulting costs are presented in 2019 dollars. The preliminary
opinion of probable cost to rehabilitate the entire distribution system is $187 million.
7.2.2 Pipeline Asset Survival Trends
The long-term trends in the water main pipelines are largely governed by the type of material in the
system and by the differing time periods in which it was installed. The influence of CI, DI, and RCCP pipe
with their shorter life spans will impact renewal rates for the next three decades, while PVC and other
noncorrosive pipe materials are expected to last for decades with minimal renewal requirements . As
discussed previously, the City’s distribution system is predominantly categorized (73 percent) as PVC,
according to the City’s GIS database. Earlier in the report, Table 3-1 summarized the number of pipelines
installed in the City’s water system, grouped by material.
The distribution of water main pipes by material and the anticipated end of service year are illustrated in
Figure 7-3. The average end of service year is based on the current pipe age, the pipe material, and the
material survival curves developed for the City.
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 7-8
Figure 7-3: Anticipated End of Service Life
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
19811986199119962001200620112016202120262031203620412046205120562061206620712076208120862091209621012106Cumulative Percentage of Length Failed - by Material Annual Length Failing, Linear Feet PVC DI RCCP Other**Other pipe materials include Asbestos
Cement, Cast Iron, PCCP, and Steel
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 7-9
Projections for the average end of service year for all water main pipelines, along with the preliminary
opinion of probable replacement and rehabilitation cost per year for the next 10 0 years, are shown in
Figure 7-4. The individual pipe data presented in these figures was adjusted using the survival curves
(Figure 7-2) to quantify the length of pipe still in service at 100%, 50%, 10%, and 0% of the anticipated
service life. The replacement costs (2019 dollars) are based on recent APAI water pipeline projects and
cost data from RSMeans construction cost guides. The rehabilitation costs reflect the most cost -effective
method appropriate for each asset. Figure 7-3 and Figure 7-4 indicate that the City may be somewhat
behind in replacing those water main assets that have reached the end of their anticipated service life.
The City has approximately 100,000 LF of water mains in the ground that have exceeded their anticipated
useful life. A certain amount of catch-up in water asset rehabilitation and/or replacement may, therefore,
be required. This catch-up cost is estimated to be between $21.3 million and $36.6 million (Figure 7-4).
As displayed in Figure 7-4, the actual cost of the pipeline renewal is expected to be bracketed by the cost
of replacement (solid line) as an upper bound, and the cost of rehabilitation (dashed line) as a lower
bound.
Figure 7-4: Anticipated End of Service and Replacement Cost Projections
$36.6
$21.3
$-
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
Base Replacement Costs x Millions of Dollars (2018) Cost of Replacement
Cost of Rehabilitation
CUMULATIVE 2019
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 7-10
7.2.3 Pipeline Asset Forecast
With the completion of this study, the City is well positioned to implement an ongoing asset management
program to proactively manage future infrastructure rehabilitation or replacement. For most municipal
water systems, the distribution system pipelines account for the largest portion of the replacement costs.
Although not evaluated in this analysis, valve, pump s tation, and fire hydrant assets add a level of
variable investment on top of the replacement of water main assets.
Shifting the annual forecast data for the water main grouped assets forward to 2020 and beyond provides
the current 100-year renewal forecast. This long-term forecast will help the City manage the projected
asset replacement costs going forward and the trends that explain variability in future needs. The LTIP
forecast can help the City to establish appropriate rates to fund its ongoing investme nt in water
infrastructure and adjust capital programs to dampen some of the peak years in the forecast.
To establish a conservative catch-up cost, the total projected water main replacement costs from 1986 to
2019 ($33 million) were distributed over the next 25 years (2020-2044) and added to the annual projected
replacement costs (Figure 7-5). The 50-year average replacement cost with catch-up for the water main
system is approximately $3,427,000 per year. These costs are in 2019 dollars and will need to be
increased to account for inflation when budgeting for future years. It is important to note that these costs
only account for replacing existing pipelines and do not include costs for future growth to new
developments.
These long-term forecasts are based on projected pipe survival curves and opinions of probable asset
replacement costs in 2019 dollars. These forecasts can aid in predicting future trends that may help
dampen out high and low investment years and approach a stable investment profile . The specific line
segments to be replaced in future near-term capital improvement programs should be based on
prioritized risk rankings. Ongoing inspections, maintenance, and repair histories will provide better insight
into the long-term performance of the various pipe materials. These data can be used to validate the
assumed useful life and survival curve data and update the long-term forecast.
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 7-11
Figure 7-5: Annual Replacement Cost with Catch-Up Contribution – Water Mains
$-
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$-
$1.0
$2.0
$3.0
$4.0
$5.0
$6.0
Replacement Cost x Millions of Dollars (2019) Replacement Costs x Millions of Dollars (2019) Catch Up Annual Replacement Cost 50-Year Average Investment Cumulative Replacement Cost
ANNUAL CUMULATIVE
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 8-1
8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the age and material of the existing pipeline inventory, the City of Coppell has a number of
prospective pipeline replacement and rehabilitation projects that will need to be addressed to renew its
aging water distribution infrastructure. The current short-term plan of targeting those pipelines that
present the highest risk of failure and the greatest impact to system performance is an excellent first step
in addressing pipeline infrastructure renewal needs. However, over the next 50 years this plan will not
eliminate the City’s projected pipeline renewal needs. Continued investment in the City’s water main
infrastructure will be required to avoid further degradation of the system.
The funding gap for water system infrastructure is a national issue. This analysis provides a good
snapshot that reinforces the need to increase the City’s investment in its pipeline infrastructure and the
need to sustain that investment for the foreseeable future.
Implementing the Near-Term Inspection Program will significantly increase the City’s knowledge of its
infrastructure inventory, condition, and life expectancy. Actionable data and information gathered though
the detailed field inspection program can be used to refine the results of the Long-Term Investment Plan.
In conclusion, these are the recommended next steps for successful management of water main assets:
Asset Inventory Updates – The updated water main system asset inventory will be maintained in
the City’s existing GIS database. Validation and refinement of the asset inventory data should be an
ongoing process. The field inspection data for all water mains should be added to the City’s data
development plans.
Asset Condition and Failure Assessments – Validation and update of asset condition data should
be continued through the maintenance information and field inspections. More detailed asset failure
analyses can be developed for high risk assets.
Performance Data Updates – Work order data should be linked to the asset inventory geodatabase
in GIS to enhance the ability to collect and evaluate performance, service, maintenance, and other
asset management data. Once the City’s GIS is updated from the asset inventory and risk results
geodatabase (RiskAssessment_water.gdb), guidance on which fields to link between the City’s GIS
and work order databases should be directed by the new and refined data fields listed in tabular
format for water main polylines (Appendix B).
Integrate Operation and Maintenance Practices – The initial water main distribution system asset
management plan focuses on asset inventory, condition assessment, and risk assessment to develop
capital renewal plans. As the program develops, operations and maintenance information should be
tied to assets for updating performance and to optimize O&M costs on an asset basis. O&M cost
should be combined with the capital cost projections for a total asset cost forecast.
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
April 2019 Page 8-2
Update Asset Risk Assessment – Performance data combined with current inspection,
rehabilitation, and replacement data can be used to update LOF and COF scores and reprioritize
assets based on new ROF scores. It is recommended to perform this step annually.
Refine Replacement Costs and Useful Life Data – Tracking asset replacements as they occur will
help update and customize the water main system survival curve projections and actual replacement
cost data. This will allow for a more refined analysis in future years.
Optimize Capital Investment – Update the Near-Term Inspection Program based on the results of
additional field investigations. The work identified in the proposed inspection program focuses on the
work categories of water main and valve above-ground and internal inspections. These will identify
the need and extent of asset renewal activities such as valve/hydrant rehabilitation, water main point
repairs, and water main rehabilitation or replacement.
Determine Funding Strategy – Develop and summarize near-term capital funding requirements for
Coppell. Analyze the impact of the various funding options on the service rates, tax rates, and long -
term investment requirements.
Build and Apply the AMP – Develop a process to update the AMP after the initial year, and then on
a five-year cycle going forward. Leverage the AMP and the LTIP analysis to communicate to
stakeholders the value of the existing infrastructure assets and the renewal investment required to
sustain those assets in the long-term.
