Technical Work Group Update Monday, July 28, 2014 TWG Leadership - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Roadway Roadside Technical Work Group Update

Monday, July 28, 2014

TWG Leadership

Jerry Hatcher, TN – Chair Thomas Lyden, OH – Vice Chair (Performance Mgt/Workforce Development) Beth Wright, MO – Vice Chair (Environment/Research) William Beatty, FHWA – NC - Liaison

Focus Areas

• Asset Management, Maintenance

Management, Performance Management

• Maintenance Contracting Methods
• Safety Devices, Signing, Pavement

Marking, Vegetation Management, Storm Water Management

• Work Zone Practices
• Workforce Development – Signing,

Pavement Marking, Lighting, Vegetation Management, Storm Water Management

• Sustainable Roadside Environment
• Safety Rest Areas

Research Status from 2013

• Research proposals approved:

1.

Determination of the Best Practices for Collecting, Processing and Managing Roadway Asset Inventory Data

• Amir Hanna contact at NCHRP

2.

Reducing Risks to Worker Safety in Work Zones Due to Distracted Drivers

• Mark Bush contact at NCHRP

• Research Not Funded:
• Determine Consequences of Deferred

Maintenance of Highway Assets Other Than Pavement and Bridges

• Research Not Moved Forward:
• Lifecycle Management of Small Drainage

Culverts

• Similar to soon to be completed research on

Culvert Rehabilitation to Maximize Service Life While Minimizing Direct Costs and Traffic Disruption

Past Webinars

• Thurs, May 8, 2014, 1:00 to 2:00 pm CST
• Maintenance Manager Workshop
• Innovative Winter Practices
• Adopt A Highway/Reversible Trash Bags
• Thurs, Mar. 26, 2013, 1:00 to 2:00 pm

CST

• Automatic Data Collection
• Sequential Barricade Warning Lighting
• Deicing Chlorides – No Easy Answers

Future Webinar

• Possible webinar in fall to present recently

completed research

• Guide for Selecting Level of Service

Targets

• Culvert Rehabilitation to Maximize Service

Life and Minimize Cost and Traffic Disruption

• Research needs
• Are you interested?
• Is Thursday afternoon from 1-2 pm CST
• kay?
• Which month would be best

Resolution 2013

• Support the Establishment of a Joint

Meeting between SCOM and the National Safety Rest Area Conference (NSRC)

• Rest Area conference in Asheville, NC

2014

• Next opportunity for joint meeting in 2018

See undermining for structural rehabilitation

Structural Condition Assessment of Corrugated Metal Pipe using Backscatter Computed Tomography (BCT) ASHTO 2014

1

Backscatter Computed Tomography (BCT)

• Office - Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
• INSIGHT, 1st Backscattered Computed Tomography (BCT)

system for infrastructure

• Global partnership EM&I Stantec - Offshore
• Density based cross-sectional images
• Any material can be inspected including:
• Easy to interpret diagnostic images
• Only single side access required
• No shutdown or disassembly required

Optimized Structural Asset Integrity Management

2

steel wall void backing material

the first CAT scan for infrastructure

1

Inversa Systems

Value Proposition Using Insight™

• Conduct a Conclusive Structural Analysis of

CMP assets.

• Prioritize Critical Assets and guide

repair/replace decisions in any size system using a tiered assessment approach based on condition, risk profile and replacement cost.

• Baseline, Monitor and Trend deteriorating

assets to optimize asset management by integrating with existing asset management system.

• Increase Safety by achieving more effective

rehabilitations and safely deferring maintenance based on conclusive information.

• Conduct Post Construction QA/QC to

validate grout placement, increasing rehab confidence and reducing risk

• Remove the Guessing Game from your

Asset Integrity Management plan

4

Current Inspection Methods

Visual Inspection and Acoustic (Knock) Test

• Neither provide conclusive information about

structural integrity

• However, together they can be utilized to

identify locations for follow up structural inspection with BCT

• BCT will conclusively answer:

– Do I repair or replace? – Can I repair safely? – Can I differ maintenance? – How should I prioritize my asset maintenance?

5

Inversa’s Solution

Three Part Inspection Protocol:

• Visual Inspection
• Acoustic Inspection
• BCT Imaging with Insight™

– Conclusive and Quantifiable data – Complete optimized information for repair replace decision

6

Inversa’s Visual Inspection

Visual Inspection:

• Rigorous and repeatable 12 point

visual inspection process

• Digitally trended data and photographs

presented on culvert map to-scale

• Seamlessly integrated into asset

management systems Outlet invert completely corroded Heavy rusting at bolt line

7

Inversa’s Acoustic Inspection

Acoustic Inspection

• 100% Coverage
• Digitally trended information presented
• n a to-scale pipe map
• Seamlessly integrated into asset

management systems

8

Inversa’s Pipe Map

• To scale, digital, auto-generated representation of all culvert anomalies – visual,

acoustic, BCT and previously provided data

• Guides BCT deployment
• BCT provides structural diagnostic information of soil envelope
• Together you have a conclusive view of structural integrity of the asset
• Information is used to safely plan whether to rehab, replace or defer maintenance
• This takes the guess work out of asset management
• All information in the culvert map is referenced in complete culvert report to: BCT

images, visual indicators and acoustic anomalies

9

Sample BCT Images - No Void

Soil BCT image of Acoustic Anomaly confirms the presence of soil directly behind the culvert wall No Void

10

Sample BCT Images

No Void Transition to Void Void Soil Void

Sample BCT Images – Large Void

A water channel (piping) Soil Void BCT inspection of Acoustic Anomaly shows significant void behind the culvert wall Large Void With Piping

