Pre-Analysis Communication Best Practices: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 19:10, 27 August 2024

Purpose

This page presents a framework for an engineer/modeler to communicate plans for hydrologic, hydraulic, seepage, and stability models to both a dam owner and regulatory agency. There are a variety of approaches and methodologies for these modeling efforts, and it is important to owners, consultants, and regulators that clear communication is integrated in the process. The purpose of this page is to guide communication among all interested parties prior to commencing a modeling effort. Such pre-modeling communication may include a project scoping meeting, a scope of work, and/or a modeling work plan submittal or meeting with a regulator.

The need for clear communication is apparent in these unfortunate but common dam modeling scenarios:

A consultant, working on behalf of the dam owner, evaluates an existing structure for seepage and stability performance. The dam owner submits the findings of the modeling effort in a report to the regulator. The regulator reviews the modeling report and responds to the owner with many comments, some of which contest the initial assumptions made by the consultant. The owner, consultant, and regulator attempt to resolve the comments and revise the model and report several times at the expense of the owner’s budget and schedule.
A consultant, working on behalf of the dam owner, develops a hydrologic model used to model a dam’s inflow design flood (IDF). The regulator recently published updated guidance documents for hydrologic modeling and IDF development. The consultant develops and submits the model based on the previous guidelines. The regulator reviews the modeling report and asks for a resubmittal using the new guidance documents before further comments are made. The consultant is then required to redevelop the model and resubmit, at the expense of the owner’s budget and schedule, prior to the detailed regulatory review.
The modeling project and expected review timelines are not communicated to the regulator at the start of a modeling effort. Once the modeling report is submitted, the regulator, who is understaffed, is not able to review the report for over a year at the expense of the owner’s schedule and potentially public safety, should the model be used to inform future design efforts to address dam deficiencies.

The following sections outline best practices for pre-analysis communication and scope development to hopefully avoid situations such as these.

Levels of Pre-Analysis Communication

The complexity and degree of pre-analysis communication will vary from project to project and exists on a spectrum as illustrated above. For simple modeling efforts, email correspondence or a brief proposal may be an adequate level of pre-analysis communication. For more complex or impactful efforts, all of these methods of communication may be needed to adequately plan the modeling effort. The following factors may influence the level of pre analysis communication on the spectrum:

Hazard classification or potential downstream consequences of the dam to be modeled

Modeling purpose (i.e., screening level study, rehabilitation design, risk assessment, hazard reclassification, emergency planning)

Public interest or involvement in the project

Technical complexity of the analysis

Unknowns and data gaps in the analysis and potential for dam safety risks during data acquisition (e.g., bore holes through an embankment dam)

Level of previous experience with the dam, owner, and/or regulator

Regulator familiarity with the dam, behavior of the type of dam, geology of the region, and potential loading

Importance of model in directing critical design decisions

Level of experience / validation of the analysis method in standard practice

Availability of regulator guidelines and whether model will be able to follow guidelines

This spectrum should be considered when applying the following steps during the planning of future modeling efforts.

Steps of Pre-Analysis Communication

Resources for Developing a Model Work Plan

Whether it consists of an email or a comprehensive proposal, a model work plan should address an understanding of the model objectives, project constraints, and overall approach. Additional items that should be considered when developing this plan are summarized on this page: Developing a Model Work Plan. This includes considerations for specific model applications including seepage analysis, slope stability analysis, hydrologic analysis, hydraulic analysis, and consequence estimation.

Development of this page was sponsored by the Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation with funding from the FEMA Assistance to States Grant Program.