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
APPENDIX A. ASSET CHARACTERISTIC S
ASBESTOS CI COPPER DI PCCP PVC RCCP STEEL
1956 12,060 12,060 1.12%
1965 51 51 0.005%
1967 7,322 4,218 11,540 1.08%
1971 1,953 1,953 0.18%
1972 5,331 5,331 0.50%
1975 5,650 5,650 0.53%
1976 1,417 1,361 3,404 6,182 0.58%
1977 677 2,706 3,383 0.32%
1978 6,183 863 7,046 0.66%
1979 29,537 439 29,976 2.80%
1980 3,940 12,335 881 2,102 19,258 1.80%
1981 22 38,135 14,805 52,962 4.94%
1982 23,267 21 23,288 2.17%
1983 14,638 14,638 1.37%
1984 11 20,676 39,844 182 60,713 5.66%
1985 32,151 52,140 234 84,524 7.88%
1986 18,582 13,579 32,161 3.00%
1987 4,295 11,024 15,319 1.43%
1988 5,917 32 14,399 29,413 49,762 4.64%
1989 4,804 6,170 10,975 1.02%
1990 947 671 7,551 417 9,586 0.89%
1991 53,149 53,149 4.96%
1992 452 24,827 25,280 2.36%
1993 8,119 52,295 60,414 5.63%
1994 17,903 17,903 1.67%
1995 3,738 37,776 41,515 3.87%
1996 400 10,486 10,887 1.02%
1997 3,883 556 37,391 41,830 3.90%
1998 2,905 39,418 11,247 53,570 5.00%
1999 29,965 12,548 42,513 3.96%
2000 17,634 17,634 1.64%
2001 247 24,906 25,153 2.35%
2002 21,582 21,582 2.01%
2003 2,631 2,631 0.25%
2004 8,293 8,293 0.77%
2005 95 21,486 21,581 2.01%
2006 146 17,676 17,822 1.66%
2007 16,921 16,921 1.58%
2008 9,389 9,389 0.88%
2009 11,498 11,498 1.07%
2010 17,819 294 18,113 1.69%
2011 1,974 1,974 0.18%
2012 13,396 13,396 1.25%
2013 14,884 14,884 1.39%
2014 13 23,107 23,120 2.16%
2015 13,697 13,697 1.28%
2016 2,733 2,733 0.25%
2017 28,541 28,541 2.66%
Total 677 25,886 247 217,146 1,259 755,265 71,484 417 1,072,382 100.00%
Percent 0.06%2.41%0.02%20.25%0.12%70.43%6.67%0.04%100.00%
Notes:
This table includes all water lines within the Coppell distribution system GIS database delivered on 10/01/2018.
A.1: Age Distribution - Water Mains
Length (LF) of Pipe by MaterialYear
Installed
Total Length
(LF)Percent
Appendix A: Page 1 of 2
ASBESTOS CI COPPER DI PCCP PVC RCCP STEEL
1 247 16 470 733 0.07%
2 9 2,323 25 2,357 0.22%
3 1,017 1,017 0.09%
4 135 1,518 3,263 4,916 0.46%
6 677 13,534 46,385 62,955 145 123,696 11.53%
8 12,218 71,462 515,778 218 599,676 55.92%
10 11,934 14,613 26,547 2.48%
12 35,826 134,930 8,601 179,357 16.73%
16 46,877 19,762 5,906 72,545 6.76%
24 3,119 163 153 33,515 21 36,971 3.45%
30 30 11,014 11,044 1.03%
36 809 397 1,206 0.11%
42 12,060 12,060 1.12%
48 257 257 0.02%
Total 677 25,886 247 217,146 1,259 755,265 71,484 417 1,072,382 100.00%
Percent 0.06%2.41%0.02%20.25%0.12%70.43%6.67%0.04%100.00%
Notes:
This table includes all water lines within the Coppell distribution system GIS database delivered on 10/01/2018.
Length (LF) of Pipe by MaterialPipe Size
(in)
Total Length
(LF)Percent
A.2: Material Distribution - Water Mains
Appendix A: Page 2 of 2
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
APPENDIX B. GEODATABASE ROADMAP
Num.Type Description
1 Polygon This feature layer shows the City boundary
2 Polygon This feature layer was provided by the City and contains
polygon features of water bodies.
3 Polyline This feature layer was provided by the City and contains
polylines of railroads traversing the City.
4 Polyline
This is the main feature layer where the risk assessment is
performed. APAI did not modify any of the existing fields in
the feature layer, but rather, appended additional fields onto
the feature layer. The fields for this feature layer are
described below in Table B.2
4 Polygon
This feature layer was provided by the City and displays
polygons of the 19 different zones in the City limits. APAI
simplified these into five different zones in the "ZoneCode"
field.
5 Polygon This feature layer was developed by APAI and divides the
City's distribution system into 34 diffferent grid squares
6 Point
Historical work order records were provided to APAI in the
form of an Excel spreadsheet with addresses. APAI
developed this feature layer by geo-locating the work orders
as points based on the work order address. This layer only
includes work orders pertaining to water main breaks.
7 Polygon This feature layer was developed by APAI and displays
polygons with different soil characteristics.
8 Polyline This feature layer was provided by the City and displays
municipal streets within the City and their speed limit.
9 Point This feature layer was developed by APAI and identifies
critical facilities in the City as points.
10 Point Work orders pertaining to water quality complaints were
extracted from the work order records delivered to APAI.
11 Polyline This feature layer was obtained from the hydraulic model
provided by the City and contains the model results.
Feature Layer Name
Table B.1 - Feature Layers in RiskAssessment_Water.gdb
WaterLinesExportedFromModel
Coppell_WaterQuality_WorkOrders
Coppell_Grid_System
Coppell_SoilTypes
Coppell_Streets
Coppell_Water_Critical_Locations
Coppell_City_Boundary
Coppell_DBO_Hydrology
Coppell_DBO_Railroad
Coppell_DBO_Zoning
Coppell_DBO_Water_Main
Coppell_MainBreak_WorkOrders
Appendix F: Page 1 of 3
Num.Field Name City Field or
APAI Field?Data Type Description
1 OBJECTID City --
2 Shape City --
3 FNODE_City Double -
4 TNODE_City Double -
5 LPOLY_City Double -
6 RPOLY_City Double -
7 LENGTH City Double -
8 WATER_LN_City Double -
9 WATER_LN_I City Double -
10 DIA City Double Diameter of each pipeline segment. This field is referenced
by the risk assessment python scripts.
11 COMMENTS City String -
12 PLANS City String -
13 MATERIAL City String -
14 YEAR1 City String -
15 SUBDIV City String -
16 INSTALLED City Date -
17 GRID City String -
18 PLAN_DATE City Long
Installation date of pipe segment. This field is referenced by
the risk assessment python scripts to calculate the age of the
pipeline. -
19 PLAN_City String -
20 LOCATION City String -
21 CLASS City String -
22 LEGEND_DIA City Long -
23 FISCALYR City String -
24 PPMID City String -
25 PPNUM City Long -
26 LASTEDITOR City String -
27 LASTUPDATE City Date -
28 Shape_Length City Double This field calculates the length of each pipe segment, in feet.
This field is referenced throughout the risk assessment.
29 GridNum APAI Short Python tool assigns value to this field based on the physical
location of the pipe in the City's collection system.
30 StaffOpinionInt APAI Short Python tool assigns value to this field based on the grid ID
number assigned to the asset in the GridNum field.
31 AgeYrs APAI Short Python tool assigns value to this field based on the asset's
age of installation in the PLAN_DATE field.
32 NumBreaks APAI Short
33 PressurePSI APAI Short
If the asset was included in the hydraulic model, a python
script copies the asset's modeled pressure from the
"WaterLinesExportedFromModel" feature layer and pastes
the value into this field. If the asset was not modeled, the
python script assigns the asset a value of 0.
Table B.2 - Description of Fields in Water Pipeline Feature Layer
Appendix F: Page 2 of 3
Num.Field Name City Field or
APAI Field?Data Type Description
Table B.2 - Description of Fields in Water Pipeline Feature Layer
34 NumComplaints APAI Short Python tool counts the number of water quality complaints
within 200 feet of the asset.