12

Case Study – Storm Water

13

Guelph, Ontario, Canada

14

SES 2673

15 J-1664 H-1667 I-1665 A-1656 C-1660 B-1657 D-1661 E-1662 F-1663

SES 2673

E-1662 Void 3cm x 1cm F-1663 Large void space full scan G-1666 No void present J-1664 Large void space full scan I-1665 Void 130cm x 50cm behind CSP extrusion H-1667 No void present E-1666 A-1656 Void spanning scan area C-1660 No void present B-1657 Void spanning scan area D-1661 Multiple voids behind CSP extrusions

Guelph Case Study Conclusion

Results

• 17 sections CSP - 1.5m (Stevenson) and 3.5m (Stone) in diameter
• Approx. 1m - 7m fill over pipes
• Some significant visual anomalies, even in absence of acoustic anomalies

– Ceiling deformation – Isolated through wall perforations – Seam separations up to 4cm – backfill visible – Coating deterioration

• 44 acoustic anomalies among all sections

– Largest anomaly approx. 2.25m horizontal – Some anomalies stretch above/below springline, indicative of surface water infiltration – Some anomalies are on both opposing walls (significant stress riser), possible localized soil weakness

• BCT recommended for 33 locations (see Table 1)

Required

• Manhole access will be required – Client to provide

Deliverables

• Date of Final Interim Report delivery – Dec 15, 2013
• Final Report delivered January 15, 2014

16

Case Study - Levee

17

USACE/MSD - Louisville, Kentucky, USA

MSD Gate 132

18

• 12 acoustic anomalies found, 11 inspected, 10 had confirmed void
• All acoustic anomalies spanned above the springline
• Severe deterioration of the pipe invert, through wall corrosion

MSD Gate 132

19

K1262 I1265

• soil may be washing away from flow

dynamics behind the pipe barrel

• soil may be slipping out of through wall holes

from normal flow conditions even at low water

• soil may be being washed away from surface

water drainage from above

• the soil may be in as built condition, but due

to severe pipe deterioration the pipe barrel itself may be collapsing and slowly being pulled inwards away from the supporting soil structure

• soil may be subject to expansion and

contraction due to a change in water content, perhaps due to seasonal variations

20

MSD Gate 138

• 10 acoustic anomalies found, 9 inspected, 6 had confirmed void
• Bitumen coating was eroded, deterioration of the barrel, seam separations of up to

3cm

MSD Gate 138

• Pipe slippage was found
• Not all anomalous locations

contained void

• Void was found in the absence
• f through wall corrosion
• Void was found at seam gaps

21

G1277 B1276

HDPE Lined Pipes – QA/QC

22

G1281 B1286

• Validation of grout

placement

• Post construction

QA/QC

• Lead to procedural

change

Grouted Annular Space HDPE Liner Corrugated Metal Pipe Empty Annular Space HDPE Liner

MSD Case Study Conclusion

This work proved the ability to:

• Quantify and qualify structural integrity of corrugated steel host pipes

for soil side voids and joint integrity prior to sliplining

• Compliment proper grout placement procedures for HDPE lined

pipes

• Verify grout placement in HDPE lined pipes
• Examine joint integrity of HDPE pipes

Based on this work, commercial deployment of Inversa’s Insight system is viable for both corrugated steel levee pipes and HDPE sliplined levee pipes for soil side voiding and grout placement verification.

23

How to Use Data

• Voids can cause washout and complete collapse
• Voids lead to deformation of pipes, which if left unchecked will become un-repairable

and necessitate costly replacement

• We want to avoid replacement safely and extend asset life by life cycle optimization
• If there are no voids, structural soil integrity is likely good, therefore other physical

repairs are cost effective and can extend life

• If voids are significant, grout inject prior to other repairs, such as sliplining or risk

failures despite money spent on repairs

• Post sliplining BCT can confirm complete grout injection
• If voids are starting to form, make other physically required repairs and monitor void

growth annually to extend life

• Replace only if physical deformations are un-repairable
• Rehab is much easier environmentally then repair

24

Conclusion

Visual and acoustic mapping alone cannot accurately quantify undermining. Current inspection methods can both under and over estimate the culvert condition. Asset integrity management and optimization increase safety and saves money.

With BCT you can:

1. Avoid costly replacements 2. Detect nonconformance early 3. Trend deterioration – repair only when necessary 4. Quantify necessary repairs 5. Increase safety and reduce maintenance costs 6. Repair voids prior to slip-lining 7. Verify grout placement post sliplining Therefore, you can confidently optimize asset lifespan with proper and necessary Asset Integrity Management.

25

CONTACT INFORMATION: John Bowles President & CEO Inversa Systems Ltd. (506)455-8845 (w) (506)476-5648 (c) (506)455-6799 (f) Inversasystems.com John.Bowles@inversasystems.com

26

Other BCT applications

Figure BCT image of remaining wall thickness under graphite deposits Figure 10 year old 8” ductile iron water pipe Ductile/ Cast Iron Water Pipe

27

Other BCT applications

• Inversa’s BCT technology provides a

clear view of FRP tanks and pipe walls without the need for disassembly.

• Optimize turnaround operations. Avoid

delay caused by lead times.

• Identify defects before failures.
• Safely defer replacement.
• Monitor and track known issues

allowing operation until true end of life

• f component.
• Understand the health of infrastructure

that you currently cannot inspect. BCT in FRP

28

Other BCT applications

A BCT image of weld root corrosion on a out of service pipe sent to Inversa by client for qualification. The lowest grey region is a fiberglass wrap (DLR) over a large diameter steel pipe with a pit caused by corrosion, the black line indicates where the remaining wall thickness was measured.

