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 Trend deterioration – repair only when necessary 3. 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 Ductile/ Cast Iron Water Pipe Figure BCT image of remaining wall thickness under graphite deposits Figure 10 year old 8” ductile iron water pipe 27
Other BCT applications BCT in FRP • 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 of component. • Understand the health of infrastructure that you currently cannot inspect. 28
Other BCT applications BCT in Offshore 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. 29
Other BCT applications BCT in Aerospace • BCT technology allows visualization Photograph of a honeycomb with the top layer of of applications within the aerospace composite removed, to show hidden pockets of varying fluids and varying fluid depths. industry, specifically fluid ingress in composite sandwich structures. • Inversa exploits the density difference between fluid and air, Oil Water Water Oil Oil Water allowing quantification of fluid within honeycomb structures (which are largely void). • As a result, volumetric quantification of the fluid present in honeycomb BCT image taken through composite the wing section structure is possible. Differentiation showing different fluid depths (y-axis scale) and different fluids (by color associated with density). of different fluids is also possible. 30
GPR 31
State Property Damage Recovery Joanna Campbell Transportation Counsel Georgia Department of Transportation
O.C.G.A. § 32-6-1 (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 obstructs, 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 A 2012 estimate showed approximately 40,000 crashes with fixed objects reported every year o 30% or more of these crashes cause damage to state property, which must be repaired out of the Department’s budget o 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 of the damage, we know it is far more than this.
o Pre-2013, 10 employees were spending 25% of their time working these claims o Not their primary duty o None of these employees have insurance or claims adjusting experience o If they recovered a loss, amount was usually close to full damages
o Billing and claim handling were primary focus. o Contacts within public safety utilized to alert GDOT to crashes with SPD o Collecting information from GDOT personnel responding to incidents o No resources available to research other incidents.
Three steps to loss recovery
1. Matching damages to a responsible party o Via report or direct investigation o GDOT owns the crash reports- easily accessible o Review each one to yield significant recovery o Resource intensive
2. Billing and claim handling o Lack of relevant experience limits Agency’s ability to deal effectively with insurance companies and adjusters o Skills and tasks far from GDOT’s core mission
3. Hard collections-no insurance or insurance refuses to pay o Often necessary for major incidents o Claims adjusting experience critical o Legal fees and litigation costs are high o 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 o Add three new staff positions to assume current functions o Personnel cost approximately $143,000 yr. o Break even- recover 143 more claims annually o No concerns about job losses
Option 2 Keep same in house resources and process and hard collections over to State Self-Insurer o Internal cost and workload remains the same o Cost 50% of increased collections o 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 o Vendor to bid contingent fee based on collected amount o Anticipates significant increase in identified claims to yield increased recovery o Vendor to review all crash reports, perform billing and collections Cont.
Option 3 Cont. o Internal cost reduced to nominal amount o Taking tasks away from current employees may create fear of job losses o New, more aggressive stance, may result in push back from the public or others
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 o Unrestricted access to crash reporting database- including all reports for incidents back to statute of limitations (4 years) o Maintenance contract billing rates- man hours and materials o Internal hourly rates o Actual contractor bills when available
Challenges o Developing a Procurement so far outside GDOT core mission that would maximize results o Allaying staff fears that jobs would be eliminated Cont.
Challenges cont . o Working with IT to give sufficient access to GDOT database resources to the vendor to minimize internal involvement o Questions from the public and media “Why are you going after individuals?” “Isn’t it GDOT’s job to maintain the roads?”
In Progress o Insurance companies challenging GDOT authority to pay an outside vendor to do this work o Working with accounting to put money recovered into maintenance and not into the GDOT general fund o Vendor access to Drivers Services motorist insurance database Cont.
In Progress cont. o Finding a system that will significantly reduce the workload on GDOT staff o District staff has only reduced their load a small amount since they still need to investigate many locations o Project management staff has substantially increased workload
Successes o State Transportation Board, Governor’s Office and GDOT Executive Leadership are in full support o Media- several reports on how GDOT is recovering insured losses at no cost to the department o Calling us good stewards of public money Cont.
o Dollars are coming in! o First $1,000,000 collected within 120 days o September 2013 to July 2014, $3,500,000
Questions?