Revision ID: 8029
Revision Date: 08/27/2024

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 [[Category:Modeling Communication]]
 ----
+<noautolinks>
+== Purpose ==
+This page presents a framework for an engineer/modeler to communicate plans for hydrologic, hydraulic, seepage, and stability models to both a dam owner and regulatory agency. There are a variety of approaches and methodologies for these modeling efforts, and it is important to owners, consultants, and regulators that clear communication is integrated in the process. The purpose of this page is to guide communication among all interested parties prior to commencing a modeling effort. Such pre-modeling communication may include a project scoping meeting, a scope of work, and/or a modeling work plan submittal or meeting with a regulator.
-<!-- Insert image using {{Picture}} template -->
+The need for clear communication is apparent in these unfortunate but common dam modeling scenarios:
-{{Picture
+*A consultant, working on behalf of the dam owner, evaluates an existing structure for seepage and stability performance. The dam owner submits the findings of the modeling effort in a report to the regulator. The regulator reviews the modeling report and responds to the owner with many comments, some of which contest the initial assumptions made by the consultant. The owner, consultant, and regulator attempt to resolve the comments and revise the model and report several times at the expense of the owner’s budget and schedule.
-<!-- Add image file name (ex.image.jpg) -->
+*A consultant, working on behalf of the dam owner, develops a hydrologic model used to model a dam’s inflow design flood (IDF). The regulator recently published updated guidance documents for hydrologic modeling and IDF development. The consultant develops and submits the model based on the previous guidelines. The regulator reviews the modeling report and asks for a resubmittal using the new guidance documents before further comments are made. The consultant is then required to redevelop the model and resubmit, at the expense of the owner’s budget and schedule, prior to the detailed regulatory review.
-|image= 1.jpg
+*The modeling project and expected review timelines are not communicated to the regulator at the start of a modeling effort. Once the modeling report is submitted, the regulator, who is understaffed, is not able to review the report for over a year at the expense of the owner’s schedule and potentially public safety, should the model be used to inform future design efforts to address dam deficiencies.
-<!--Add link if applicable -->
-|link=
-<!-- Add picture caption -->
-|caption= This is a dam.
-}}
-== Purpose ==
+The following sections outline best practices for pre-analysis communication and scope development to hopefully avoid situations such as these.
-This presents a framework for an engineer/modeler to communicate the process of hydrologic, hydraulic, seepage, and [[stability]] models to both a dam [[owner]] and regulatory agency. There are a variety of approaches and methodologies for these modeling efforts, and it is important to owners, consultants, and regulators that clear communication is integrated in the process. The purpose of this page is to guide communication among all interested parties prior to commencing a modeling effort.
 == Levels of Pre-Analysis Communication ==
-The complexity and degree of pre-analysis communication will vary from project to project and exists on a spectrum as illustrated below. For simple modeling efforts, email correspondence or a brief proposal may be an adequate level of pre-analysis communication. For more complex or impactful efforts, all of these methods of communication may be needed to adequately plan the modeling effort. The following factors may influence the level of pre analysis communication on the spectrum:
-• '''Hazard classification''' or potential downstream consequences of the dam to be modeled
-• '''Modeling purpose''' (i.e., screening level study, [[rehabilitation]] design, [[Risk Assessment|risk assessment]], hazard reclassification, emergency planning)
-• '''Public interest''' or involvement in the project
+[[Image:FlowChart.jpg|none|800px|link=]]
-• '''Technical complexity''' of the analysis
-• '''Unknowns and data gaps''' in the analysis and potential for dam safety risks during data acquisition (e.g., bore holes through an embankment dam)
+The complexity and degree of pre-analysis communication will vary from project to project and exists on a spectrum as illustrated above. For simple modeling efforts, email correspondence or a brief proposal may be an adequate level of pre-analysis communication. For more complex or impactful efforts, all of these methods of communication may be needed to adequately plan the modeling effort. The following factors may influence the level of pre analysis communication on the spectrum:
-• '''Level of previous experience''' with the dam, owner, and/or [[regulator]]
+* '''Hazard classification''' or '''potential downstream consequences''' of the dam to be modeled
-• '''Importance of model''' in directing critical design decisions
+* '''Modeling purpose''' (i.e., screening level study, rehabilitation design, risk assessment, hazard reclassification, emergency planning)
-• '''Level of experience''' / validation of the analysis method in standard practice
+* '''Public interest''' or involvement in the project
-<!-- Insert image using {{Picture}} template -->
+* '''Technical complexity''' of the analysis
-{{Picture
-<!-- Add image file name (ex.image.jpg) -->
-|image= FlowChart.jpg
-<!--Add link if applicable -->
-<!-- Add picture caption -->
-|caption=
-}}
+* '''Unknowns and data gaps''' in the analysis and potential for dam safety risks during data acquisition (e.g., bore holes through an embankment dam)
-== Steps of Pre-Analysis Communication ==
+* '''Level of previous experience''' with the dam, owner, and/or regulator
-# [[Step 1 of Pre-Analysis Communication: Develop Project Understanding and Objectives | Develop Project Understanding and Objectives]]
-# [[Step 2 of Pre-Analysis Communication: Develop Scope of Work | Develop Scope of Work]]
-# [[Step 3 of Pre-Analysis Communication: Obtain Concurrence from Regulatory Agency | Obtain Concurrence from Regulatory Agency]]
-# [[Step 4 of Pre-Analysis Communication: Proceed with Modeling and Keep Communication Channels Open | Proceed with Modeling and Keep Communication Channels Open]]
-== Developing a Pre-Analysis Submittal ==
+* '''Regulator familiarity''' with the dam, behavior of the type of dam, geology of the region, and potential loading
-The pre-analysis submittal should address an understanding of the model objectives, project constraints, and overall approach should be developed. In order to develop this project understanding, the dam owner and engineer/modeler should meet to discuss the modeling approach, including items that can substantially impact cost and/or schedule. Commonly, the regulator is not involved in early scope of work discussions that have financial or contractual components.
-===General Considerations for All Models===
+* '''Importance of model''' in directing critical design decisions
-• '''A definition of the model’s purpose'''. To facilitate discussion, this can be organized as a problem statement followed by a justification (i.e., Why is the model needed and what problem is the model trying to solve? What are the potential consequences of not conducting the proposed model?). If the need for the model is driven by a regulatory requirement, how the model addresses such requirement should be discussed.
+* '''Level of experience / validation of the analysis method''' in standard practice
-• '''Anticipated assumptions''' and methods required to complete the modeling effort that may impact result accuracy, level of effort, and/or schedule. Key assumptions may include software selection, scenarios, parameter selection, etc. It is beneficial to identify which assumptions are foundational and may require additional communication and concurrence from regulators or other stakeholders. Examples of key assumptions and important considerations for specific model types including [[Seepage Analysis|seepage analysis]], [[Slope Stability|slope stability]] analysis, hydrologic analysis, hydraulic analysis, and consequence estimation are included in the Attachments.
+* '''Availability of regulator guidelines''' and whether model will be able to follow guidelines
-• '''Necessary field data''' collection efforts to fill data gaps and reduce potential for error and uncertainty in the model. This may include topographic and/or bathymetric [[survey]], geotechnical subsurface explorations, material testing, water quality sampling, etc. An initial parametric study can be helpful in identifying the importance of additional field data.
+This spectrum should be considered when applying the following steps during the planning of future modeling efforts.
-• '''Preliminary planning for model validation''' and/or calibration based on the known available data or lack thereof. Some considerations for model validation are also included in the attachments to this fact sheet. The possibility a model may not calibrate or result in significant reduction of uncertainties should be considered, noting that other benefits of the attempted modeling effort may warrant taking this chance.
+== Steps of Pre-Analysis Communication ==
+# [[Step 1 of Pre-Analysis Communication: Develop Project Understanding and Objectives | Develop Project Understanding and Objectives]]