BCT in Offshore

29

Other BCT applications

• BCT technology allows visualization
• f applications within the aerospace

industry, specifically fluid ingress in composite sandwich structures.

• Inversa exploits the density

difference between fluid and air, allowing quantification of fluid within honeycomb structures (which are largely void).

• As a result, volumetric quantification
• f the fluid present in honeycomb

structure is possible. Differentiation

• f different fluids is also possible.

Oil Water Water Oil Oil Water

Photograph of a honeycomb with the top layer of composite removed, to show hidden pockets of varying fluids and varying fluid depths. BCT image taken through composite the wing section showing different fluid depths (y-axis scale) and different fluids (by color associated with density).

BCT in Aerospace

30

GPR

31

State Property Damage Recovery

Joanna Campbell Transportation Counsel Georgia Department of Transportation

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to obstruct, encroach upon.... or injure materially any part of any public road. (b) Any person who unlawfully

• bstructs, encroaches upon, or

injures said public road shall be responsible....for the costs of removal ...and the costs of repairs to the public road....

O.C.G.A. § 32-6-1

• A 2012 estimate showed

approximately 40,000 crashes with fixed objects reported every year

• 30% or more of these

crashes cause damage to state property, which must be repaired out of the Department’s budget

• Most damages are insured if

the motorist can be identified

The Department recovered approximately $4,000,000 2009-2013. Even though we have no good way to measure the full extent

• f the damage, we know it is

far more than this.

• Pre-2013, 10 employees were

spending 25% of their time working these claims

• Not their primary duty
• None of these employees

have insurance or claims adjusting experience

• If they recovered a loss,

amount was usually close to full damages

• Billing and claim handling

were primary focus.

• Contacts within public

safety utilized to alert GDOT to crashes with SPD

• Collecting information from

GDOT personnel responding to incidents

• No resources available to

research other incidents.

Three steps to loss recovery

• 1. Matching damages to a

responsible party

• Via report or direct

investigation

• GDOT owns the crash reports-

easily accessible

• Review each one to yield

significant recovery

• Resource intensive

• 2. Billing and claim handling
• Lack of relevant experience limits

Agency’s ability to deal effectively with insurance companies and adjusters

• Skills and tasks far from GDOT’s

core mission

• 3. Hard collections-no insurance
• r insurance refuses to pay
• Often necessary for major

incidents

• Claims adjusting experience

critical

• Legal fees and litigation costs are

high

• Is the Agency willing to pursue

collections against the general public?

Three Possible Approaches to Increase Recovery

Option 1 Increase internal resources only; continue handling all stages in house

• Add three new staff positions

to assume current functions

• Personnel cost

approximately $143,000 yr.

• Break even- recover 143

more claims annually

• No concerns about job

losses

Option 2 Keep same in house resources and process and hard collections over to State Self-Insurer

• Internal cost and workload

remains the same

• Cost 50% of increased collections
• No increase in identified claims to

pursue but would have experienced adjusters to increase percentage of claims recovered

Option 3 RFP for consultant with insurance background to take over all matching and billing

• Vendor to bid contingent

fee based on collected amount

• Anticipates significant increase in

identified claims to yield increased recovery

• Vendor to review all crash reports,

perform billing and collections

Cont.

• Internal cost reduced to nominal

amount

• Taking tasks away from

current employees may create fear of job losses

• New, more aggressive stance,

may result in push back from the public or others Option 3 Cont.

Decision to put out an RFP with two outcomes desired: Increase collections Reduce workload on staff to allow them to focus on their primary jobs Vendor selected and Contract effective September 1, 2013

GDOT provided to vendor

• Unrestricted access to crash

reporting database- including all reports for incidents back to statute of limitations (4 years)

• Maintenance contract billing

rates- man hours and materials

• Internal hourly rates
• Actual contractor bills when

available

Challenges

• Developing a Procurement so far
• utside GDOT core mission that

would maximize results

• Allaying staff fears that jobs would

be eliminated

Cont.

• Working with IT to give

sufficient access to GDOT database resources to the vendor to minimize internal involvement

• Questions from the public and

media “Why are you going after individuals?” “Isn’t it GDOT’s job to maintain the roads?”

Challenges cont.

In Progress

• Insurance companies

challenging GDOT authority to pay an outside vendor to do this work

• Working with accounting to put

money recovered into maintenance and not into the GDOT general fund

• Vendor access to Drivers

Services motorist insurance database

Cont.

• Finding a system that will

significantly reduce the workload on GDOT staff

• District staff has only reduced

their load a small amount since they still need to investigate many locations

• Project management staff

has substantially increased workload

In Progress cont.

Successes

• State Transportation Board,

Governor’s Office and GDOT Executive Leadership are in full support

• Media- several reports on how

GDOT is recovering insured losses at no cost to the department

• Calling us good stewards of

public money

Cont.

• Dollars are coming in!
• First $1,000,000 collected

within 120 days

• September 2013 to July 2014,

$3,500,000

Questions?

Synthesis 45-13

Presented by: Katie Zimmerman, P.E.