35 ConcreteCorrosion APAI String
Python tools assigns value to this field based on the soil type
where the asset is buried. The Python tool uses the
"ConcCorr" field in the "Coppell_SoilTypes" feature class in
its analysis.
36 SteelCorrosion APAI String
Python tools assigns value to this field based on the soil type
where the asset is buried. The Python tool uses the
"SteelCorr" field in the "Coppell_SoilTypes" feature class in
its analysis.
37 SimplifiedZone APAI String
Python script assigns value to each asset based on the zone
where the asst resides, according to the "ZoneCode" field in
the "Coppell_DBO_Zoning" feature layer.
38 DemandGPM APAI Short
If the asset was included in the hydraulic model, a python
script copies the modeled FLOW through the asset from the
"WaterLinesExportedFromModel" feature layer and pastes
the value into this field. If the asset was not modeled, the
python script assigns the asset a value of 0.
39 NearbyRoad APAI String
A python tool assigns a value to each asset for this field
based on the closest road within 50 feet of the asset from the
"Coppell_Streets" feature layer.
40 CritServiceDesignation APAI String
The value for this field is assigned by a python script that
searches for any points in the "Coppell_Critical_Locations"
feature layer within 300 feet of each asset.
41 StaffOpinionScore APAI Short Score assigned by Python script based on scoring tables.
42 AgeYrsScore APAI Short Score assigned by Python script based on scoring tables.
43 MATERIALScore APAI Short Score assigned by Python script based on scoring tables.
44 NumBreaksScore APAI Short Score assigned by Python script based on scoring tables.
45 PressurePSIScore APAI Short Score assigned by Python script based on scoring tables.
46 NumComplaintsScore APAI Short Score assigned by Python script based on scoring tables.
47 ConcreteCorrosionScore APAI Short Score assigned by Python script based on scoring tables.
48 SteelCorrosionScore APAI Short Score assigned by Python script based on scoring tables.
49 PublicHealthScore APAI Short Score assigned by Python script based on scoring tables.
50 UtilitySafetyScore APAI Short Score assigned by Python script based on scoring tables.
51 DemandGPMScore APAI Short Score assigned by Python script based on scoring tables.
52 RoadScore APAI Short Score assigned by Python script based on scoring tables.
53 CritServiceScore APAI Short Score assigned by Python script based on scoring tables.
54 CustomerLossScore APAI Short Score assigned by Python script based on scoring tables.
55 LOF APAI Short Score assigned by Python script based on scoring tables.
56 COF APAI Short Score assigned by Python script based on scoring tables.
57 RiskScore APAI Double Score assigned by Python script based on scoring tables.
58 RiskRank APAI Long Python script sorts assets based on their RiskScore and
assigns an ascending rank.
59 Material_Revised APAI String
Material of each pipeline segment. This field is referenced by
the risk assessment python scripts. This is slightly revised
from the MATERIAL field supplied by the City. Some
pipelines near the Sandy Lake lift station were changed from
PVC to DI per City direction. However, APAI did not want to
revise the City's field.
60 Risk_5050 String Relative overall risk of asset.
61 InspectionYear Short Proposed year to be inspected according to the Near Term
Inspection Plan
62 ConstructionCosts APAI Long Inserted from the Long Term Investment Plan
63 RehabilitationCosts APAI Long Inserted from the Long Term Investment Plan
64 AvgEndServiceAge APAI Short
Year at which 50% of pipelines are expected to have failed.
Based on survival curves presented in report by pipe
material.
65 AvgEndServiceYear APAI Short Equal to PLAN_DATE plus AvgEndServiceAge
Appendix F: Page 3 of 3
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
APPENDIX C. STAFF INTERVIEWS AND MAP SCORES
Appendix C: Page 1 of 31
Appendix C: Page 2 of 31
Appendix C: Page 3 of 31
Appendix C: Page 4 of 31
Appendix C: Page 5 of 31
Appendix C: Page 6 of 31
Appendix C: Page 7 of 31
Appendix C: Page 8 of 31
Appendix C: Page 9 of 31
Appendix C: Page 10 of 31
Appendix C: Page 11 of 31
Appendix C: Page 12 of 31
Appendix C: Page 13 of 31
Appendix C: Page 14 of 31
Appendix C: Page 15 of 31
Appendix C: Page 16 of 31
Appendix C: Page 17 of 31
Appendix C: Page 18 of 31
Appendix C: Page 19 of 31
Appendix C: Page 20 of 31
Appendix C: Page 21 of 31
Appendix C: Page 22 of 31
Appendix C: Page 23 of 31
Appendix C: Page 24 of 31
Completed by:
Mike Garza
Appendix C: Page 25 of 31
Completed by:
Jerry Davis
Appendix C: Page 26 of 31
Completed by:
Danilo Dimafelix
Appendix C: Page 27 of 31
Completed by:
Dennis Lindley
Appendix C: Page 28 of 31
Completed by:
Jason Trimmer
Appendix C: Page 29 of 31
Completed by:
Roman Finazzo
Appendix C: Page 30 of 31
Completed by:
Jeff Graham
Appendix C: Page 31 of 31
Completed by:
Corey Bufford
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
APPENDIX D. DETAILED SCORING TABLES
Water Distribution System Detailed Scoring Tables
PARAMETER A._Staff opinion B_Age C_Material D_Break Repair History
DATA Water feature class Fields Water feature class Fields Water feature class Fields Water feature class Fields
Staff opinion StaffOpinion Age AgeYrs Material Material_Revised # Breaks NumBreaks
StaffOpinionScore AgeYrsScore MATERIALScore NumBreaksScore
GROUP LOF LOF LOF LOF
SUMMARY
SCORE TABLE StaffOpinion StaffOpinionScore AgeYrs AgeYrsScore Material_Revised MATERIALScore NumBreaks NumBreaksScore
Good (1 - 1.5)1 > 0 – 10 1 PVC 1 1 2
Fair (> 1.5 - 2.5)5 > 10 – 20 3 PCCP 3 2 to 5 6
Poor (> 2.5 - 3)10 > 20 – 30 5 RCCP 3 > 5 10
<null>5 > 30 - 40 7 STEEL 5 <null>1
> 40 - 50 9 ASBESTOS 5
> 50 10 CI 7
<null>5 COPPER 10
DI 10
<null>5
City staff members assigned a condition score to
each grid in the City's system. Scores for each grid
were averaged together.
A score is assigned to each asset based on the
asset's installation date recorded in the GIS data.
A material score is assigned to each asset
based on the asset's material of
construction. Materials that the City has
experienced failing faster are given a higher
score.
Main breaks occuring between 2000 and 2013 were
extracted from the City's work order system and
assigned to the closest asset based on the address
of the work order. The assets were scored according
to the number of breaks that occurred.
Appendix D: Page 1 of 6
Water Distribution System Detailed Scoring Tables
PARAMETER
DATA
GROUP
SUMMARY
SCORE TABLE
E_Modeled Pressure F_Water Quality Complaints G_Soil Corrosion of Concrete
Water feature class Fields Water feature class Fields Water feature class Fields
Pressure PressurePSI # Complaints NumComplaints Soil Type Material_Revised
PressurePSIScore NumComplaintsScore ConcreteCorrosion
ConcreteCorrosionScore
LOF LOF LOF
PressurePSI PressurePSIScore NumComplaints NumComplaintsScore Material_Revised ConcreteCorrosion ConcreteCorrosionScore
> 90 7 1 2 Low 3
> 80 to 90 7 2 to 5 6 Moderate 7
> 70 to 80 1 > 5 10 High 10
> 60 to 70 1 <null>1 Low 1
<= 60 1 Moderate 1
<null>1 High 1
PCCP, RCCP, or
Asbestos Cement
Others
The modeled pressure score based on the hydraulic
model results for pressure of pipe segments in the
average day, model scenario. Pipes not modeled
were assigned a <null> score.
Water quality complaints were extracted from
the City's work order data and assigned to the
nearest asset to the address associated with the
complaint. Complaints include reports of odor,
cloudy water, or poor taste. The complaints
were registered between 1997 and 2016.
