g. ”man“ u. .
. ‘53, unuhnfifi .
I?! kfiikt‘hflmn&

€23

mwznm.
a away?
0 s. mfiw‘

. .

ismm;

x3. ..
.v

swag:

Mb .5 .
s Fifi}... :
:2...»

..
i.

, «w

. P...

.
,

év.1-fl..-.t .
.. In};

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

isiwfummmnw 3?

‘ ‘
.. {ubfinnr ... . .1
, l ‘. a r .19.») .

 

 

 

-ty

LIBRARY
Michigan State

llrd‘

V.

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

DEVELOPMENT OF AN ASSET MANAGEMENT MODEL
FOR CULVERT INVENTORY AND INSPECTION

presented by

DEEPAK VARADARAJAN BHATTACHAR

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MS degree in CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT

 

---.--.-o-----.---.-—.- —

 

WW

Major Professor’s Signfifui’l

DEC 4TH 2007

 

Date

MSU is an afl7rrnative-action, equal-opportunity employer

——-.--o-.--n---o-n-n-.-.-.c- — -

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DAIEDUE

DAIEDUE

DATEDUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/07 p:/ClRC/DaleDueJndd-p.1

 

 

DEVELOPMENT OF AN ASSET MANAGEMENT MODEL FOR CULVERT
INVENTORY AND INSPECTION
By

Deepak Varadarajan Bhattachar

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE

Construction Management

2007

ABSTRACT

Development of an Asset Management Model for Culvert Inventory and Inspection

By

Deepak Varadarajan Bhattachar

The deteriorating highway culvert infrastructure has become a major
challenge for the 21St century. More importance was given to technical or
construction methods of the highway culvert, and its maintenance and preservation
was neglected. As the culverts reach the end of their design life, the state and local
agencies are in need of a framework to track the existing culverts and determine its
condition. The main goal of this research is to develop a framework for culvert asset
inventory and condition assessment (inspection). The objectives are to Study the state
of practice culvert asset management in USA and Canada, develop a framework in
the form of protocols and condition rating system for culvert inventory and
inspection, and validate the developed framework by conducting field pilot studies.
Performance score for the culverts are calculated using Analytical Hierarchy Process
(AHP) to determine the magnitude of the deterioration and assist in short and long
term planning. The study focuses on concrete, corrugated metal pipe (CMP) and
plastic culverts spanning less than or equal to 10 feet. This model fulfills the
requirements of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) 34 and
contributes in having an effective culvert asset management strategy throughout the

nation.

To
Patti, daddy, mummy, Chitapa, chiti,
lovely sister, brothers, shubi
and my beautiful pets

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my major advisor, Dr. Mohammad Najafi,
for his guidance, advice and encouragement throughout this research. I may not have had
any achievements without his support. His critical mind inspired me to think about every

aspect of my work from different points of view.

I would like to express deepest appreciation to my committee members Dr. Tariq
Abdelhamid and Dr. Nam-Kyu Park for sharing their knowledge and precious time with
me. I extend my appreciation to Mr. Peter Funkhouser, Engineer, Michigan Department
of Transportation (MDOT) and Mr. Baris Salman, Graduate Research Assistant,

University of Cincinnati for providing necessary information to support my research.

special thanks to my family (Kamalamma, Varadarajan, Geetha, Sarvagna
Bhattachar, Revathi, Sampath Kumar, Deepthi, Dileep, Dishanth and Anil) for their
unconditional love, support and encouragement. I must also thank Mr. Shivaram, without

his encouragement and support I could have not fulfilled my dreams.

Finally, thanks to all my friends (Akshay, Ramdas, Avinash, Venkat, Nethra,
Somik, Suchismita, Rama Kumar, Partha Kembhavi, Jimish Gandhi, Ankur Singhal and

Gopu Pillai) that in one way or another played an important role in the chapter of my life.

iv

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Background .. .................................................................................................... 3

1.2.1 Preserving the Deteriorating Infrastructure .................................... 10

1.3 Problem Area .................................................................................................. 11

1.4 Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................... 12

1.5 Research Scope ............................................................................................... 12

1.6 Expected Deliverables .................................................................................... 13

1.7 Summary ......................................................................................................... 13

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 15
2.2 GASB - 34 ........................................................................................................ 18
2.3 Asset Management ........................................................................................... 19
2.3.1 Goals and Principles of Asset Management ........................................... 20
2.3.2 Asset Management Framework and Strategy ......................................... 21
2.4 Culvert Asset Management .............................................................................. 23
2.5 Culverts (Engineering Considerations) ............................................................ 24
2.5.1 Hydrology .............................................................................................. 25
2.5.2 Hydraulics ............................................................................................... 26
2.5.3 Types of Flow ......................................................................................... 28
2.5.4 Structural Aspect ..................................................................................... 29
2.5.5 Culvert Types ......................................................................................... 31
2.5.6 Culvert Materials ................................................................................... 33
2.5.6.1 Corrugated Metal Culverts .................................................. 34

2.5.6.2 Concrete Culverts ................................................................ 36

2.5.6.3 Plastic Culverts ................................................................... 37

2.5.7 Culvert Appurtenances and End Treatments .......................................... 38
2.6 Factors Influencing the Performance of Culverts ........................................... 42
2.6.1 Durability ................................................................................................ 43
2.6.2 Loss of Structural Integration ................................................................. 47
2.6.3 Environmental Factors ............................................................................ 51