MQA Field Inspection Practices

Panel Members

• Anita Bush, Nevada DOT
• Scott Bush, Wisconsin DOT
• Kevin Griffin, Utah DOT
• Roger Olson, Minnesota DOT
• Lonnie Watkins, North Carolina DOT
• Joe Mahoney, University of Washington
• Marshall Stivers, ICA
• Tim Aschenbrener, FHWA
• Morgan Kessler, FHWA

Synthesis Objectives

• To document the use of MQA field inspection

practices to support maintenance investments –Types of data collected –Methodology used to asses condition –Processes used to ensure data quality –Use of data for budgeting and reporting –Rationale and motivation behind the adoption of the MQA program

Data Sources

• Literature review
• Survey of state practice
• Interviews with representatives from:

– Alaska DOT – Florida DOT – Kentucky Transportation Cabinet – Montana DOT – North Carolina DOT – Utah DOT – Washington DOT – Wisconsin DOT

Findings – MQA Program Status

• 28 of 40 states have a program in place

Findings – Program Status

• Most programs have undergone substantial

changes since originally implemented

Findings – Data Collection

• Drainage Assets

Findings – Data Collection

• Drainage Assets

Asset Manual Walking Manual Windshield Annual Every other year More than once/yr Culvert 20 4 14 4 4 Curb & Gutter 10 3 8 1 3 Drop Inlet 18 2 11 2 4 Ditch 18 4 15 1 4 Slope 16 2 12 1 3 Sidewalk 4 1 3 1 1 Underdrain & Edgedrain 8 1 6 1 1 Flumes 5 3 4 1 1 Method of Collection Frequency of Survey

Findings

• Drainage

Assets – Condition Attributes

Asset Attribute States Other Channel condition 22 Erosion 13 Culvert condition 18 Other 3 Pass/fail by segment; Per NBIS Standards; Separated Channel condition 7 Flume condition 7 Settlement 9 Undermining 2 Flowline interrupted 12 Structural damage/spalling 10 Curb/gutter cracking 7 Curb/gutter low curb reveal 2 Cracking 3 Structural deterioration 4 Displacement/heaving 5 Settlement 3 Settlement 5 Erosion 16 Misalignment 4 Structural deterioration 8 Inadequate drainage (due to silting or debris) 21 Settlement 5 Erosion 14 Misalignment 2 Structural deterioration 5 Inadequate drainage (due to silting or debris) 7 Insufficient capacity 2 Blockage 20 Structural deficiency 13 Grate broken/missing 16 Other 1 Damage that affects function End protection damage 7 Pipe crushed 6 Pipe blocked 8 Other 2 Proper marking; Properly marked for locating Ditch Slope Drop Inlet Underdrain & Edgedrain Culvert Flume Curb & Gutter Sidewalk

Findings – Data Collection

• Roadside Assets

Findings – Data Collection

• Roadside Assets

Asset Manual Walking Manual Windshield Annual Every other year More than once/yr Sound Barrier 3 1 1 1 1 Fence 12 3 8 1 3 Landscaping 6 2 6 2 Plant Beds 2 1 1 1 1 Grass 12 5 10 1 5 Brush 9 4 7 1 3 Litter 13 7 12 1 5 Vegetation (Weed) Control or Noxious Weeds 9 5 8 3 Sound Barrier 3 1 1 1 1 Method of Collection Frequency of Survey

Findings

• Roadside

Assets – Condition Attributes

Asset Attribute States Other Number of broken posts 5 Length of damaged or missing 13 Rusted fence connections 1 Vegetation on fence present Other Presents a satisfactory appearance; Providing positive barrier; Bent stays, missing staples/clips Grass height 17 Presence of undesirable vegetation 5 Other 4 Excessive mowing beyond the limits established in SHA guidelines, blocking signs or guardrail mounted delineators, covering over linestriping, affecting sight distance; Complaints, sight distance; bare or erodible areas; mowed width Obstructions in the clear zone 7 Vision obstructions 10 Other 5 Dead trees; travelway is free of tree encroachment 15' vertically; Any brush in the Right of Way; Deadfalls; Tree trunk size 4" max in clear zone Volume within a certain length 18 Other 5 Percent of roadside area affected by litter; Litter considered to be a hazard. Unauthorized graffiti; Complaints; # of fist- sized pieces of litter; No animal carcasses present on roadway or visible in right of way Amount or % within a certain area 13 Other 3 Amount of bare ground; Just overall; Soil Sterilant, no broadleaf vegetation within 15 feet of pavement Appearance 7 Obstructions 3 Appearance 3 Presence of undesirable vegetation 3 Functionality 1 Clear of vegetation Other 3 New inventory added; Structural condition; Visible damage or graffiti Plant Beds Sound Barrier Fence Grass Mowing Brush Litter Weed Control Landscaping

Findings – Data Collection

• Pavements

Findings – Data Collection

• Pavements

Asset Manual Walking Manual Windshield Automated Paved Shoulders 11 4 2 Unpaved Shoulders 14 3 1 Paved Roadways 8 5 8 Method of Collection

Findings

Pavements – Condition Attributes

Asset Attribute States Other Drop-off 14 Structural distress 12 Functional distress 10 Rumble strip not functioning 2 Travel way & shoulder separation 9 Shoulder maintenance 7 Other 2 General surface condition; Cracking, Potholes/Raveling Drop-off 17 Adequacy of gravel 6 Other 6 Build-up; Cross-slope, general surface condition, Distortion and Vegetation Growth; Build up (high shoulder); HIgh shoulder and low shoulder; 2 measures for adequacy of gravel: cross slope and erosion We use Pvmt Mgmt survey results 12 Structural distress HMA 14 Structural distress PCC 13 Functional distress HMA 9 Functional distress PCC 8 Cracking/Crack Sealing HMA 16 Cracking/Crack Sealing PCC 16 Faulting PCC 11 Roughness HMA or PCC 12 Rutting HMA 15 Pavement Patching HMA 10 Pavement Patching PCC 8 Other 2 HMA - rolldown at joints; We also use profilometer data from Materials Program Paved Shoulders Unpaved Shoulders Paved Roadway