MQA Field Inspection Practices Synthesis 45-13 Presented by: Katie Zimmerman, P.E.
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 Method of Collection Frequency of Survey 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
Asset Attribute States Other Channel condition 22 Findings Erosion 13 Culvert Culvert condition 18 Other 3 Pass/fail by segment; Per NBIS Standards; Separated Channel condition 7 Flume Flume condition 7 Settlement 9 • Drainage Undermining 2 Flowline interrupted 12 Curb & Gutter Structural damage/spalling 10 Assets – Curb/gutter cracking 7 Curb/gutter low curb reveal 2 Cracking 3 Condition Structural deterioration 4 Sidewalk Displacement/heaving 5 Attributes Settlement 3 Settlement 5 Erosion 16 Misalignment 4 Ditch Structural deterioration 8 Inadequate drainage (due to silting or debris) 21 Settlement 5 Erosion 14 Misalignment 2 Slope Structural deterioration 5 Inadequate drainage (due to silting or debris) 7 Insufficient capacity 2 Blockage 20 Drop Inlet Structural deficiency 13 Grate broken/missing 16 Other 1 Damage that affects function End protection damage 7 Underdrain & Pipe crushed 6 Edgedrain Pipe blocked 8 Other 2 Proper marking; Properly marked for locating
Findings – Data Collection • Roadside Assets
Findings – Data Collection • Roadside Assets Method of Collection Frequency of Survey 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 0 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 9 5 8 0 3 Weeds Sound Barrier 3 1 1 1 1
Findings Other Asset Attribute States Number of broken posts 5 Length of damaged or missing 13 Rusted fence connections 1 Fence Vegetation on fence present 0 Presents a satisfactory appearance; Providing positive • Roadside barrier; Bent stays, missing staples/clips Other 0 Grass height 17 Assets – Presence of undesirable vegetation 5 Excessive mowing beyond the limits established in SHA Condition Grass Mowing guidelines, blocking signs or guardrail mounted delineators, covering over linestriping, affecting sight distance; Complaints, sight distance; bare or erodible areas; mowed Attributes width Other 4 Obstructions in the clear zone 7 Vision obstructions 10 Brush 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 Other 5 Volume within a certain length 18 Percent of roadside area affected by litter; Litter considered Litter 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 Other 5 Amount or % within a certain area 13 Weed Control Amount of bare ground; Just overall; Soil Sterilant, no broadleaf vegetation within 15 feet of pavement Other 3 Appearance 7 Landscaping Obstructions 3 Appearance 3 Plant Beds Presence of undesirable vegetation 3 Functionality 1 Clear of vegetation 0 Sound Barrier New inventory added; Structural condition; Visible damage or graffiti Other 3
Findings – Data Collection • Pavements
Findings – Data Collection • Pavements Method of Collection Asset Manual Walking Manual Windshield Automated Paved Shoulders 11 4 2 Unpaved Shoulders 14 3 1 Paved Roadways 8 5 8
Findings Other Asset Attribute States Drop-off 14 Structural distress 12 Pavements Functional distress 10 Paved Shoulders – Condition Rumble strip not functioning 2 Travel way & shoulder separation 9 Attributes Shoulder maintenance 7 General surface condition; Cracking, Potholes/Raveling Other 2 Drop-off 17 Adequacy of gravel 6 Build-up; Cross-slope, general surface condition, Distortion and Unpaved Shoulders Vegetation Growth; Build up (high shoulder); HIgh shoulder and low shoulder; 2 measures for adequacy of gravel: cross slope and erosion Other 6 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 Paved Roadway Faulting PCC 11 Roughness HMA or PCC 12 Rutting HMA 15 Pavement Patching HMA 10 Pavement Patching PCC 8 HMA - rolldown at joints; We also use profilometer data from Materials Program Other 2
Findings – Data Collection • Bridges