2.7 Summary .......................................................................................................... 55

 

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 56
3.2 Phase 1: Literature Review .............................................................................. 56
3.2.1 Developing Questionnaire ....................................................................... 57
3.2.2 Interview Method ..................................................................................... 58
3.2.3 Data Analysis and Results ....................................................................... 60
3.3 Phase 2: Inventory Model ................................................................................ 60
3.4 Phase 3: Condition Assessment Model ............................................................ 61
3.5 Validation ......................................................................................................... 62
3.6 Summary .......................................................................................................... 64

CHAPTER 4: SURVEY ANALYSIS

4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 66
4.2 Culvert Inventory ............................................................................................. 67
4.3 Culvert Inspection and Decision Support System ........................................... 75
4.4 Summary .......................................................................................................... 93

CHAPTER 5: DEVELOPMENT OF ASSET (CULVERT) INVENTORY MODEL

5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 94
5.2 Benefits of Asset Inventory Model .................................................................. 94
5.3 Asset (Culvert) Inventory Model ..................................................................... 95
5.4 Summary ........................................................................................................ 100
CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT OF CONSITION ASSESSMENT MODEL

6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 101
6.2 Condition Assessment Model ......................................................................... 103

6.2.1 Basic Condition Assessment .............................................................. 103

6.2.2 Advanced Condition Assessment ...................................................... 114
6.3 Summary ......................................................................................................... 115

CHAPTER 7: VALIDATION: PILOT FIELD STUDY

7.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 117
7.2 Pilot Field Study ............................................................................................ 117
7.3 Summary ........................................................................................................ 130

CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 Research Summary ........................................................................................ 131
8.2 Recommendations .......................................................................................... 132
8.3 Limitations ..................................................................................................... 133
8.4 Areas of Future Research ............................................................................... 134

vi

APPENDDC l - SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................. 136

APPENDIX 2 — SURVEY RAW DATA ....................................................................... 149
APPENDIX 3 — CULVERT INVENTORY PROTOCOL ............................................. 164
APPENDIX 4 — CULVERT INVENTORY MANUAL ................................................ 170
APPENDIX 5 — CULVERT CONDITION ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL .................. 191
APPENDIX 6 — CULVERT CONDITION ASSESSMENT MANUAL ....................... 197
BIBILOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 220

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Cost Table of Recent Drainage Structure Failure ................................... 8
Table 2.1: Ingredients of Asset Management Components .................................. 23
Table 2.2: Comparison between Inlet and Outlet Control .................................... 27
Table 2.3: Culvert Classification according to their Material ................................ 34
Table 4.1: States Participated in Culvert Asset Management Survey ................... 67
Table 4.2: Maximum and Minimum Sizes of Culverts in US and Canada ............ 72
Table 4.3: Structural Problems Encountered in Different States ........................... 84
Table 4.4: Hydraulic Problems Encountered in Various States ............................. 85
Table 4.5: Culvert Repair Methods Followed in Various States ........................... 86
Table 4.6: Culvert Renewal Methods Followed in Various States ........................ 87
Table 6.1: Condition Rating ................................................................................. 104
Table 6.2: Condition Rating System for Inverts .................................................. 107
Table 6.3: Condition Rating System for End Protection ..................................... 108
Table 6.4: Condition Rating System for Roadway .............................................. 108
Table 6.5: Condition Rating System for Embankment ........................................ 109
Table 6.6: Condition Rating System for Footings ............................................... 110
Table 6.7: Condition Rating System for Overall Culvert Condition ................... 110
Table 6.8: Scale for Relative Importance for Pair-Wise Comparison ................. 111
Table 6.9: Matrix of Comparison for Culvert Performance Calculation ............ 1 11
Table 6.10: Normalized Matrix for Culvert Performance Calculation ................ 112
Table 6.11: Relative Weights of the Culvert Components .................................. 113

viii

Table 6.12: Culvert Performance Zones .............................................................. 113

Table 6.13: ACA Condition Rating Factors and their Relative Weight for
Concrete Culverts ............................................................................. 115

Table 6.14: ACA Condition Rating Factors and their Relative Weight for

CMP .................................................................................................. 115
Table 7.1: Unique Identification Number for Culverts ........................................ 119
Table 7 .2: Condition Rating for Culvert 2500127 3A01 ...................................... 120
Table 7 .3: Condition Rating for Culvert 31000131B02 ...................................... 121
Table 7.4: Condition Rating for Culvert 31000131BO3 ...................................... 123
Table 7.5: Condition Rating for Culvert 31000131B04 ...................................... 124
Table 7.6: Condition Rating for Culvert 31000131B05 ...................................... 125
Table 7.7: Condition Rating for Culvert 31000131B06 ...................................... 127
Table 7.8: Performance Score Calculation for Culvert 25001273A01 ................ 128

Table 7.9: Performance Score Calculation and Zoning for Inspected Culverts ..128
Table 7.10: ACA Performance Score Calculation for Culvert 31000131B02 ..... 1.29
Table 7.11: ACA Performance Score Calculation for Culvert 31000131B05 ..... 129

Table 7.12: Summary of the Field Pilot Study .................................................... 130