Findings – Data Collection

• Bridges

Findings – Data Collection

• Bridges

Asset Manual Walking Manual Windshield Annual Every other year More than once/yr Bridge 12 2 1 13 1 Frequency of Survey Method of Collection

Findings

• Bridges – Condition Attributes

Asset Attribute States Other Bridge inspections used for bridge management 14 Condition ratings for decks 13 Condition ratings for bearings 10 Condition ratings for joints 11 Structural adequacy 10 Drainage 8 Other 2 Concrete parapet; This is done outside our Maintenance QA program. Work is performed by Bridge Program inspectors. Bridge

Findings – Data Collection

• Traffic Assets

Findings – Data Collection

• Traffic

Assets

Asset Manual Walking Manual Windshield Automated Signal 1 1 1 Sign 10 13 2 Pavement Marking 12 9 3 Pavement Marker 11 7 Guardrail End Treatment 12 6 Overhead Sign Structure 7 2 1 Impact Attenuator 12 4 Protective Barriers 13 5 Variable Message Board 1 Highway Lighting 1 4 1 Method of Collection

Asset Signal Sign Pavement Marking Pavement Marker Guardrail End Treatment Overhead Sign Structure Impact Attenuator Protective Barriers Variable Message Board Highway Lighting Annual Every other year More than once/yr 2 1 16 3 4 17 2 4 13 1 4 11 2 4 2 4 10 2 3 12 1 4 1 1 4 Frequency of Survey

Findings

• Traffic Assets

– Condition Attributes

Asset Attribute States Other Post damage 1 Visibility 1 Bulbs burned out 1 Signal orientation 1 Other 1 Number of malfunctions Panels damaged 22 Retroreflectivity at standard distance 6 Visibility at standard distance 13 Standard height 10 Post damage 17 Legibility 20 Sign orientation 15 Obstructions 14 Other 4 Age; Break away features functional; Age; Traffic program conducts additional signing evaluations outside MQA. This includes retroreflectivity. Day visibility 16 Night retroreflectivity 10 Missing/ damaged 18 Other 3 Retroreflectometer readings; Alignment of multiple striping applications; Retro van data collection Number missing damaged obstructed 15 Other 3 Same criteria as for markings; 75% of every pavement marking must be intact, 90% threshold for RR Crossing or School ; pavement marking ; See MMQA+ manual End treatment damage 18 End treatment alignment 10 Post damage 15 Functionality 11 Structural integrity 9 Anchor bolts clear of debris 3 Other 1 Per bridge program standards Misaligned 9 Structurally damaged 16 Functionality 15 Misaligned 11 Structurally damaged 18 Functionality 14 Percent operational Structural integrity Other 1 Number of malfunctions Percent operational 7 Structural integrity 2 Anchor assembly clear of debris and all wiring enclosed 2 Impact Attenuator Protectve Barriers Variable Message Board Highway Lighting Signal Sign Pavement Marking Pavement Marker Guardrail End Treatment Overhead Sign Structure

Findings – Data Collection

• Special Facilities

Findings – Data Collection

• Special Facilities

Asset Manual Walking Manual Windshield Automated Rest Areas 11 Tunnels 3 1 1 Weigh Stations 2 Traffic Monitoring Systems Method of Collection

Annual Every other year More than once/yr 5 1 4 4 1 2 Frequency of Survey Asset Rest Areas Tunnels Weigh Stations Traffic Monitoring Systems

Findings – Data Collection

• Special Facilities – Condition Attributes

Asset Attribute States Other Graffiti 8 Facilities working properly 10 Appearance 10 Mowing 9 Landscaping 10 Odor 7 Cleanliness 10 Other 1 Handicap accessibility, structural conditions, parking lot conditions, vending machine conditions, telephone conditions Lighting 4 Debris 4 Drainage 4 Other 2 Structural condition, mechanical and electrical; Number of tunnel closures to flammable loads Functionality 2 Appearance 1 Other 1 Perform funtional tests. Functionality Other Rest Areas Tunnels Weigh Stations Traffic Monitoring Systems

Findings – Survey Methods

• MQA programs are generally classified as a

pass/fail approach, a graded approach, or a combination of the two

Findings - MQA Survey Approaches

• The majority of state DOTs rely on district or

regional personnel to conduct surveys

Findings - Type of Equipment Use

• Most states rely on low-tech tools for

collecting MQA data

Findings - Sampling

• Most states use 0.10-mile samples

Findings – Resource Requirements

• The total number of samples inspected varies

from 100 sample to 22,000 samples

Findings – Methods Used to Ensure Quality

• Most states have procedures in place to

ensure data quality

Findings – Use of MQA Data for Budgeting

• States are interested in using MQA data for

budgeting activities

Findings – Availability of a MMS

• Most states have a MMS in place

Findings – Initiatives and New Technology

• Most states are initiating enhancements to

their programs

Next Steps

• Panel comments will be incorporated into the

synthesis by the end of August

• The synthesis should be published by the end
• f the year

2014 AASHTO Subcommittee on Maintenance Charleston, WV

1

Vegetation Management & RoadMAP at Alabama DOT

NPDES PERMIT (BACKGROUND)

• As of October 31, 2011, based on a U.S. Sixth

Circuit Court of Appeals decision, all point source discharges into waters of the U.S. , of biological and chemical pesticides that leave a residue are required to comply with NPDES requirements.