Findings – Data Collection • Bridges Method of Collection Frequency of Survey Asset Manual Walking Manual Windshield Annual Every other year More than once/yr Bridge 12 2 1 13 1
Findings • Bridges – Condition Attributes Other Asset Attribute States Bridge inspections used for bridge management 14 Condition ratings for decks 13 Condition ratings for bearings 10 Condition ratings for joints 11 Bridge Structural adequacy 10 Drainage 8 Concrete parapet; This is done outside our Maintenance QA program. Work is performed by Bridge Program inspectors. Other 2
Findings – Data Collection • Traffic Assets
Findings – Data Collection Method of Collection Asset Manual Walking Manual Windshield Automated • Traffic Signal 1 1 1 Sign 10 13 2 Assets Pavement Marking 12 9 3 Pavement Marker 11 7 0 Guardrail End Treatment 12 6 0 Overhead Sign Structure 7 2 1 Impact Attenuator 12 4 0 Protective Barriers 13 5 0 Variable Message Board 0 0 1 Highway Lighting 1 4 1 Frequency of Survey Asset Annual Every other year More than once/yr Signal 2 0 1 Sign 16 3 4 Pavement Marking 17 2 4 Pavement Marker 13 1 4 Guardrail End Treatment 11 2 4 Overhead Sign Structure 2 4 0 Impact Attenuator 10 2 3 Protective Barriers 12 1 4 Variable Message Board 1 0 0 Highway Lighting 1 0 4
Asset Other Attribute States Post damage 1 Visibility 1 Findings Signal Bulbs burned out 1 Signal orientation 1 Number of malfunctions Other 1 Panels damaged 22 Retroreflectivity at standard distance 6 Visibility at standard distance 13 Standard height 10 • Traffic Assets Post damage 17 Legibility 20 Sign Sign orientation 15 Obstructions 14 – Condition Age; Break away features functional; Age; Traffic program conducts additional signing evaluations outside MQA. This includes retroreflectivity. Other 4 Attributes Day visibility 16 Night retroreflectivity 10 Missing/ damaged 18 Pavement Marking Retroreflectometer readings; Alignment of multiple striping applications; Retro van data collection Other 3 Number missing damaged obstructed 15 Same criteria as for markings; 75% of every Pavement Marker pavement marking must be intact, 90% threshold for RR Crossing or School ; pavement marking ; See MMQA+ manual Other 3 End treatment damage 18 Guardrail End End treatment alignment 10 Treatment Post damage 15 Functionality 11 Structural integrity 9 Overhead Sign Anchor bolts clear of debris 3 Structure Per bridge program standards Other 1 Misaligned 9 Impact Attenuator Structurally damaged 16 Functionality 15 Misaligned 11 Protectve Barriers Structurally damaged 18 Functionality 14 Percent operational 0 Variable Message Structural integrity 0 Board Number of malfunctions Other 1 Percent operational 7 Structural integrity 2 Highway Lighting Anchor assembly clear of debris and all wiring enclosed 2
Findings – Data Collection • Special Facilities
Findings – Data Collection • Special Facilities Method of Collection Asset Manual Walking Manual Windshield Automated Rest Areas 11 0 0 Tunnels 3 1 1 Weigh Stations 2 0 0 Traffic Monitoring Systems 0 0 0 Frequency of Survey Asset Annual Every other year More than once/yr Rest Areas 5 1 4 Tunnels 4 1 0 Weigh Stations 0 2 0 Traffic Monitoring Systems 0 0 0
Findings – Data Collection • Special Facilities – Condition Attributes Other Asset Attribute States Graffiti 8 Facilities working properly 10 Appearance 10 Mowing 9 Landscaping 10 Rest Areas Odor 7 Cleanliness 10 Handicap accessibility, structural conditions, parking lot conditions, vending machine conditions, telephone conditions Other 1 Lighting 4 Debris 4 Tunnels Drainage 4 Structural condition, mechanical and electrical; Number of tunnel closures to flammable loads Other 2 Functionality 2 Weigh Stations Appearance 1 Perform funtional tests. Other 1 Traffic Monitoring Functionality 0 Systems Other 0
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 of the year
Vegetation Management & RoadMAP at Alabama DOT 2014 AASHTO Subcommittee on Maintenance Charleston, WV 1
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
Recommend
More recommend