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Culvert Structure .................................................................................... 3
Figure 1.2: Culvert Failure in Muskegon, Michigan ............................................... 4
Figure 1.3: 84” Diameter CMP Failure in Maryland ............................................... 4
Figure 1.4: Failure of 126” Diameter CMP in Charlotte, North Carolina ............... 5
Figure 1.5: Failure of a 30 Year Old, 96” Diameter CMP in Hickory, North
Carolina ................................................................................................. 5
Figure 1.6: Failure of a 30 Year Old CMP in Bakersfield, California ..................... 6
Figure 1.7: Failure of a 30 Year Old, 96” CMP in West Bountiful, Utah .............. 6
Figure 1.8: Bathtub Curve ........................................................................................ 9
Figure 1.9: Asset Management Framework — “A Modified Approach” ................ 11
Figure 1.10: Culvert Span ...................................................................................... 12
Figure 2.1: Generic Asset Management Framework ............................................. 21
Figure 2.2: Culverts Functioning as Invert Control ............................................... 26
Figure 2.3: Culvert Functioning as Outlet Control ................................................ 27
Figure 2.4: Culvert Flowing Under Pressure Flow ................................................ 28
Figure 2.5: Flow Conditions .................................................................................. 29
Figure 2.6: Deflection of Flexible Culverts ........................................................... 30
Figure 2.7: Zones of Tension and Compression in Rigid Pipes ............................ 31
Figure 2.8: Multiple Barrel Culverts ..................................................................... 33
Figure 2.9: Culvert Showing Headwall and Wingwall .......................................... 39
Figure 2.10: Riprap Basin to Protect Streambed and Stream Slope ...................... 41

Figure 2.11: Corrosion in Culverts ........................................................................ 45
Figure 2.12: Debris at the Opening of the Culvert ................................................. 46
Figure 2.13: Abrasion Inside a Culvert .................................................................. 47
Figure 2.14: Culvert Pipe Showing Cracks and Joint Separation .......................... 48
Figure 2.15: Longitudinal Crack in a Culvert Pipe ............................................... 50
Figure 2.16: Transverse Cracks in a Culvert Pipe ................................................. 51
Figure 2.17: Scaling Exposed on Concrete Surface ............................................... 52
Figure 2.18: Delamination on a Concrete Surface ............................................... 52
Figure 2.19: Spalling on a Concrete Surface ......................................................... 53
Figure 2.20: Formation of Efflorescence on a Concrete Surface ........................... 53
Figure 2.21: Honeycombing on a Concrete Surface .............................................. 54
Figure 2.22: Popouts in a Concrete Structure ........................................................ 54
Figure 3.1: Detailed Methodology ......................................................................... 65
Figure 4.1: Condition of Majority Culverts in US ................................................. 68
Figure 4.2: Condition of Majority Culverts in Canada .......................................... 69
Figure 4.3: States that have Developed Standard Set of Inventory in US ............. 70
Figure 4.4: States that have Developed Standard Set of Inventory in Canada ...... 71
Figure 4.5: Graph of Number of Responses to Culvert Design ............................. 73
Figure 4.6: DOT’s Response to Culvert Dictionary .............................................. 74
Figure 4.7: Culvert Inspection Frequencies ........................................................... 75
Figure 4.8: Establishment of Inspection Guidelines for Culverts — USDOT’s ...... 77
Figure 4.9: Establishment of Inspection Guidelines for Culverts — Canadian

Province ............................................................................................... 77
Figure 4.10: Graph Showing the Percentage Importance Given to Culvert

xi

Figure 4.11:

Figure 4.12:

Figure 4.13:

Figure 4.14:
Figure 4.15:
Figure 4.16:

Figure 4.17:

Figure 4.18:

Figure 4.19:

Figure 4.20:

Figure 4.21:

Components in Inspection Guidelines and Manuals by DOT’s ........ 78

DOT’S in US who have established a Culvert Inspection Manual....79
Canadian Province who have established a Culvert Inspection
Manual .............................................................................................. 79
Factors Considered in Inspection Guidelines for Concrete

Culverts. ........................................................................................... 80
Factors Considered in Replacing or Renewing a Culvert ................. 81
USDOT’S having a D.S.S .................................................................. 88
Canadian Province having a D.S.S .................................................... 89
USDOT’S having a Model to Determine Culvert Performance

Factor ................................................................................................ 90
Canadian Provinces having a Model to Determine Culvert
Performance Factor ........................................................................... 90
Graph Indicating the Culvert Asset Management Importance

Rating System ................................................................................... 91
Culvert Asset Management Importance Rating System in US ........ 92
Culvert Asset Management Importance Rating System in Canada. 92

Figure 6.1: Asset Deterioration Curve ................................................................. 102

Figure 7.1: Big Hole and Corrosion in the Invert of the Culvert 25001273A01..120

Figure 7.2: Misalignment of the Culvert 25001273A01 ...................................... 121
Figure 7.3: Misalignment of the Culvert .............................................................. 122
Figure 7.4: Failure of the Headwall due to heavy Spalling ................................. 122
Figure 7 .5: Significant Misalignment of the Culvert Structure ........................... 123
Figure 7 .6: Vegetation and Heavy Spalling in the Headwall ............................... 123
Figure 7.7: Cracks on the Roadway Surface ........................................................ 124

xii

Figure 7 .8: Condition of Culvert 31000131B04 .................................................. 125

Figure 7 .9: Corrosion on the Outside Surface of the CMP .................................. 126
Figure 7.10: Total Failure of the Culvert End ...................................................... 126
Figure 7.11: Condition of Culvert Structure 31000131B05 ................................ 127

xiii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

The United States of America has the world’s biggest transportation network system.
The industrial growth during 1950’s marked a rapid development in construction of high-
speed, high-capacity roadway infrastructure. Today, the United States has 3,981, 521
miles of roadway of which 46,726 miles are national highway system, 2,318,043 miles
are paved roadway and 1,624,207 miles are unpaved roadway, which is the largest in the

world (www.wikipedia.org).