• The Alabama Department of Environmental

Management (ADEM) is responsible for issuance and administration of these Permits.

• In June 2012 ALDOT applied and received

coverage under NPDES General Permit ALG870029.

2

NPDES PERMIT (REQUIREMENTS)

• All covered operators must:

 Develop a Pesticide Discharge Management Plan

(PDMP)

 Prepare an Annual Report

 All documents, including the Annual Report, must be maintained at one location and be available for review upon request

3

NPDES PERMIT (REQUIREMENTS)

• Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP)

 Identify a Management Team  Identify pest problems and develop action thresholds  Conduct pre-application site inspection to determine application trigger  Document that equipment is calibrated and in good

• perational condition (free of leaks)

 Conduct post-application site inspection specifically for “adverse incidents” (Surveillance)  Develop and conduct annual training on spill response procedures  Develop “adverse incident” response and reporting procedures

4

Just what IS RoadMAP???

• Deployment in Summer 2011.
• FY 2012 was first full year of use.

 Fiscal Years begin October 1st and end September 30th.

• Approximately 120,000 work reports/year.
• Approximately 70 routine activities are usable

functions for reporting work.

6

Herbicide Activities in RoadMAP

• 6340 Other Roadside Maintenance (Scouting, Hours)
• 6260 Herbicide Treatment (Acres)
• 6310 Herbicide Spot Treatment (Gallons)
• 6262 Herbicide Treatment Surveillance (Hours)

7

8

Activity 6260 Herbicide Treatment

9

Activity 6310 Herbicide Spot Treatment

Work Flow Diagram

The steps below are necessary for The Department to be in compliance with the current Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP).

ALDOT Herbicide Scouting Report

• Conduct

Assessment of required area

• Document

identifying information, vegetation, and nearby areas

Herbicide Application Report(6260, 6310)

• Work Report with

required information for herbicide applications

• Saving this report

will trigger an email about scheduling the follow-up surveillance activity

• Hand written

“Green Card” is still required

Herbicide Surveillance Order (6262)

• Work Order for

surveillance activity

• Reference original

application work report number, date, location, product used, etc…

• Schedule for no less

than 10 days after initial application

Herbicide Surveillance Report (6262)

• Work Report for

surveillance activity

• May reference

multiple routes on a single Surveillance Report

• Includes inspector

name, adverse conditions, notes, reference to original work report number, etc…

10

Performing & Reporting Herbicide activity

• 1. Schedule/perform & report scouting. Use

activity 6340, ‘Other Roadside Maintenance’

• 2. Perform & report Herbicide Treatment. Use

activity 6260 or 6310.

• 3. Saving this work report triggers notification

to schedule and perform Surveillance Activity within specified time period.

• 4. Perform Surveillance & report using activity

6262

• 5. Surveillance doesn’t have to be complicated.

11

12

ALDOT Herbicide Scouting Report

• Conduct

Assessment of required area

• Document

identifying information, vegetation, and nearby areas

13

Herbicide Application Report(6260, 6310)

• Work Report with

required information for herbicide applications

• Saving this report

will trigger an email about scheduling the follow-up surveillance activity

• Hand written

“Green Card” is still required

14

Herbicide Application Report(6260, 6310)

• Work Report with

required information for herbicide applications

• Saving this report

will trigger an email about scheduling the follow-up surveillance activity

• Hand written

“Green Card” is still required

Herbicide Surveillance Order (6262)

• Work Order for

surveillance activity

• Reference original

application work report number, date, location, product used, etc…

• Schedule for no

less than 10 days after initial application

16

Herbicide Surveillance Report (6262)

• Work Report for

surveillance activity

• May reference

multiple routes on a single Surveillance Report

• Includes inspector

name, adverse conditions, notes, reference to

• riginal work report

number, etc…

17

Herbicide Tracking

• In-House Report
• Tracks Herbicide

Applications with the Work Report Number

• Tracks Surveillance

Deadline and Completion Date with the Surveillance Work Report Number

NPDES PERMIT and ROADMAP INTERFACE BENEFITS

• Easily retrievable storage of documentation
• Internal review of documentation

 Increased documentation compliance  Increased overall ALDOT program compliance  Identification of champions (positive recognition)  Identification of problem areas (need assistance)  Improved inventory control and reporting

18

19

20

QUESTIONS???

21

Job Order Contracting (JOC)

AASHTO Subcommittee on Maintenance West Virginia – 2014

Presented by…

Beth Wright

JOC: Overview

 Job Order Contracting 101  Why JOC  Brief Introduction JOC  JOC Contract Details  Fixed Unit Price List  Adjustment Factors  Bonding & LD Requirements  Traffic Control  Implementation of JOC  Scope of Projects  MoDOT Timeline  Questions and Answers

Job Order Contracting 101

What is Job Order Contracting?

Job Order Contracting 101 Why JOC?

• Time and Cost Savings
• Reduce Change Orders
• Build Working Relationships
• Minimize Unbalanced Bidding

Job Order Contracting 101 Definition:

“A job order contract is a long term,

indefinite delivery-indefinite quantity contract for construction services delivered on an on-call basis through firm fixed price delivery orders based

• n pre-established unit prices.”

Job Order Contracting 101 What is JOC?