Soil Corrosion of Concrete is computed for the Consequence of Failure
(COF) calculation, based on the pipe segment being located in concrete
corrosion prone soils, as defined by the United States Department of
Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Appendix D: Page 2 of 6
Water Distribution System Detailed Scoring Tables
PARAMETER
DATA
GROUP
SUMMARY
SCORE TABLE
H_Soil Corrosion of Metals I_Public Health Safety J_Utility Employee Health Safety
Water feature class Fields Water feature class Fields Water feature class Fields
Soil Type Material_Revised Diameter DIA Diameter DIA
SteelCorrosion Zoning feature class SimplifiedZone UtilitySafetyScore
SteelCorrosionScore Zoning PublicHealthScore
LOF COF COF
Material_Revised SteelCorrosion SteelCorrosionScore DIA SimplifiedZone PublicHealthScore DIA UtilitySafetyScore
Low 3 0 to 8 3 0 to 8 2
Moderate 7 > 8 to 24 5 > 8 to 16 4
High 10 > 24 to 36 7 > 16 to 36 6
Low 1 > 36 8 > 36 10
Moderate 1 0 to 8 5 <null>4
High 1 > 8 to 24 7
> 24 to 36 9
> 36 10
0 to 8 3
> 8 to 24 5
> 24 to 36 7
> 36 8
0 to 8 5
> 8 to 24 7
> 24 to 36 9
> 36 10
0 to 8 3
> 8 to 24 5
> 24 to 36 7
> 36 8
0 to 8 2
> 8 to 24 3
> 24 to 36 3
> 36 3
Unknown
Industrial
Commercial
Agricultural
Steel, Copper, Cast
Iron, or Ductile Iron Single Family
Residential
Others
Multiple Family
Residential
Soil Corrosion of Metals is computed for the Consequence of
Failure (COF) calculation, based on the pipe segment being
located in metal corrosion prone soils, as defined by the United
States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
Public Health and Safety Score is computed for the
Consequence of Failure (COF) calculation, based on
the diameter (inches) and the zoning designation of
the pipeline.
Utility Employee Health and Safety Score is
computed for the Consequence of Failure (COF)
calculation, based on the diameter (inches) of the
pipeline.
Appendix D: Page 3 of 6
Water Distribution System Detailed Scoring Tables
PARAMETER
DATA
GROUP
SUMMARY
SCORE TABLE
K_Modeled Demand L_Proximity to Roads and Railroads M_Critical Service
Water feature class Fields Water feature class Fields Water feature class Fields
Demand DemandGPM Diameter DIA Serve critical facilities CritServiceDesignation
DemandGPMScore Roads/Railroads feature class NeabyRoad buffer = 300 ft CritServiceScore
Road class RoadScore
buffer = 50 ft
COF COF COF
DemandGPM DemandGPMScore DIA NeabyRoad RoadScore CritServiceDesignation CritServiceScore
0 to 100 2 0 to 8 7 Critical service 10
>100 to 500 4 > 8 to 24 8 Top Water Users 5
>500 to 2000 6 > 24 to 36 9 none 1
>2000 10 > 36 10
<null>2 0 to 8 7
> 8 to 24 8
> 24 to 36 9
> 36 10
0 to 8 2
> 8 to 24 3
> 24 to 36 4
> 36 5
0 to 8 2
> 8 to 24 3
> 24 to 36 4
> 36 5
Major Arterial (35-50
MPH)
Local
( <35 MPH)
UNKNOWN
Freeway, Railroad
( >50 - 70 MPH)
Critical facilities within the City limits were identified by City staff. Critical facilities
include clinics, schools, water towers, ground storage tanks, and pump stations.
Assets within 300 feet of the critical facilities are designated as critical assets and
are given a high consequence of failure (COF) score. Additionally, the top five
water users in the City were identified using the hydraulic model. Assets within
300 feet of these users were assigned a higher COF score as well.
Proximity to Roads and Railroads Score is computed for the
Consequence of Failure (COF) calculation, based on the diameter
(inch) and road type that intersects or is within 50 feet of the
pipe segment. Pipe segments that do not have a road within 50
feet are assigned a low criticality score, equivalent to the scores
for pipe segments near local roads.
Demand Score is computed for the Consequence of
Failure (COF) calculation, based on an estimate of the
water conveyed in GPM, according to the hydraulic
model demands for the pipe segment in the buildout
maximum day model scenario. If the pipe segment is
not included in the hydraulic model, it is assigned a
score of 2.
Appendix D: Page 4 of 6
Water Distribution System Detailed Scoring Tables
PARAMETER
DATA
GROUP
SUMMARY
SCORE TABLE
N_Customer Loss of Revenue
Water feature class Fields
Comm. & Industr. Cust.SimplifiedZone
CustomerLossScore
COF
SimplifiedZone CustomerLossScore
Commercial 10
Industrial 10
Other 1
The Customer Loss of Revenue Score is calculated
based on the zoning designation of the land where the
asset is located. Zones defined as industrial and
commercial may suffer loss revenue if water service is
disrupted.
Appendix D: Page 5 of 6
Water Distribution System Detailed Scoring Tables
PARAMETER
DATA
GROUP
SUMMARY
SCORE TABLE
O_Likelihood of Failure P_Consequence of Failure Q_Risk Score and Rank
Water feature class Fields Water feature class Fields Water feature class Fields
Parameter scores LOF Parameter scores COF LOF LOF
Weights Weights COF COF
Expression = [LOF x COF] / 10 RiskScore
RiskRank
LOF COF RISK SCORE
LOF Parameter Weight (%)COF Parameter Weight (%)
StaffOpinionScore 30%PublicHealthScore 25%
AgeYrsScore 20%UtilitySafetyScore 25%
MATERIALScore 15%DemandGPMScore 15%
NumBreaksScore 10%RoadScore 15%
PressurePSIScore 5%CritServiceScore 15%
NumComplaintsScore 5%CustomerLossScore 5%
ConcreteCorrosionScore 7.5%TOTAL 100%
SteelCorrosionScore 7.5%
TOTAL 100%
The Likelihood of Failure (LOF) score is calculated by multiplying an
asset's score for each LOF parameter in the Scoring Table below by a
weighting factor and then adding the products together. The purpose of
the weighting factors is to account for the fact that some parameters
are better indicators of an asset's LOF than other parameters. The
weighting factors were developed in a workshop with City Staff.
The Consequence of Failure (COF) score is calculated by multiplying
an asset's score for each COF parameter in the Scoring Table below
by a weighting factor and then adding the products together. The
purpose of the weighting factors is to account for the fact that
some parameters are better indicators of an asset's COF than other
parameters. The weighting factors were developed in a workshop
with City Staff.
The combined Risk Score is calculated by multiplying
each asset's COF score by the LOF score and then
dividing the product by 10. The top 5% of risk scores
(by length) are designated as "High" risk. The middle
45% of risk scores are designated as "Medium" risk.
The bottom 50% are designated as "Low" risk.
Appendix D: Page 6 of 6
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
APPENDIX E. PARAMETER SCORE MAP SUMMARIES
0 0.5 10.25 Miles ¯Coppell Water Distribution System A: Staff Opinion
Score
1
5
10
Staff Opinion
Low (1.0 to 1.5)
Medium (>1.5 to 2.5)
High (>2.5 to 3.0)
Legend
Scoring Table
City staff members assigned a condition score to each grid in the City's system. Scores for each grid were averagedtogether.
Definition
0 0.5 10.25 Miles ¯Coppell Water Distribution System B: Age
Score
1
3
5
7
9
10
Legend
Scoring Table
A score is assigned to each assetbased on the asset's installation daterecorded in the GIS data.
Definition
0 0.5 10.25 Miles ¯Coppell Water Distribution System C: Material
Score
1
3
5
7
10
Legend
Scoring Table
A material score is assigned to eachasset based on the asset's materialof construction. Materials that theCity has experienced failing fasterare given a higher score.
Definition
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
0 0.5 10.25 Miles ¯Coppell Water Distribution SystemD: Break Repair History
!(Main Break Work Orders
Score
1
2
6
10
Legend
Scoring Table
Main breaks occuring between 2000and 2013 were extracted from theCity's work order system and assignedto the closest asset based on theaddress of the work order. The assetswere scored according to the numberof breaks that occurred.