During the construction of these roadways, billions of culverts were installed under
them. As the philosophical saying, “out of sight is out of mind,” more importance has
been given to preserving the physical infrastructure on the surface like roadway,
pavements, bridges, guardrails, etc., than underground infrastructure. Various theories,
models, framework and management plans are developed to track, inspect, maintain and
repair the surface infrastructure. However, the invisible critical components of culverts
have been neglected. The location and condition of these pipes comes to notice only
when there is a problem such as settlement or complete failure of a roadway. The
deterioration of culvert pipes and other components is a growing problem for
transportation agencies. The deterioration of pipes because of their increasing age or
change of service conditions such as increasing flow due to changing watershed

conditions increases the wear and tear of these pipes. Various structural, hydrological,

environmental and economical (lack of proper maintenance) factors, may accelerate the

deterioration process.

The Nation’s infrastructure is the public’s asset. Construction of these infrastructures is
paid through tolls, utility bills, special taxes on gasoline, airline tickets and other user
fees. The public has a share in the expense of construction and maintenance of these
assets. Federal and state agencies fund towards the maintenance of these infrastructures
through general tax revenues and other sources. But, the current poor condition of the

infrastructure indicates that the investment levels are clearly inadequate (Turner, 1999).

To enhance the understandability and usefirlness of the general purpose external financial
reports of state and local governments to the citizenry, legislative and oversight bodies, in
1999, the concept of Governmental Accounting and Standards Board (GASB) rule 34
was introduced by the federal government (Hughes 2000). This marked the development
in the infrastructure funding area, which intended to ensure that municipalities, the
Department of Transportations (DOT)’S and local governments are good managers of the

public assets.

The DOTs are not aware of the fact as to what assets they own such as different types of
culverts, where these assets are located, In what conditions do they exist, how to inspect
the conditions of these assets, when these assets should be inspected and maintained and

finally who makes the decisions in the repair or renewal of these assets. This thesis

 

develops a model for culvert’s inventory and inspection and gives an answer for all the

above questions.

1.2 Background

Culverts as defined by Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) Culvert Management
Manual (2003) are “any Structure that conveys water or forms a passageway through an
embankment and is designed to support a superimposed earth load or other fill material
plus live load with a span, diameter, or multi-cell less than 10 fi (3.1m) when measured

parallel to the centerline of the roadway” as shown in the figure 1.1.

 

Figure 1.1: Culvert Structure
(Source: http://wwwbioengineering.com/Projects/northwestbranch_anacostia.html,
date visited June 1 1th 2006)

Culverts are physically embedded inside the earth and they are one of the most critical
and expensive components of the highway infrastructure. Most of these culverts were
installed four to five decades back and have reached their design or service life (Perrin
2005). For this reason, we need a cost-effective system of tracking and monitoring these
assets. Public and road safety is another important reason for regular culvert inspection
and maintenance. Many times, culvert failures are sudden and may cause potholes or total

failure of the roadway. A few case studies of culvert failure are as follows:

A culvert failed on I—75 at milepost 227 near Prudenville, Michigan, in 2003. The
failure occurred when an elliptical 73”x 55” corrugated metal pipe
(CMP) arch, failed due to extensive corrosion of a 50’ section of the culvert pipe.
The estimated age of the pipe was approximately 30 years and the destroyed pipe

was replaced with a 72” corrugated metal pipe at a cost of $95,000.

 

Figure 1.2: Culvert Failure in Muskegon, Michigan

The failure of a 60” CMP culvert in Muskegon, Michigan as shown in figure 1.2
caused the street closure for five weeks, shut down of a 48” diameter water
transmission line and detour of an 8” diameter waterline. The replacement cost of
the culvert was $160,000, which did not include social and economic cost

associated with detour and lost time to commerce and residents.

 

Figure 1.3: 84” Diameter CMP Failure in Maryland

o The failure of a 17 year old 84”diarneter CMP culvert in Maryland resulted in the
injury of two people, when their car fell into a 20’ long by 30’ wide by 20’ deep

sinkhole as shown in the Figure 1.3.

 

Figure 1.4: Failure of 126” diameter CMP in Charlotte, North Carolina

0 The failure of a 20 year old, 126” diameter CMP in Charlotte, North Carolina
resulted in a massive sinkhole as shown in figure 1.4. The cost of replacement

was approximately $300,000.

 

Figure 1.5: Failure of a 30 year old, 96” diameter CMP in Hickory, North Carolina

0 The Failure of a 30 year old, 96” diameter CMP in Hickory, North Carolina
resulted in the formation of a massive sinkhole as shown in figure 1.5. The

sinkhole affected the safety of US highway 70 and caused conflicts between

property owner, city and NCDOT as a liability and responsibility for damages.

The cost of repair was $ 1.5 Million.

 

Figure 1.6: Failure of 30 year old CMP in Bakersfield, California

The failure of a 30 year old CMP in Downtown, Bakersfield, California as shown
in Figure 1.6, created lot of problems and precipitated the road crossings by the
city. As a result of the following incident, CMP is no longer permitted in

California.