• IDIQ contract for a specified time period
• Defined geographical regions
• Pricing based on Fixed Unit Price List
• JOC adjustment factors include overhead & profit
• “On-call" contractor at competitive rate
• High performance incentive

Job Order Contracting 101 Types of Projects

JOC is intended for minor new construction, maintenance and repairs

 Bridge maintenance  Asphalt/Concrete pavement repair  Guardrail/Guardcable repair  General Drainage maintenance  Signal/Lighting repair  Mowing/Landscaping  Building maintenance  Fence  Slide repair

Some JOC contracts very specific (e.g., bridge maintenance); Others allow for broader range (e.g., general maintenance)

JOC Contract Details

How does JOC work at MoDOT?

JOC Contract Details Fixed Unit Price List

• Based on bid history & industry feedback
• Tasks includes all labor, equipment and materials
• Unit prices are complete and in-place construction
• Quantities defined in Job Order
• Payment for non-fixed items

JOC Contract Details Adjustment Factors

• Business Costs - Profit and Overhead
• Normal Work Hour Factor
• Nighttime Work Factor
• Weekend Factor
• Accelerated Repair

JOC Contract Details

How to Bid?

Item Description Approx. Qty Unit Unit Price Bid Amount 618-99.16 Normal Work Adjustment Factor 150,000.00 DLR 1.150 172,500.00 618-99.16 Nighttime Work Adjustment Factor 800,000.00 DLR 1.200 960,000.00 618-99.16 Weekend Work Adjustment Factor 50,000.00 DLR 1.250 62,500.00 Bid Total 1,195,000.00

JOC Contract Details Bonding and Liquidated Damages

• Bonding Based on Anticipated Budget
• LD’s Accelerated Repair
• LD’s for Nighttime Lane Closures
• LD’s for Start & Finish
• Delay Provisions

JOC Contract Details Traffic Control

• Work Hour Restrictions
• Traffic Control Plan Types
• Single Lane, Double Lane, Triple Lane and Ramp Closure
• One-Lane Two-Way Operation with Flaggers
• Additional Traffic Control Items
• Traffic Control by MoDOT Forces

JOC Contract Details

Construction Phase

• Joint Site Visit
• Develop Scope of Work
• Issue Job Order
• Complete Work

JOC Contract Details

Example Job Order

Item Description Fixed Unit Price Quantity Price SP125C (PG70-22) Per Ton (Over 1000 Tons) $55.75 1107.6 Tons $18,793.33 SP190C (70-22) Per Ton (over 1000 tons) $53.75 770.5 Tons $41,414.61 Tack Coat $3.40 180 Gal $612.00 Mobilization – Coldmilling & Resurfacing (Over 1000 tons) $3,200.00 1 Each $3,200.00 Milling Per SY (4 In. to 6 In. Thick) $2.25 3520 SY $7,920.00 Subtotal: $71,939.94 Nighttime Work Factor 1.200 Subtotal: $86,327.92 Accelerated Repair $2,500.00 1 Ea $2,500.00 TOTAL: $88,827.92

Implementation of JOC

MoDOT’s JOC Program

Implementation of JOC Status of Implementation

• Pilot projects in Kansas City & Saint Louis – 2010
• Incorporate lessons learned – December 2010
• Educate MoDOT staff – Early 2011
• Update/Develop Fixed Unit Price List – Early 2011
• Educate and collaborate with industry – January 2011
• All seven districts JOC asphalt repair, six districts JOC

guardrail/guardcable repair, four districts JOC concrete pavement repair – Currently in 2014

Implementation of JOC Lessons Learned

• Increased quantity based items
• Added traffic control options
• Added extension option
• Non-fixed items
• SiteManager changes

 Job Order Contracting resource information can be found in MoDOT’s Engineering Policy Guide  Job Order Contracting (JOC) - Engineering Policy Guide  MoDOT Home Page (www.modot.org)

 Business  Manuals

 Engineering Policy Guide

 100 General  Category 147 Innovative Contracting  147.3 Job Order Contracting

Question and Answer Time

Questions?

Beth Wright Elizabeth.wright@modot.mo.gov 573-522-5301

July 2014

Development of a Needs-Based Maintenance Budget Allocation Model

For the Arizona Department of Transportation

Outline

2

• Project Purpose and Goals
• Solutions
• Implementation Strategy
• Benefits
• Communications Planning
• Five Year Plan
• Results/Conclusion

• Meet 2007 audit recommendation –

develop needs-based systematic way to allocate funds at district level

• Address gap between available resources

and maintenance needs

• Refine maintenance activity guidelines
• Identify the maintenance work backlog

and develop a prioritization method

Project Purpose and Goals

3

• Address concerns with data credibility
• Provide compelling budget information
• Effectively communicate the impact of

doing nothing

• Consideration for MAP-21 compliance
• Develop a long–term (5-year) maintenance

plan

Project Purpose and Goals

4

State of the Art Model

5

Planning Performing Evaluating Reporting Budgeting Scheduling Maintenance Quality Assurance (LOS)

• Needs-based funding

– Spreadsheet-based budget modeling tool – Performance-driven; optimizes resources; demonstrates impact of delayed action – “What-if” analysis

• District allocations

– Based on inventory, needs, and performance goals – Statistically significant performance assessment

• Credible methodology

– Data-driven; transparent; accountable

Solutions

6

• Five year plan

– Aligns with MAP-21 performance-based requirements; merges with asset management plan – Flexible model allows for adding or removing specific assets or activities – Emphasize high priority or high visibility assets (e.g., high-mast lighting)

Solutions

7

• Budget presentation

– Focused first on effective internal presentation; later on external presentation – Implemented more reliable, transparent performance-based budget tool allowing “what if” analysis – Developed guidelines to help improve understanding and tell the maintenance budget story