Definition
0 0.5 10.25 Miles ¯Coppell Water Distribution SystemE: Modeled Pressure
Pipelines not ModeledScore17
Legend
Scoring Table
The modeled pressure score basedon the hydraulic model results forpressure of pipe segments in theaverage day, model scenario. Pipesnot modeled were assigned a <null>score.
Definition
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
0 0.5 10.25 Miles ¯Coppell Water Distribution SystemF: Number of Water Quality Complaints
!(Water Quality Work Orders
Score
1
2
6
Legend
Scoring Table
Water quality complaints were extractedfrom the City's work order data andassigned to the nearest asset to theaddress associated with the complaint.Complaints include reports of odor,cloudy water, or poor taste. Thecomplaints were registered between1997 and 2016.
Definition
0 0.5 10.25 Miles ¯Coppell Water Distribution SystemG: Soil Corrosion of Concrete
Score
1
3
7
10
Soil Corrosion of Concrete
Low
Moderate
High
Legend
Scoring Table
Soil Corrosion of Concrete is computedfor the Consequence of Failure (COF)calculation, based on the pipe segmentbeing located in concrete corrosionprone soils, as defined by the UnitedStates Department of Agriculture NaturalResources Conservation Service.
Definition
0 0.5 10.25 Miles ¯Coppell Water Distribution SystemH: Soil Corrosion of Metal
Score
1
7
10
Soil Corrosion of Metal
Low
Moderate
High
Legend
Scoring Table
Soil Corrosion of Metals is computedfor the Consequence of Failure (COF)calculation, based on the pipesegment being located in metalcorrosion prone soils, as defined bythe United States Department ofAgriculture Natural ResourcesConservation Service.
Definition
0 0.5 10.25 Miles ¯Coppell Water Distribution SystemI: Public Health Safety
AgriculturalCommercialIndustrialMFResidentialSFResidential
Legend
Scoring Table
Public Health and Safety Score iscomputed for the Consequence of Failure(COF) calculation, based on thediameter (inches) and the zoningdesignation of the pipeline.
Definition
Score2357910
0 0.5 10.25 Miles ¯Coppell Water Distribution SystemJ: Utility Employee Health Safety
Score
2
4
6
10
Legend
Scoring Table
Utility Employee Health and Safety Scoreis computed for the Consequence ofFailure (COF) calculation, based on thediameter (inches) of the pipeline.
Definition
0 0.5 10.25 Miles ¯Coppell Water Distribution System K: Demand
Not ModeledScore24610
Legend
Scoring Table
Demand Score is computed for theConsequence of Failure (COF)calculation, based on an estimate of thewater conveyed in GPM, according tothe hydraulic model demands for the pipesegment in the buildout maximum daymodel scenario. If the pipe segment isnot included in the hydraulic model, it isassigned a score of 2.
Definition
0 0.5 10.25 Miles ¯Coppell Water Distribution SystemL: Proximity to Roads and Railroads
Score
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
Legend
Scoring Table
Proximity to Roads and Railroads Scoreis computed for the Consequence ofFailure (COF) calculation, based on thediameter (inch) and road type thatintersects or is within 50 feet of the pipesegment. Pipe segments that do nothave a road within 50 feet are assigneda low criticality score, equivalent to thescores for pipe segments near local roads.
Definition
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
0 0.5 10.25 Miles ¯Coppell Water Distribution System M: Critical Service
TYPE
!(Top 5 Water User
#*Critical Location
Score
1
5
10
Legend
Scoring Table
Critical facilities within the City limitswere identified by City staff. Criticalfacilities include clinics, schools,water towers, ground storage tanks,and pump stations. Assets within300 feet of the critical facilities aredesignated as critical assets and aregiven a high consequence of failure(COF) score. Additionally, the top fivewater users in the City were identifiedusing the hydraulic model. Assetswithin 300 feet of these users wereassigned a higher COF score as well.
Definition
0 0.5 10.25 Miles ¯Coppell Water Distribution SystemN: Customer Loss of Revenue
Score
1
10
Zone
Agricultural
Commercial
Industrial
MFResidential
SFResidential
Legend
Scoring Table
The Customer Loss of Revenue Score is calculated based on the zoning designation of the land where the asset is located. Zones defined as industrial and commercial may suffer loss revenueif water service is disrupted.
Definition
0 0.5 10.25 Miles ¯Coppell Water Distribution SystemO: Likelihood of Failure
LOF
Low (1.00 to 3.00)
Medium (>3.00 to 5.525)
High (>5.525 to 7.875)
Legend
Scoring Table
The Likelihood of Failure (LOF) scoreis calculated by multiplying an asset'sscore for each LOF parameter in theScoring Table below by a weightingfactor and then adding the productstogether. The purpose of the weightingfactors is to account for the fact thatsome parameters are better indicatorsof an asset's LOF than other parameters.The weighting factors were developedin a workshop with City Staff.
Definition
0 0.5 10.25 Miles ¯Coppell Water Distribution SystemP: Consequence of Failure
COF Score
Low (1.8 to 2.4)
Medium (>2.4 to 4.95)
High (>4.95 to 7.7)
Legend
Scoring Table
The Consequence of Failure (COF) scoreis calculated by multiplying an asset'sscore for each COF parameter in theScoring Table below by a weightingfactor and then adding the productstogether. The purpose of the weightingfactors is to account for the fact thatsome parameters are better indicators ofan asset's COF than other parameters.The weighting factors were developedin a workshop with City Staff.
Definition
0 0.5 10.25 Miles ¯Coppell Water Distribution SystemQ: Risk Score and Rank
Risk Score
Low (0.205 to 0.784)
Medium (>0.784 to 2.52525)
High (>2.52525 to 3.965)
Legend
Risk Equation
The combined Risk Score is calculatedby multiplying each asset's COF score bythe LOF score and then dividing theproduct by 10. The top 5% of risk scores(by length) are designated as "High" risk.The middle 45% of risk scores aredesignated as "Medium" risk. The bottom50% are designated as "Low" risk.