 

Figure 1.7: Failure of a 30 year old, 96” CMP in West Bountiful, Utah

o The collapse of a 30 year old, 96” CMP in West Bountiful, Utah resulted in a
large sinkhole, which swallowed a pickup truck and flooded a near by home as

shown in Figure 1.7 (ACPA, 2005)

The above case studies and Table 1.1 indicate that all the failures occurred in Corrugated
Metal Pipes (CMP) and were due to aging. The other factors, such as corrosion,
overloading (both hydraulic and structural), ground movements, etc., may also contribute
to early failures. Some of these culverts had reached the end of their service life and
transportation agencies had no inspection programs to monitor or preserve these culverts.
The sudden collapse of the culvert structure reflects the major safety risk and disruption
to the traffic. The cost of road closure, traffic congestion and detour are added to the
emergency cost of the culvert replacement. Such a cost is very significant and is added to
the life cycle cost of the culvert. Table 1.1 identifies the emergency cost of failed culverts
and how a longer life pipe such as concrete during initial installation could have been

cost effective over a longer period (Perrin, 2004).

Table 1.1: Cost Table of Recent Culvert Failure (Perrin, 2004)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Location I-70 E of [-480 near SR—79 SR 173 1-70
Vail, Maple Buckeye Taylorsville, Eisenhower
Colorado heights, Lake, Utah Tunnel,

Ohio Ohio Colorado
Pipe Size or 66” CMP 60” CMP 30” 81” x 59” 60” CMP
Type CMP Arch CMP
Cost of $4,200,000 $384,000 NA $ 48,000 $45,000
Replacement
Length 85 — 100’ NA 50’ 50’ 40’
Time to 49 8 6 5 7
Replace
(dayS)
Impacted 20,950 16,760 4,920 19,338 1,257
AADT
Detour 120 min 60 min 20 min 20 min 30 min
DelaL
User Cost $4,046,000 $3,079,000 $290,000 $693,000 $220,000
Total Cost $8,246,000 $3,463,000 NA $741,000 $265,000
Pipe Age 35-60 60 30+ 20 3O
LYrS)
Number of 1 1 3 4 2
Replacement
(Compared
to 100 year
design life)
Total Cost $8,046,000 $3,463,000 NA $2,964,000 $530,000
for 100 year
Horizon
Estimated $12,000 13,000 NA $6,200 $4,500
Cost to
Change to
100 year
pipe
Cost-Benefit 671 266 NA 478 1 1 8
Ratio

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A classical function relating to the age of the pipeline to the failure is denoted by a
bathtub curve as shown in Figure 1.8. The early part of the curve shows the infantile

failure, which is mainly due to construction and manufacturing problems. Then, the

failure rate is generally low. At this point failure may occur due to factors such as
excessive loads not designed for, or settlement. As the pipes tend towards their end of
useful life the failure rate increases exponentially. This curve can be applied to an
individual pipe, group of pipes with similar characteristics, or the whole population of a
pipe network (Najafi, 2005). At present, most of our culverts and drainage infrastructure
are at the end of their useful life, so according to the bathtub curve the probability of their

failure is very high.

The service life of concrete culverts in general is between 70 to 100 years. Whereas,
corrugated steel or metal culverts usually fail due to corrosion of their inverts or exterior
of their pipe. Properly protected metal culverts should have a service life of about 50
years. Plastic and aluminum culverts also have their design service life of about 50 years

(USACE 1997).

Comparatively high failure probability Failure probability increases due to
due to construction defects approach of end of useful life
0
Failure
Probability

Steady, relatively low failure probability

/

 

 

 

 

tr

Time

Figure 1.8: Bathtub Curve (Najafi, 2005)

1.2.1 Preserving the Deteriorating Infrastructure
Governmental Accounting and Standards Board (GASB) is a private, non profit
organization established in 1984 by Financial Accounting Foundation. GASB establishes
concepts and standards that guide the preparation of external financial reports for
organizations such as public utilities, municipal hospitals and state universities. In 1999,
GASB introduced a concept of external financial reporting for public infrastructure assets
known as GASB rule 34. According to the rule, the state and local agencies need not
depreciate their assets using the traditional straight line method every fiscal year. The
financial report using traditional method does not intend to measure the actual
deterioration, as it may not occur in any given year. Instead, they can follow the Modified
Approach, where the financial reports are based on maintaining the assets at a specified
condition level. According to the rule, infrastructure assets that are a part of a network or
subsystem of a network are not required to be depreciated as long as the government
manages those assets using an asset management system that has certain characteristics
and the government can document that the assets are being preserved approximately at
(or above) a condition level established and disclosed by the government. GASB 34
demands depreciation-reporting requirement on infrastructure assets using “Modified
Approach”, as Shown in Figure 1.9, which focuses on preservation of utilities and the
following asset management components:

> Having a current inventory of assets

> Documenting the condition of those assets, using condition assessment

procedure

l0

> Demonstrating that the assets are being preserved at a determined condition
benchmark

> Estimating the actual cost to maintain and preserve the assets

 

 

Capital Funding and ' :
Budgeting

 

 

Figure 1.9: Asset Planning Framework — “A Modified Approach”

1.3 Problem Area

Most of the states throughout the country are suffering from heavily deteriorating
culverts. The state and local agencies throughout the nation need procedures to evaluate
and document their assets using the asset management framework shown in figure 1.9.
The culverts are in need of special attention in terms of proactive/preventive asset
management Strategies. Most of the research conducted in the past focused on problems
from a traditional structural/geotechnical perspective. Though this research improved our
knowledge on culvert behavior, but did not focus on methods of operation, routine field
inspection, and maintenance aspects. The Michigan Department of Transportation

(MDOT) estimates that there are about 200,000 culverts in the state of Michigan.