Solutions

8

Process Improvements Budget Process Change Management Maintenance Performance Guidelines Update Communication Planning

Implementation Strategy

Implementation Strategy

• Overview

– Big change for ADOT – Requires support of the executive team – Executive team must set performance targets

• Fits into MAP-21 TAM plan requirements; can involve

districts

– Involves bigger district commitment

• Districts will be allocated budgets based on targets
• Some districts may receive more or less funding

– Change management

• District briefing, involvement, and buy-in
• Director briefing and buy-in

Implementation Strategy

10

• Move from 0.5-mile samples to 0.1-mile

samples

– Adds one-half FTE annually – District-level statistical significance (+/-7% at 95%)

• Add zero-deficiency segment rating

– No longer negatively-skew LOS results

• Summary report of condition assessments

– Easily import data from LOS MBS to DMG budget model

• Customizable asset deterioration rate

capability

Process Improvements

11

• Conduct budget process outreach with

districts

• Develop central office budget model user

manual

• Conduct central office staff training
• Refine materials based on feedback

Budget Process Change Management

12

• Review and compare recent district

accomplishment data

• Interview districts to determine cause for

variations

• Prepare for and Conduct Guideline Review

Meetings

• Develop district management training plan to

address issues

• Support district training

Maintenance Performance Guidelines Update

13

• Effectively communicate budget

information to decision makers

• Understanding the decision makers and

their information needs (know your audience)

– Identifying decision makers – Establishing relationships – Determining communication styles and needs

Communication Planning

14

15

ADOT Scorecards

AZ - Average Condition Ratings - 2014 Asset

A B C D F

Roadside Fence

C+

Roadside Guardrail

B

Roadside Impact Attenuators

B

Roadside Length Requiring Sweeping (CL Miles)

C+

Roadside Length Requiring Litter Patrol (CL Miles)

C-

Drainage Ditch

A

Drainage Lined Channels (Miles)

B-

Drainage Pipes & Culverts (Each)

B-

Paved Surfaces Alligator Cracks (Maintenance Lane Miles)

B-

Paved Surfaces Bleeding (Maintenance Lane Miles)

A

Paved Surfaces Cracks > 1/4" (Maintenance Lane Miles)

B

Paved Surfaces Potholes (Count)

C-

Paved Surfaces Raveling (Maintenance Lane Miles)

A-

Paved Surfaces Cracks < 1/4" (Maintenance Lane Miles)

A AZ - Average Condition Ratings - 2014 Asset

A B C D F

Traffic Sign Face (Each)

B

Traffic Delineators (Each) A- Traffic Striping (Miles)

C

Traffic Markings (Sq. Ft.) A-

16

ADOT Performance Target Setting Guardrail

Unit of measure: Miles

LOS Scale (Upper Limits) Group Statewide Inventory % Deficient Statewide LOS Target Units A B C D F Roadside 1,336.0 9.7 B- A % Deficient 2.5 10. 15. 20. 0 >20

Current LOS Measures & Grades by District District Flag Globe Holb King Phx Pres Saff Tucs Yuma Inventory 142.0 203.0 107.0 186.0 98.0 211.0 100.0 187.0 102.0 % Deficient 3.7 17.5 5.1 4.6 2.9 10.8 24.0 10.9 4.2 LOS Grade B+ D B B+ B+ C+ F C+ B+

17

ADOT Budget Modeling

Current LOS Target LOS Target FY Yrs to Target Activity Description

1503 ACCIDENT GUARDRAIL REPAIR 1512 ROUTINE GUARDRAIL REPAIR 9153 CONTR GR INSTAL & REPAIR-ADOT FURN MATLS 9155 CONTR GR INSTAL/RPR-CONTRACT FURN MATLS

B- A 2016 1 LOE Qty Units

% Distrib.

Factor Annual Work Quantity Units

1,130,026 LIN FT 10.90 1.00 58,504 LIN FT 1,130,026 LIN FT 85.33 1.00 1,026,129 LIN FT 1,130,026 LIN FT 2.59 1.00 31,172 LIN FT 1,130,026 LIN FT 1.18 1.00 14,221 LIN FT

100.00

Labor Equipment Materials Expenditure Total

701,987 $ 340,740 $ 729,172 $ 1,532 $ 1,773,431 $ 354,242 $ 100,945 $ 128,903 $ 161 $ 584,251 $

• $
• $

336,198 $ 682,493 $ 1,018,691 $ 253 $ 112 $

• $

1,273,714 $ 1,274,079 $

1,056,482 $ 441,797 $ 1,194,273 $ 1,957,900 $ 4,650,452 $

18

ADOT Budget Scenarios

• Budget Model Demo

• Innovative solution
• Long-term performance targets by asset
• Annual plan to achieve performance targets

in five years, or less

• Inflation
• Aligns with MAP-21 performance-based

requirements; merges with TAMP

• Flexible model allows for adding or removing

specific assets or activities

• Emphasize high priority or high visibility

assets (e.g., high-mast lighting)

Five Year Plan

19

• Solution complies with the 2007 audit
• State of the art
• Aligns with MAP-21 performance-based

requirements

• Leverages detailed ADOT PeCoS cost and

accomplishment data

• Helps prioritize maintenance backlog
• Optimizes use of resources

Benefits/Results/Conclusion

Rob Zilay Vice President Dye Management Group 425-637-8010

QUESTIONS?

Lonnie Hendrix, PE State Maintenance Engineer Arizona DOT 602-712-6745