Definition
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
APPENDIX F. HIGH RISK ASSETS
PPMID Rank Material Diameter (in.) Year Installed Avg. Service Life
Avg. Year of
Failure Length (ft.)Replacement
Cost
Rehabilitation
Cost
WT09164 1 DI 16 1972 50 2022 370 $89,829 $71,181
WT09163 2 DI 16 1972 50 2022 55 $13,312 $10,522
WT03905 3 DI 16 1972 50 2022 24 $5,857 $4,704
WT01232 4 DI 16 1972 50 2022 560 $135,920 $107,823
WT09172 5 RCCP 30 1998 15 2013 198 $212,354 $64,248
WT09169 6 RCCP 30 1998 15 2013 296 $316,944 $95,816
WT09167 7 RCCP 30 1998 15 2013 505 $540,029 $163,283
WT08486 8 DI 10 1980 50 2030 477 $96,593 $65,115
WT06438 9 RCCP 24 1988 15 2003 514 $164,635 $137,658
WT04412 10 RCCP 24 1988 15 2003 45 $14,279 $11,884
WT10425 11 RCCP 24 1988 15 2003 2975 $952,039 $795,740
WT04485 12 DI 16 1981 50 2031 211 $51,229 $40,604
WT06014 13 DI 16 1981 50 2031 351 $85,239 $67,591
WT06012 14 DI 16 1981 50 2031 164 $39,803 $31,567
WT06011 15 DI 16 1981 50 2031 372 $90,476 $71,800
WT04522 16 DI 16 1981 50 2031 343 $83,373 $66,105
WT04507 17 DI 16 1981 50 2031 3 $822 $619
WT04506 18 DI 16 1981 50 2031 9 $2,098 $1,609
WT04505 19 DI 16 1981 50 2031 248 $60,183 $47,784
WT04504 20 DI 16 1981 50 2031 526 $127,825 $101,386
WT04498 21 DI 16 1981 50 2031 420 $101,896 $80,837
WT04496 22 DI 16 1981 50 2031 45 $10,989 $8,665
WT04494 23 DI 16 1981 50 2031 286 $69,442 $55,088
WT08621 24 RCCP 24 1988 15 2003 1403 $449,033 $375,340
WT08522 25 DI 24 1985 50 2035 30 $9,485 $7,923
WT08521 26 DI 24 1985 50 2035 36 $11,585 $9,656
WT03049 27 DI 24 1985 50 2035 66 $21,178 $17,702
WT03048 28 DI 24 1985 50 2035 39 $12,437 $10,399
WT10427 29 RCCP 24 1988 15 2003 1098 $351,230 $293,513
WT08531 30 DI 24 1985 50 2035 166 $53,176 $44,442
WT03734 31 DI 16 1972 50 2022 712 $173,039 $137,286
WT08542 32 DI 12 1979 50 2029 296 $63,402 $45,927
WT04424 33 DI 10 1980 50 2030 232 $47,070 $31,691
WT04419 34 DI 16 1997 50 2047 83 $20,277 $16,093
WT04415 35 DI 16 1997 50 2047 285 $69,107 $54,840
WT03746 36 DI 6 1972 50 2022 2 $450 $248
WT04486 37 DI 16 1981 50 2031 316 $76,650 $60,782
WT08530 38 DI 24 1985 50 2035 110 $35,081 $29,339
WT08529 39 DI 24 1985 50 2035 5 $1,658 $1,362
WT08528 40 DI 24 1985 50 2035 5 $1,525 $1,238
WT08527 41 DI 24 1985 50 2035 58 $18,428 $15,350
WT08526 42 DI 24 1985 50 2035 4 $1,142 $990
WT06159 43 DI 16 1981 50 2031 488 $118,542 $93,959
WT08611 44 RCCP 24 1988 15 2003 34 $10,802 $9,037
WT08488 45 RCCP 24 1988 15 2003 229 $73,190 $61,154
WT09184 46 RCCP 30 1998 15 2013 710 $759,596 $229,636
WT08533 47 DI 12 1979 50 2029 85 $18,220 $13,246
WT08534 48 DI 12 1979 50 2029 12 $2,538 $1,857
WT08617 49 DI 12 1979 50 2029 146 $31,204 $22,654
WT03043 50 DI 12 1982 50 2032 244 $52,235 $37,881
WT03041 51 DI 12 1982 50 2032 51 $10,894 $7,923
WT02978 52 DI 12 1982 50 2032 83 $17,818 $12,874
WT02142 53 DI 12 1986 50 2036 269 $57,596 $41,718
WT02036 54 DI 12 1982 50 2032 299 $64,093 $46,422
WT02035 55 DI 12 1982 50 2032 237 $50,745 $36,766
WT02032 56 DI 12 1982 50 2032 98 $20,901 $15,103
WT02029 57 DI 12 1982 50 2032 5 $1,072 $743
WT02028 58 DI 12 1982 50 2032 204 $43,677 $31,691
WT02024 59 DI 12 1982 50 2032 203 $43,409 $31,443
WT02023 60 DI 12 1982 50 2032 25 $5,413 $3,961
WT02022 61 DI 12 1982 50 2032 107 $22,883 $16,588
WT02020 62 DI 12 1982 50 2032 12 $2,679 $1,981
WT02019 63 DI 12 1982 50 2032 5 $1,179 $867
WT01840 64 DI 12 1982 50 2032 64 $13,777 $10,027
WT01836 65 DI 12 1982 50 2032 48 $10,290 $7,428
PPMID Rank Material Diameter (in.) Year Installed Avg. Service Life
Avg. Year of
Failure Length (ft.)Replacement
Cost
Rehabilitation
Cost
WT01835 66 DI 12 1982 50 2032 32 $6,859 $4,952
WT01834 67 DI 12 1982 50 2032 118 $25,347 $18,321
WT01833 68 DI 12 1982 50 2032 50 $10,772 $7,799
WT06643 69 DI 16 1972 50 2022 123 $29,902 $23,768
WT06642 70 DI 16 1972 50 2022 20 $4,863 $3,838
WT06640 71 DI 16 1972 50 2022 15 $3,682 $2,971
WT03103 72 DI 16 1972 50 2022 200 $48,568 $38,500
WT01482 73 DI 16 1972 50 2022 47 $11,296 $8,913
WT03981 74 DI 16 1981 50 2031 75 $18,313 $14,484
WT06413 75 DI 16 1981 50 2031 334 $81,101 $64,372
WT09185 76 RCCP 30 1998 15 2013 485 $518,950 $156,845
WT09159 77 RCCP 30 1998 15 2013 423 $452,352 $136,791
WT03733 78 RCCP 30 1998 15 2013 925 $989,734 $299,207
WT06160 79 DI 16 1981 50 2031 86 $20,866 $16,588
WT08633 80 RCCP 24 1988 15 2003 1241 $397,018 $331,888
WT08613 81 RCCP 24 1988 15 2003 12 $3,717 $3,095
WT08612 82 RCCP 24 1988 15 2003 90 $28,786 $24,016
WT10426 83 RCCP 12 1988 15 2003 148 $31,656 $22,902
WT10303 84 DI 8 1980 50 2030 81 $15,642 $9,532
WT10302 85 DI 8 1981 50 2031 15 $2,920 $1,733
WT10300 86 DI 8 1980 50 2030 57 $10,879 $6,685
WT06010 87 DI 6 1981 50 2031 9 $1,656 $867
WT04508 88 DI 8 1981 50 2031 7 $1,428 $867
WT04503 89 DI 6 1981 50 2031 6 $1,033 $495
WT04502 90 DI 6 1981 50 2031 7 $1,206 $619
WT04495 91 DI 6 1981 50 2031 6 $1,167 $619
WT04493 92 DI 6 1981 50 2031 10 $1,760 $990
WT03102 93 DI 6 1972 50 2022 6 $1,111 $619
WT08483 94 CI 8 1967 30 1997 52 $9,911 $6,066
WT06442 95 CI 8 1967 30 1997 31 $6,055 $3,714
WT00088 96 DI 12 1998 50 2048 37 $7,930 $5,694
WT09623 97 DI 10 1980 50 2030 5 $926 $619
WT09622 98 DI 10 1980 50 2030 77 $15,684 $10,522
WT09620 99 DI 10 1980 50 2030 339 $68,677 $46,298
WT09616 100 DI 10 1980 50 2030 211 $42,717 $28,844
WT09615 101 DI 10 1980 50 2030 71 $14,318 $9,656
WT02969 102 DI 12 1982 50 2032 56 $12,059 $8,789
WT02133 103 DI 12 1982 50 2032 272 $58,250 $42,213
WT02132 104 DI 12 1982 50 2032 112 $23,955 $17,331
WT02046 105 DI 12 1982 50 2032 96 $20,633 $14,979
WT02043 106 DI 12 1982 50 2032 298 $63,879 $46,298
WT02042 107 DI 12 1982 50 2032 87 $18,599 $13,493
WT02039 108 DI 12 1982 50 2032 248 $53,214 $38,500
WT01841 109 DI 12 1982 50 2032 148 $31,722 $23,025
WT01839 110 DI 12 1982 50 2032 51 $10,986 $7,923
WT08634 111 RCCP 24 1988 15 2003 5 $1,578 $1,362
WT08632 112 RCCP 24 1988 15 2003 6 $1,972 $1,609