Discussion with MDOT officials, it was understood that they do not have a set of
standard protocols to track these assets and determine their condition. This would
significantly increase field problems and sudden failures of these structures, which is a
safety and economic issue to the society. This research focuses on developing a
framework in the form of protocols for inventory data collection and management plus
inspection of culverts using a condition rating system. Such protocols would be reviewed

and then tested in small pilot Studies for verification and field efi'rciency.

1.4 Goals and Objectives
Goal: As a part of the asset management strategy, the main goal of this research is to
develop a framework for culvert asset inventory and condition assessment (inspection).
Objectives:

0 To study the state-of-practice culvert asset management in USA and Canada

0 To frame a model for inventory and condition assessment of culvert structures

0 To validate and optimize above framework through pilot studies

1.5 Research Scope

   

L=Span

Figure 1.10: Culvert Span

This study is focused on culverts spanning equal to or less than 10’ as shown in the figure
1.10. The driving force for this research is to understand and set a foundation for
comprehensive asset management framework by focusing on inventory and condition
assessment components. The field pilot studies are executed in and around Mid-Michigan
for ease of operation and funding constraints. Culvert renewal and repair methods related
to various structural, hydraulic, and environmental problems are not considered in this

study.

1.6 Expected Deliverables

The research intends to solve a practical problem with a practical solution. A literature
review involving the description of the culvert structure and its components, its structural
and hydraulic behavior, various parameters affecting its performance, and asset
management principles and framework will be presented. An inventory and inspection
framework for preserving the culverts will be developed and formulas to determine the

performance of the culvert will be formulated.

1.7 Summary

The nation’s culverts are deteriorating in response to usage and environmental factors.
Preservation of these assets should be undertaken to provide and maintain a serviceable
infrastructure. Preservation seeks to reduce the rate of deterioration. The preventive
approach is less costly and time consuming than the reactive approach as it is measured

by attributes such as quality, safety, and service life (FHWA, 1999).

I3

Culvert asset management benefits include: (Perrin, 2005)

o Up-to-date inventory

0 Reducing failures through inspections

0 Reducing emergency repair costs and unplanned financial burden

0 Better budget planning for repair and replacement

0 Long term ability to identify actual life-cycle and performance of various pipe

materials

To implement such an extensive and comprehensive asset management system requires a
good understanding of asset type, materials, various factors affecting their performance,
reporting methods, data analysis, information management, assessment of existing

programs, and practices and support services.

This chapter focuses on the main theme of the research. It gives an introduction and
background to the research topic and states the need for developing an asset management
inventory and inspection model. A main research goal is established and objectives to

satisfy this goal are stated.

14

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

Managing infrastructure is a very challenging task, which requires effective
management strategies. Any management strategy requires establishment of the potential
degradation of an asset over its life cycle and analysis of the impact of asset failure.
Factors such as poor quality control and an inadequate inspection and maintenance
program have adversely impacted municipality infrastructures. The rapidly deteriorating
culverts demand the local and state agencies to implement an inventory and inspection
program. However, predicting and monitoring the condition of pipelines remains a

difficult task (Najafi, 2005).

Culvert inspection and management have been important topics among the present
day transportation researchers. The Ohio Research Institute for Transportation and the
Environment, at the University of Ohio made an important contribution in their report
“Risk Assessment and Update of Inspection Procedures for Culverts.” (ORITE 2005).
They introduced detailed culvert inspection system from data collected at sixty culvert
sites. They reported that loss of culvert integrity could result in temporary roadway
closure and considerable remediation costs and total collapse of culverts could result in a
major safety risk for motorists. The statistical analysis of the culverts indicated that age,
rise, flow abrasiveness, pH, flow velocity, and culvert type were significant variables for

the rating system. The nationwide survey they conducted indicated that 60% of state

15

DOT’s have developed culvert inspection policies; 48% of them Specify 1-2 year
inspection cycle; and 16% specify a 3-5 year cycle. Most of the states that inspect
culverts have applied a numerical rating system. Five states besides Ohio have developed
culvert inspection manuals. Only five other states have developed their own culvert risk
assessment procedures. Once the culverts are identified for remedial work in any district,
the adjusted overall rating (AOR), which is the average condition rating score adjusted by
the culvert age, pH of drainage water, abrasiveness of the drainage flow, and cover height
to rise or diameter ratio is used to prioritize the work. The lower the AOR score, the
higher the priority for repairs/replacement. None of the culverts examined had serious
alignment problems. The service life of concrete culverts appeared to be limited to 70-80
years. The most frequently encountered conditions were deteriorated headwalls,
deterioration of concrete in the crown region or top slab and inlet walls, and transverse
Shear cracks on abutment walls. No serious alignment problems were found at metal
culvert sites. No stress cracks were detected at the bolt lines inside any of the metal
culverts and the service life of a metal culvert appeared to be limited to 60-65 years.
Also, the report suggested appropriate rehabilitation techniques depending on structural,

hydraulic, and environmental conditions of the culvert (ORITE 2005).

