Dam Owner Ends Sensor Silo With Best Digital Twin CMMS

Dam safety teams collect more data than ever: piezometers, seepage weirs, inclinometers, reservoir gauges, and regular inspection findings. The problem is that these streams often live in separate tools, so a rising piezometer reading and a wet-spot inspection note about the same embankment never meet. This case study describes how a US dam owner with 12 high-hazard dams connected sensor data and inspection records through a digital twin inside a CMMS. It covers the starting problem, the rollout approach, and where the reported $4.3M annual saving came from. If your program faces a similar gap, you can book a demo to review it against your own dams.

Case Study: Dam Owner Ends Sensor Silo With Digital Twin CMMS

How a US owner of 12 high-hazard dams unified sensors, inspections, and maintenance into one asset record.

Get Started Book a Demo

12High-hazard dams in the program

$4.3MReported annual saving

1Shared asset record per dam

Program snapshot

Owner type: US dam owner
Portfolio: 12 high-hazard potential dams
Starting condition: Sensor data and inspection records in separate systems
Solution: Digital twin workflow inside Oxmaint CMMS
Reported result: $4.3M annual saving across the portfolio

Figures are as reported for this program. Savings depend on dam condition, staffing, and existing monitoring, so treat them as one example, not a guarantee.

The challenge: three silos, one dam

Instrument data

Piezometers, seepage flow, and reservoir level logged in monitoring software or spreadsheets.

Inspection records

Periodic and formal inspection findings held in reports and photo folders.

Maintenance work

Repairs, gate exercising, and vegetation control tracked separately, or not at all.

Engineers had to open several tools to judge one seepage concern.
Inspection deficiencies were not tied to the instruments that could confirm them.
Maintenance backlog was difficult to rank by dam risk.
Emergency action plan and inspection records were hard to assemble on short notice.

Before and after the digital twin

Area	Before	After
Data location	Separate sensor, report, and work tools	One asset record per dam and component
Anomaly response	Reading reviewed alone, inspection reviewed later	Threshold breach linked to nearby inspection history
Deficiency tracking	Listed in reports	Converted to work orders with owner and due date
Prioritization	By individual judgment	By hazard class, condition, and open findings
Audit readiness	Manual assembly of files	Searchable history per dam

Map your dam portfolio into one record

Review how instruments, inspections, and work orders can share a single asset history.

Schedule a Demo Sign Up

The rollout, phase by phase

Phase 1

Asset hierarchy

Each dam was broken into embankment, spillway, outlet works, gates, and instrument groups.

Phase 2

Instrument linkage

Sensors were tied to the structure they monitor, with alert thresholds agreed by engineers.

Phase 3

Inspection integration

Routine checks and formal inspection findings were captured on mobile with photos and locations.

Phase 4

Work and risk workflow

Findings and alerts generated work orders, ranked by hazard class and condition.

Phase 5

Portfolio reporting

Dashboards compared dams by open deficiencies, overdue inspections, and maintenance backlog.

Where the savings come from

The reported $4.3M annual figure is a portfolio total. Savings of this kind generally come from a few repeatable sources.

Avoided emergency work

Earlier detection of seepage and gate issues lets repairs be planned rather than rushed.

Targeted capital spending

Condition history supports repairing the right dam first.

Inspection efficiency

Less time spent gathering records, more time evaluating conditions.

Reduced duplicate monitoring

Shared data prevents separate teams from tracking the same issue twice.

A line-by-line breakdown should come from the owner's own cost records. Ask for it during a demo so it can be matched to your portfolio.

Capabilities used in the program

Asset management with component-level hierarchy for each dam
Mobile inspections with photo and location capture
Work orders and corrective maintenance tied to findings
Preventive maintenance for gates, drains, and instrumentation checks
Condition-based workflows triggered by sensor thresholds
Compliance records, dashboards, and reporting by dam

Lessons for other dam owners

Start with the highest-hazard dams and prove the workflow there.

Let engineers set thresholds so alerts are trusted, not ignored.

Link every deficiency to an owner and a date before closing the inspection.

Keep the dam safety program, not the software, in charge of decisions.

Frequently asked questions

What is a digital twin in dam management?

A linked digital record of a dam's components, sensor data, inspections, and work history.

Does it replace the monitoring system?

No. It connects readings to inspections and maintenance so they can be reviewed together.

Can smaller portfolios benefit?

Yes, since the silo problem exists at any size. Start with one dam.

Who sets alert thresholds?

Your dam safety engineers, based on design and monitoring plans.

Will results match this case?

Not necessarily. Schedule a demo to estimate savings for your portfolio.

End the sensor silo on your dams

Bring instrument readings, inspection findings, and maintenance work into one record per dam.