WT08631 113 RCCP 24 1988 15 2003 9 $2,993 $2,476
WT09182 114 RCCP 30 1998 15 2013 577 $618,123 $186,927
WT09173 115 RCCP 30 1998 15 2013 102 $108,897 $32,929
WT04521 116 DI 16 1981 50 2031 167 $40,448 $32,062
WT04490 117 DI 16 1981 50 2031 16 $3,920 $3,095
WT04489 118 DI 16 1981 50 2031 65 $15,770 $12,503
WT03964 119 DI 16 1984 50 2034 54 $13,006 $10,275
WT03963 120 DI 16 1984 50 2034 253 $61,561 $48,774
WT03047 121 DI 24 1985 50 2035 14 $4,343 $3,590
WT03046 122 DI 24 1985 50 2035 53 $17,017 $14,236
WT03045 123 DI 24 1985 50 2035 110 $35,145 $29,339
WT06466 124 DI 12 1985 50 2035 333 $71,367 $51,745
WT09171 125 DI 6 1998 50 2048 19 $3,424 $1,857
WT09168 126 DI 6 1998 50 2048 18 $3,273 $1,733
WT08610 127 RCCP 24 1988 15 2003 67 $21,563 $18,074
WT00087 128 DI 12 1998 50 2048 5 $1,072 $743
WT09157 129 DI 16 1972 50 2022 31 $7,516 $5,942
WT09156 130 DI 16 1972 50 2022 26 $6,210 $4,952
PPMID Rank Material Diameter (in.) Year Installed Avg. Service Life
Avg. Year of
Failure Length (ft.)Replacement
Cost
Rehabilitation
Cost
WT00090 131 DI 16 1972 50 2022 55 $13,421 $10,646
WT00089 132 DI 16 1972 50 2022 406 $98,558 $78,113
WT00008 133 DI 16 1972 50 2022 163 $39,658 $31,443
WT00007 134 DI 16 1972 50 2022 458 $111,250 $88,264
WT00006 135 DI 16 1972 50 2022 158 $38,440 $30,453
WT03744 136 RCCP 30 1998 15 2013 10 $10,800 $3,219
WT03731 137 DI 6 1998 50 2048 15 $2,742 $1,486
WT08605 138 RCCP 24 1988 15 2003 282 $90,328 $75,514
WT08489 139 RCCP 24 1988 15 2003 24 $7,770 $6,437
WT08487 140 RCCP 24 1988 15 2003 104 $33,312 $27,853
WT06566 141 DI 16 1981 50 2031 228 $55,268 $43,823
WT06186 142 DI 16 1981 50 2031 1 $257 $248
WT06185 143 DI 16 1981 50 2031 5 $1,139 $867
WT06019 144 DI 16 1981 50 2031 165 $39,983 $31,691
WT06018 145 DI 16 1981 50 2031 449 $109,165 $86,531
WT04663 146 DI 16 1981 50 2031 10 $2,443 $1,981
WT03983 147 DI 16 1984 50 2034 276 $67,136 $53,231
WT03979 148 DI 16 1984 50 2034 94 $22,844 $18,074
WT03977 149 DI 16 1984 50 2034 57 $13,940 $11,018
WT03974 150 DI 16 1984 50 2034 221 $53,793 $42,708
WT03972 151 DI 16 1984 50 2034 172 $41,889 $33,176
WT03968 152 DI 16 1984 50 2034 147 $35,689 $28,349
WT03966 153 DI 16 1984 50 2034 5 $1,096 $867
WT03960 154 DI 16 1984 50 2034 25 $6,126 $4,828
WT03958 155 DI 16 1984 50 2034 193 $46,976 $37,262
WT03955 156 DI 16 1984 50 2034 55 $13,448 $10,646
WT03954 157 DI 12 1984 50 2034 104 $22,234 $16,093
WT03953 158 DI 16 1984 50 2034 15 $3,736 $2,971
WT03951 159 DI 16 1984 50 2034 18 $4,301 $3,466
WT03950 160 DI 16 1984 50 2034 5 $1,182 $990
WT03797 161 DI 16 1981 50 2031 103 $24,958 $19,807
WT03779 162 DI 16 1981 50 2031 9 $2,191 $1,733
WT03315 163 DI 12 1984 50 2034 6 $1,371 $990
WT09212 164 DI 16 1972 50 2022 42 $10,265 $8,170
WT09210 165 DI 16 1972 50 2022 172 $41,742 $33,053
WT09378 166 CI 8 1967 30 1997 233 $44,796 $27,482
WT06181 167 CI 8 1967 30 1997 75 $14,397 $8,789
WT06180 168 CI 8 1967 30 1997 588 $113,100 $69,200
WT06178 169 CI 8 1967 30 1997 8 $1,455 $867
WT06169 170 CI 8 1967 30 1997 222 $42,729 $26,120
WT06167 171 CI 8 1967 30 1997 549 $105,687 $64,744
WT06163 172 CI 8 1967 30 1997 92 $17,756 $10,894
WT06162 173 CI 8 1967 30 1997 2 $351 $248
WT06161 174 CI 8 1967 30 1997 11 $2,071 $1,238
WT09161 175 RCCP 30 1998 15 2013 158 $169,179 $51,126
WT09174 176 RCCP 30 1998 15 2013 236 $252,351 $76,256
WT10424 177 RCCP 24 1988 15 2003 407 $130,297 $108,938
WT09648 178 RCCP 24 1988 15 2003 780 $249,494 $208,591
WT09647 179 RCCP 24 1988 15 2003 1417 $453,516 $379,053
WT09192 180 DI 16 1972 50 2022 218 $52,955 $41,966
WT09191 181 DI 16 1972 50 2022 12 $2,867 $2,228
WT09189 182 DI 16 1972 50 2022 77 $18,810 $14,979
WT01233 183 DI 16 1972 50 2022 829 $201,428 $159,693
WT06644 184 DI 12 1998 50 2048 11 $2,342 $1,733
WT03743 185 DI 12 1998 50 2048 14 $3,048 $2,228
WT03229 186 DI 12 1996 50 2046 12 $2,546 $1,857
WT03228 187 DI 12 1997 50 2047 31 $6,576 $4,704
WT02697 188 DI 12 1997 50 2047 105 $22,451 $16,217
WT02694 189 DI 16 1997 50 2047 152 $36,800 $29,215
WT02691 190 DI 12 1997 50 2047 42 $9,078 $6,561
WT03939 191 DI 16 1998 50 2048 21 $5,203 $4,085
WT03938 192 DI 16 1998 50 2048 19 $4,583 $3,590
WT03799 193 DI 16 1998 50 2048 108 $26,232 $20,797
WT03708 194 DI 10 1986 50 2036 331 $66,976 $45,184
WT01118 195 PVC 10 1982 70 2052 191 $38,582 $43,946
PPMID Rank Material Diameter (in.) Year Installed Avg. Service Life
Avg. Year of
Failure Length (ft.)Replacement
Cost
Rehabilitation
Cost
WT01117 196 PVC 10 1982 70 2052 12 $2,430 $2,723
WT06711 197 DI 16 1988 50 2038 290 $70,374 $55,831
WT10444 198 RCCP 30 1998 15 2013 19 $20,455 $6,190
WT07763 199 RCCP 30 1998 15 2013 47 $49,889 $15,103
WT07760 200 RCCP 30 1998 15 2013 295 $315,367 $95,320
WT04148 201 DI 24 1988 50 2038 23 $7,251 $6,066
WT04147 202 DI 24 1988 50 2038 17 $5,431 $4,580
WT04144 203 DI 24 1988 50 2038 470 $150,277 $125,650
WT04140 204 DI 24 1988 50 2038 209 $66,797 $55,831
WT04087 205 DI 24 1988 50 2038 10 $3,095 $2,600
WT03899 206 DI 24 1988 50 2038 210 $67,191 $56,202
WT03896 207 DI 24 1988 50 2038 7 $2,148 $1,857
WT06645 208 RCCP 30 1998 15 2013 408 $437,174 $132,211
WT08543 209 DI 12 1979 50 2029 305 $65,471 $47,413
WT08540 210 DI 12 1979 50 2029 300 $64,378 $46,670
WT08539 211 DI 12 1979 50 2029 272 $58,401 $42,337
WT08537 212 DI 12 1979 50 2029 256 $54,860 $39,737
WT08536 213 DI 12 1979 50 2029 23 $4,851 $3,466
WT04872 214 DI 16 1979 50 2029 283 $68,748 $54,469
WT04858 215 DI 16 1979 50 2029 88 $21,387 $16,960
WT04857 216 DI 12 1979 50 2029 4 $879 $619
WT04856 217 DI 12 1979 50 2029 6 $1,251 $867
WT04854 218 DI 12 1979 50 2029 302 $64,641 $46,794
WT04852 219 DI 12 1979 50 2029 302 $64,712 $46,917
WT04846 220 DI 12 1979 50 2029 60 $12,834 $9,284
WT04841 221 DI 12 1979 50 2029 301 $64,425 $46,670
WT04838 222 DI 12 1979 50 2029 241 $51,557 $37,385
WT04835 223 DI 12 1979 50 2029 26 $5,613 $4,085
WT02152 224 DI 12 1982 50 2032 174 $37,258 $26,987
WT02151 225 DI 12 1982 50 2032 178 $38,107 $27,606