Another important study was done by National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP), Synthesis 303 Assessment and Rehabilitation of Existing Culverts (NCHRP,
2002). The objective of this study was to determine the state of practice of pipe
assessment, the selection of appropriate repair or rehabilitation methods, and the
management aspects of the pipe program. The study collected information on state of

practice for plastic, concrete, and metal pipes and their appurtenances, such as inlets,

I6

outlets, joints, access holes, junction boxes, vvingwalls, endwalls, and headwalls. The
study determined the current management systems and methods used by transportation
agencies to predict the service life of pipes. A national survey was conducted focusing on
agencies inspection programs, maintenance programs, record keeping, material
specifications, service life predictions, management systems, and guidelines for
assessment, repair, and rehabilitation. Most of the transportation agencies surveyed did
not have methods to select the best type of pipe repair given the circumstances. Also local
agencies use their respective state DOT’S charts and specifications for rehabilitation and
guidelines for assessment if they pursue a pipe management system. The study suggested
that the establishment of a preventive maintenance program would help transportation
agencies manage the pipes in the system. The data collected from these assessments
could be stored in, at a minimum, a centralized pipe database, so that users would have

access to the data for decision making.

(Pantelias 2005) identified the relationship between asset management data collection and
the decision processes to be supported by them. Data collection, data management and
data integration are the essential steps in order to have an effective asset management
framework. Data collection consists of gathering all the necessary information useful in

making decisions and can be categorized in three groups:

0 Location — Actual location of the asset as denoted using a linear referencing
system or GPR coordinates.
0 Physical attributes — description of the considered assets that can include: material

type, size, length, etc.

17

0 Condition — condition assessment can be different from one asset to another
according to set performance criteria. The data can be qualitative and generic
(e.g., good, bad, etc) or detailed and/or quantitative in accordance to established

practices and standards (e.g., condition or performance index).

2.2 GASB — 34

Governmental Accounting and Standards Board — Rule 34 highlighted the importance of
asset management in preserving the infrastructure. GASB — 34 “establishes methods for
governments to be more accountable to bond market analysts and underwriters, citizens,
and other financial users. The potential impact of GASB 34 extends beyond financial
reporting statements and may influence the manner in which infrastructure is thought of
by citizens, legislators, and others interested in public finance and infrastructure

performance (F HWA 2000)”.

The state and local agencies have to record all their capital and infrastructure assets and
investments separately and submit it to the federal agencies at the end of every fiscal
year. As most of the infrastructures deteriorate with usage, aging and environmental
effects, the agencies can choose to determine their value either by depreciating them
using the straight line depreciation method or by using the modified approach. In
modified approach: “Infrastructure assets are not required to be depreciated if 1) the
government manages those assets using an asset management system that has certain
characteristics and 2) the government can document that the assets are being preserved

approximately at (or above) a condition level established and disclosed by the

18

government. Qualifying governments will make disclosures about infrastructure assets in
required supplementary information (RSI), including the physical condition of the assets

and the amounts spent to maintain and preserve them over time” (GASB1999).

2.3 Asset Management

Asset management is a way of doing business. It is a tool used by both public and private
entities to manage their assets so that they meet business and customer needs at the
lowest possible cost over the longest possible period. Asset management means getting
the right information to the right people, at the right time, to obtain the right decision.

Various asset management definitions are: (F HWA, 1999)

“A methodology needed by those who are responsible for efficiently allocating generally

insufficient funds amongst valid and competing needs.”
- The American Public Works Association Asset Management Task Force

“A comprehensive and structured approach to the long term management of assets as

tools for the efficient and effective delivery of community benefits.”
- Strategy for improving asset management practice, AUSTROADS, 1997

“Asset Management ........... goes beyond the traditional management practice of
examining singular systems within the road networks, i.e., pavements, bridges, etc, and
looks at the universal system of a network of roads and all its components to allow
comprehensive management of limited resources. Through proper asset management,

government can improve program and infrastructure quality, increase information

accessibility and use, enhance and sharpen decision making, make more effective
investments and decrease overall costs, including the social and economic impacts of
road crashes.”

- Organization for European Cooperation and Development Working

Group, Asset Management Systems, Project Description, 1999

2.3.1 Goals and Principles of Asset Management (N CHRP, 2002)

Asset management incorporates multiple business processes to meet the following goals:

0 To build, preserve, and operate facilities more cost effectively with improved
performance

0 To deliver agency’s customers the best value for the tax dollars spent

0 To enhance the creditability and accountability of the agency to the legislature

and the public

The key principle of asset management is that a department can look at its existing
procedures and see how better decisions on infrastructure management can be made with
better information. The core principles for customer focused, mission driven, and system

oriented asset management processes are:

0 It is a strategic approach to managing the infrastructure
0 It encourages decision making that considers a broad range of assets and is driven

by policy goals and objectives

0 Good asset management process must rely on quality information and good
analytic capabilities

o It is proactive — asset management decision making process encourages
preventive strategies rather than the reactive “worst-first” approach (NCI-IRP

2002)

2.3.2 Asset Management Framework and Strategy (F HWA 2000)

An asset management system has the following major elements, which are constrained by

available budgets and resource allocations:

_.lj'p Goals‘andObjecavesy r—fi
. v -

j, . . ' : ' ' Asset Inventory _, I Budget

CondluonAssessment 1
‘ '- ‘ Emma's/entrainment: *- ' k—

' q, . Short andLOngTerrn Plans 7, I

" Program Iniplementation”. i

_ _. , PelfonnanceMomtor 3]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2.1: Generic Asset Management Framework

21

0 Establishment of goals and policies

0 Data collection and development of asset inventory

0 Establishment of performance measures leading to condition assessment and
performance modeling

0 Development of management systems to evaluate alternatives and control
optimization

0 Decision making regarding short and long term project selection

0 Implementation of designed programs and evaluation process

0 Use of evaluation results for overall process feedback, redevelopment or

refinement

This asset management framework helps in responding to the GASB 34 requirements and
explaining the financial accountability to the public. It also assists the transportation
agencies in complying with the requirements of “modified approach.” Therefore, asset
management will result in better cost effective decisions, and improves a state’s ability to
set system condition and performance targets, and to meet them through effective

decision making.

