Pre-Analysis Communication Best Practices: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:38, 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

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

• Describe the model purpose and justification of need.

• Summarize the overall assumptions and modeling approach.

• Note the guidance documents used as basis for approach (e.g., State published guidance, USBR Design Standards, FERC Engineering Guidelines for Evaluation of Hydropower Projects, USACE Engineering Manuals, etc.)

• Summarize the possible outcomes and expected outcomes.

• Summarize the data that is available or will be collected as part of the process.

• Provide an assessment of which assumptions are foundational (i.e., modifying assumptions would require additional communication and concurrence) and which can be modified through the analysis process.

• If an Independent Review is planned, describe the relationships and responsibilities of the parties involved (third party, internal to modeling firm or expectations for regulatory agency review)

• Note factors that may increase the modeling level of effort. This is also a discussion item with the dam owner during scope of work negotiations.

• Describe how interim and final modeling results will be presented (written report, presentation, discussion, etc.). This is also a discussion item with the dam owner during scope of work negotiations.

• Include a recommended schedule for submittals, review & regulatory feedback. Note critical deadlines to avoid project delays. Request regulatory agency concurrence with schedule as part of feedback on pre-analysis submittal.

Application-Specific Considerations

Examples

Internal Link Text

[ExternalURL Displayed Text]

Internal Link Text

[ExternalURL Displayed Text]

Best Practices Resources

Title, Author

Other Resources

Title, Author

Trainings

Internal Link Text

[ExternalURL Displayed Text]

Internal Link Text

[ExternalURL Displayed Text]

Citations:

Revision ID: 7915
Revision Date: 06/21/2024

@@ Line 57: / Line 57: @@
 ===General Considerations for All Models===
+• '''Describe''' the model purpose and justification of need.
-• '''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.
+• '''Summarize''' the overall assumptions and modeling approach.
-• '''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.
+• '''Note the guidance documents''' used as basis for approach (e.g., State published guidance, USBR Design Standards, FERC [[Engineering]] Guidelines for Evaluation of Hydropower Projects, USACE Engineering Manuals, etc.)
-• '''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.
+• '''Summarize''' the possible outcomes and expected outcomes.
-• '''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.
+• '''Summarize''' the data that is available or will be collected as part of the process.
-• '''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.
+• '''Provide an assessment''' of which assumptions are foundational (i.e., modifying assumptions would require additional communication and concurrence) and which can be modified through the analysis process.
-• '''Possible model outcomes'''. A clear understanding of the intended or unintended outcomes resulting from a modeling effort is beneficial to all involved parties.
+• If an Independent Review is planned, '''describe the relationships and responsibilities''' of the parties involved (third party, internal to modeling firm or expectations for regulatory agency review)
-• '''Preferences and expectations for deliverables'''. This may include formatting of report or technical memorandum, formatting of data files, level of detail, interim deliverables, etc.
+• '''Note factors''' that may increase the modeling level of effort. This is also a discussion item with the dam owner during scope of work negotiations.
-• '''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.
+• '''Describe''' how interim and final modeling results will be presented (written report, presentation, discussion, etc.). This is also a discussion item with the dam owner during scope of work negotiations.
-• '''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.
+• '''Include a recommended schedule''' for submittals, review & regulatory feedback. Note critical deadlines to avoid project delays. Request regulatory agency concurrence with schedule as part of feedback on pre-analysis submittal.
 ===Application-Specific Considerations===