WT02016 226 DI 12 1982 50 2032 356 $76,365 $55,335
WT02015 227 DI 12 1982 50 2032 180 $38,532 $27,853
WT02012 228 DI 12 1982 50 2032 36 $7,812 $5,694
WT02010 229 DI 12 1982 50 2032 7 $1,544 $1,114
WT02008 230 DI 12 1982 50 2032 174 $37,385 $27,111
WT01843 231 DI 12 1982 50 2032 109 $23,254 $16,836
WT01842 232 DI 12 1982 50 2032 119 $25,570 $18,569
WT01838 233 DI 12 1982 50 2032 34 $7,341 $5,323
WT01837 234 DI 12 1982 50 2032 65 $13,881 $10,027
WT06567 235 DI 16 1981 50 2031 120 $29,217 $23,149
WT03980 236 DI 16 1981 50 2031 66 $15,969 $12,627
WT03915 237 PVC 12 1984 70 2054 257 $55,018 $62,639
WT03803 238 DI 16 1981 50 2031 5 $1,154 $867
WT03780 239 DI 16 1981 50 2031 62 $15,050 $11,884
WT10371 240 DI 16 1990 50 2040 219 $53,093 $42,090
WT04487 241 DI 8 1981 50 2031 42 $8,166 $4,952
WT09649 242 RCCP 24 1988 15 2003 85 $27,359 $22,902
WT09646 243 RCCP 24 1988 15 2003 294 $93,996 $78,608
WT09645 244 RCCP 24 1988 15 2003 2313 $740,049 $618,592
WT06419 245 DI 16 1981 50 2031 66 $15,916 $12,627
WT04440 246 DI 8 1980 50 2030 172 $33,103 $20,302
WT02021 247 DI 6 1982 50 2032 12 $2,203 $1,238
WT08532 248 DI 6 1979 50 2029 1 $269 $124
WT08485 249 CI 8 1967 30 1997 20 $3,858 $2,352
WT08482 250 CI 6 1967 30 1997 29 $5,326 $2,847
WT06187 251 DI 16 1990 50 2040 224 $54,516 $43,204
WT06184 252 DI 16 1990 50 2040 104 $25,212 $20,054
WT03904 253 PVC 12 1998 70 2068 26 $5,475 $6,190
WT03795 254 DI 16 1998 50 2048 150 $36,432 $28,844
WT01172 255 DI 12 1979 50 2029 794 $170,081 $123,174
WT01171 256 DI 12 1979 50 2029 23 $4,930 $3,590
WT03606 257 DI 12 1985 50 2035 213 $45,603 $33,053
WT08547 258 CI 8 1965 30 1995 5 $960 $619
WT06704 259 DI 16 1988 50 2038 8 $1,923 $1,486
WT06703 260 DI 16 1988 50 2038 278 $67,550 $53,602
PPMID Rank Material Diameter (in.) Year Installed Avg. Service Life
Avg. Year of
Failure Length (ft.)Replacement
Cost
Rehabilitation
Cost
WT06699 261 DI 16 1988 50 2038 19 $4,641 $3,714
WT06696 262 DI 16 1988 50 2038 4 $880 $743
WT08364 263 DI 12 1997 50 2047 14 $3,103 $2,228
WT08360 264 DI 12 1997 50 2047 598 $128,268 $92,845
WT03227 265 DI 12 1997 50 2047 3 $737 $495
WT03687 266 DI 16 1985 50 2035 56 $13,600 $10,770
WT03684 267 DI 16 1985 50 2035 242 $58,735 $46,546
WT03682 268 DI 16 1985 50 2035 5 $1,137 $867
WT03609 269 DI 12 1985 50 2035 265 $56,836 $41,223
WT04423 270 DI 6 1980 50 2030 3 $600 $371
WT04422 271 DI 6 1980 50 2030 2 $337 $124
WT06194 272 CI 8 1967 30 1997 389 $74,773 $45,803
WT06193 273 CI 8 1967 30 1997 34 $6,445 $3,961
WT06026 274 CI 8 1967 30 1997 12 $2,309 $1,362
WT06025 275 CI 8 1967 30 1997 24 $4,699 $2,847
WT03736 276 DI 16 1972 50 2022 29 $7,108 $5,694
WT03735 277 DI 16 1972 50 2022 100 $24,301 $19,312
WT04102 278 DI 24 1988 50 2038 268 $85,793 $71,676
WT04081 279 DI 24 1988 50 2038 7 $2,087 $1,733
WT04418 280 DI 16 1997 50 2047 27 $6,442 $5,076
WT03223 281 DI 16 1997 50 2047 200 $48,505 $38,500
WT09178 282 DI 16 1998 50 2048 245 $59,416 $47,165
WT09177 283 DI 16 1998 50 2048 85 $20,665 $16,341
WT09146 284 DI 16 1998 50 2048 316 $76,762 $60,906
WT10430 285 DI 16 1972 50 2022 27 $6,527 $5,199
WT07332 286 DI 16 1972 50 2022 290 $70,506 $55,954
WT07330 287 DI 16 1972 50 2022 40 $9,802 $7,799
WT03471 288 DI 10 1986 50 2036 172 $34,897 $23,521
52,828 $17,933,600 $11,330,400Totals
Water System Asset Management Plan
City of Coppell, TX
APPENDIX G. COST BASIS TABLES
Item Percentage
Contingency 30%
Mobilization 5%
Contractor Overhead and Profit 15%
Item Percentage
Preliminary Engineering 5%
Engineering/Surveying 13%
Contract Administration 3%
Inspection 8%
Replacement Method Diameter (in)Unit Cost ($/LF)1
Open Cut - 0 to 10 feet deep 4 $185
Open Cut - 0 to 10 feet deep 6 $192
Open Cut - 0 to 10 feet deep 8 $201
Open Cut - 0 to 10 feet deep 10 $212
Open Cut - 0 to 10 feet deep 12 $224
Open Cut - 0 to 10 feet deep 14 $238
Open Cut - 0 to 10 feet deep 16 $254
Open Cut - 0 to 10 feet deep 18 $272
Open Cut - 0 to 10 feet deep 20 $291
Open Cut - 0 to 10 feet deep 22 $312
Open Cut - 0 to 10 feet deep 24 $335
Open Cut - 0 to 10 feet deep 26 $359
Open Cut - 0 to 10 feet deep 28 $385
Open Cut - 0 to 10 feet deep 30 $1,120
Open Cut - 0 to 10 feet deep 36 $1,235
Open Cut - 0 to 10 feet deep 48 $1,466
Pipe Bursting 6 $181
Pipe Bursting 8 $218
Pipe Bursting 10 $255
Pipe Bursting 12 $293
Pipe Bursting 15 $328
Pipe Bursting 18 $401
Auger Boring with Pits 24 $3,722
Auger Boring with Pits 30 $3,825
Auger Boring with Pits 36 $3,930
Table G.1 - Items Added to Base Construction Cost
Table G.2 - Items Added to Total Construction Cost
Table G.3 - Pipeline Replacement Unit Costs
Appendix G: Page 1 of 2
Replacement Method Diameter (in)Unit Cost ($/LF)1
Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP)4 $79
Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP)6 $103
Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP)8 $123
Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP)10 $142
Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP)12 $165
Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP)15 $181
Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP)16 $201
Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP)18 $220
Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP)20 $239
Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP)24 $278
Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP)30 $336
Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP)36 $526
Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP)48 $904
Sliplining 4 $124
Sliplining 6 $148
Sliplining 8 $173
Sliplining 10 $198
Sliplining 12 $225
Sliplining 15 $253
Sliplining 16 $281
Sliplining 18 $310
Sliplining 21 $341
Sliplining 24 $405
Sliplining 27 $438
Sliplining 30 $507
Sliplining 36 $619
Notes:
1) Replacement unit costs in Table G.3 include items listed in Tables G.1 and G.2
Unit costs were developed using an ENR construction index of 11,228
Appendix G: Page 2 of 2