-• '''Proposed [[Quality Assurance|quality assurance]] and review plan'''. This may include an internal review, external review, or regulator review. The intended use and potential complexity of the model should be considered in developing the plan. Associated financial impacts of the selected review also need to be discussed. When the model is to be used for a complex design, to assess the risk of a high consequence facility, as input to other critical analyses, or when other circumstances merit, the regulator may require an external board of consultants or other third-party reviewer. Both the dam owner and modeler would benefit from discussing this possibility prior to developing the scope of work.
+# [[Step 2 of Pre-Analysis Communication: Develop Scope of Work | Develop Scope of Work]]
+# [[Step 3 of Pre-Analysis Communication: Obtain Concurrence from Regulatory Agency | Obtain Concurrence from Regulatory Agency]]
-• '''Possible model outcomes'''. A clear understanding of the intended or unintended outcomes resulting from a modeling effort is beneficial to all involved parties.
+# [[Step 4 of Pre-Analysis Communication: Proceed with Modeling and Keep Communication Channels Open | Proceed with Modeling and Keep Communication Channels Open]]
-• '''Preferences and expectations for deliverables'''. This may include formatting of report or technical memorandum, formatting of data files, level of detail, interim deliverables, etc.
-• '''Expected level of effort'''. Each of the previous discussion items can impact the level of effort. In some cases, it may be beneficial to show how the level of effort may change should the assumptions or validation/calibration plan need to change. Effort for coordination with regulatory agencies also needs to be discussed, including the potential need for a formal model work plan submittal (described in more detail in Step 2). Additionally, the previous bullet points could lead the engineer to need a subcontractor for certain portions of the work. For example, it may be more cost-effective and time-efficient to hire a subconsultant with 3D CFD modeling expertise rather than purchase and learn to use the software in-house.
-• '''Anticipated schedule''' for the modeling effort. This is particularly important if the schedule may impact project objectives or must comply with regulatory deadlines. The schedule discussion may also include the potential to phase the modeling effort. This may be beneficial when uncertainty is expected to be high or when initial results may influence the approach to future modeling efforts such as scenario selection, analysis method (e.g., 2D versus 3D), etc.
-===Application-Specific Considerations===
-* [[Pre-Modeling Communication: Slope Stability Model Considerations | Slope Stability Modeling]]
-* [[Pre-Modeling Communication: Seepage Model Considerations | Seepage Modeling]]
-* [[Pre-Modeling Communication: Hydrologic Model Considerations | Hydrologic Modeling]]
-* [[Pre-Modeling Communication: Hydraulic Model Considerations | Hydraulic Modeling]]
-* [[Pre-Modeling Communication: Consequence Estimation Considerations | Consequence Estimating]]
-== Examples ==
-{{Website Icon}} <!-- Internal Link Format --> [[Page Name | Internal Link Text]]
-{{Website Icon}} <!-- External Link Format --> [ExternalURL Displayed Text]
-{{Video Icon}} <!-- Internal Link Format --> [[Page Name | Internal Link Text]]
-{{Video Icon}} <!-- External Link Format --> [ExternalURL Displayed Text]
-<!-- To facilitate updates to the website, do not include the year/date of a reference listed here in the Best Practices Resources section. -->
-== Best Practices Resources ==
-{{Document Icon}} [[Page Name | Title, Author]]
-== Other Resources ==
+== Resources for Developing a Model Work Plan ==
-{{Document Icon}} [[Page Name | Title, Author]]
+Whether it consists of an email or a comprehensive proposal, a model work plan should address an understanding of the model objectives, project constraints, and overall approach. Additional items that should be considered when developing this plan are summarized on this page: [[Developing a Model Work Plan]]. This includes considerations for specific model applications including seepage analysis, slope stability analysis, hydrologic analysis, hydraulic analysis, and consequence estimation.
-== Trainings ==
-{{Website Icon}} <!-- Internal Link Format --> [[Page Name | Internal Link Text]]
-{{Website Icon}} <!-- External Link Format --> [ExternalURL Displayed Text]
-{{Video Icon}} <!-- Internal Link Format --> [[Page Name | Internal Link Text]]
-{{Video Icon}} <!-- External Link Format --> [ExternalURL Displayed Text]
-<!-- Citations will automatically populate if instructions on the "[[Guidelines for Inserting a Citation]]" are followed. -->
+''Development of this page was sponsored by the [[Montana | Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation]] with funding from the FEMA Assistance to States Grant Program.''
-{{Citations}}
+</noautolinks>
 <!-- Revision history information -->
 {{revhistinf}}