Pre-Analysis Communication Best Practices: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
== Purpose == | == Purpose == | ||
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 == | == 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 | |||
• '''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]] | |||
• '''Importance of model''' in directing critical design decisions | |||
• '''Level of experience''' / validation of the analysis method in standard practice | |||
<!-- Insert image using {{Picture}} template --> | |||
{{Picture | |||
<!-- Add image file name (ex.image.jpg) --> | |||
|image= FlowChart.jpg | |||
<!--Add link if applicable --> | |||
<!-- Add picture caption --> | |||
|caption= | |||
}} | |||
== Steps of Pre-Analysis Communication == | == Steps of Pre-Analysis Communication == | ||
| Line 28: | Line 54: | ||
== Developing a Pre-Analysis Submittal == | == Developing a Pre-Analysis Submittal == | ||
The pre-analysis submittal should address... | 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=== | ===General Considerations for All Models=== | ||
• '''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. | |||
• '''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. | |||
• '''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. | |||
• '''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. | |||
• '''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. | |||
• '''Possible model outcomes'''. A clear understanding of the intended or unintended outcomes resulting from a modeling effort is beneficial to all involved parties. | |||
• '''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=== | ===Application-Specific Considerations=== | ||
Revision as of 19:08, 21 June 2024
|
| This is a dam. |
Purpose
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, 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
• Importance of model in directing critical design decisions
• Level of experience / validation of the analysis method in standard practice
|
Steps of Pre-Analysis Communication
- Develop Project Understanding and Objectives
- Develop Scope of Work
- Obtain Concurrence from Regulatory Agency
- Proceed with Modeling and Keep Communication Channels Open
Developing a Pre-Analysis Submittal
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
• 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.
• 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, slope stability analysis, hydrologic analysis, hydraulic analysis, and consequence estimation are included in the Attachments.
• 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.
• 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.
• Proposed 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.
• Possible model outcomes. A clear understanding of the intended or unintended outcomes resulting from a modeling effort is beneficial to all involved parties.
• 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
- Slope Stability Modeling
- Seepage Modeling
- Hydrologic Modeling
- Hydraulic Modeling
- Consequence Estimating
Examples
[ExternalURL Displayed Text]
[ExternalURL Displayed Text]
Best Practices Resources
Other Resources
Trainings
[ExternalURL Displayed Text]
[ExternalURL Displayed Text]
Citations:
Revision ID: 7908
Revision Date: 06/21/2024