An asset management strategy focuses on maintenance practices associated with the
component and also the function of that asset. The ingredients of the strategy attempts to

answer the following: (F HWA 2000)

22

Table 2.1 Ingredients of Asset management Components (Hughes 2000)

 

 

What do you own? Asset identification and complete inventory
of all assets
What is it worth? Complete financial data

 

What is its condition?

Physical description data including
operational performance data, condition
monitoring, and maintenance backlog

 

What is the remaining service life?

Estimation of useful physical and economic
life of the assets

 

What is the maintenance strategy?

Operational procedures, preventive or
predictive and condition based maintenance
schedules

 

Other current practices?

Decision support methods in use for repair
or replacement decisions for assets

 

What is the replacement strategy?

Estimated replacement that is ahead of
useful physical or economic life of the
asset

 

What level of service need to be provided?

includes minimum performance and service
standards

 

 

What are the existing and future
erforrnance demands?

 

Estimation of projected population growth,
consumer usage trends, etc

 

2.4 Culvert Asset Management

Culvert asset management provides the ability to show how, when, and why culvert

resources were or are committed. Transportation officials are highly accountable for all

transportation assets. The DOT’s, by monitoring the culverts and knowing their condition

will benefit from lower culvert repair cost from reducing failure. The traveling public will

benefit from culvert asset management because user delays are minimized. As sinkholes

in roadways have been increasing over the past years, this is quite a concern. The cost of

inspecting and maintaining culverts is an added economic burden to the state and local

agencies. An asset management approach would result in cost saving over the emergency

repair of culvert failures which is an increasing problem in the nation.

Asset

23

 

management practices improve efficiency and increase the value of services to
transportation users. Some of the benefits to DOT from asset management practices are

(Perrin 2004):

o Accountability to the public

0 Increased budget demands

0 Rational approach to resource allocation

0 Defense against politicizing the program
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
and Federal Highway Association (F HWA) recommend that asset management is a better
way to do business. They provide national leadership and guidance to states for
implementing and developing asset management in all states (Penin, 2006). The culvert
management system allows the agency to have an inventory of culverts which includes
the number and location for which the agency is responsible to the condition of culverts
at any point of time, necessary repairs to fix in case of any problems, developing a short

and long term plan and work schedule for culvert maintenance in future (FHW A 2001)

2.5 Culverts (Engineering Consideration)

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO)

defines culvert as (AASHTO, 1999):

o A structure which is usually designed hydraulically to take advantage of
submerges to increase hydraulic capacity

0 A structure used to convey surface runoff through embankments

24

o A structure, as distinguished from bridges, which is usually covered with

embankment and is composed of structural material around the entire perimeter,

although some are supported on spread footing with the streambed serving as the

bottom of the culvert

2.5.1 Hydrology

Hydrology is the science that deals with occurrence and distribution of water on the earth.

In designing culverts, it is the process of determining how much flow the culvert should

be designed to carry.

0 Hydraulic cycle - this is the name given to the cycle of water in the atmosphere

falling to the ground, running off to rivers, lakes, and the ocean and then

evaporating back to the atmosphere

0 Peak Flow — peak flow refers to the maximum amount of water that will arrive

and flow past a particular part of land. The peak flow is a major factor in the

culvert design process. This value depends upon many topographic, geological,

and environmental factors such as:

>

>

V V V V

The size, shape and slope of drainage area

The rainfall intensity, storm duration, and rainfall distribution within the
drainage area

Type of land use (open ground, paved, wooded, etc.)

The type of soil and its degree of saturation or imperviousness

Type of precipitation and ambient temperature

Existing flow if stream is present

25

2.5.2 Hydraulics

Culvert hydraulics deals with the consideration and analysis of factors that influence its
carrying capacity. The factors include headwater depth, tailwater depth, inlet geometry,
slope, and roughness of culvert barrel. All these factors can be grouped into two

conditions:

0 Inlet Control

0 Outlet Control

Inlet Control — When a culvert functions under the inlet control or entrance control, the
flow through the culvert and the associated headwater depth upstream of the structure are
primary functions of the culvert entrance. The headwater depth increases to force
discharge through the culverts. The entrance capacity is determined by opening area,
shape of the opening, and inlet configuration. Under inlet control, the culvert never flows
full through its entire length and the design must balance the peak flow to the culvert
location against the allowable depth and the spread of backwater. Possible changes in

land use and runoff rates must be given consideration.

 

Figure 2.2: Culverts functioning as Inlet Control
(Source: http://www.hydrocad.net/culvert1.htm)

26

Outlet Control — A culvert functions under outlet control when it is not capable of

conveying as much flow as the inlet is accepting. The discharge is influenced by the same

characteristics as inlet control plus the tailwater depth and barrel characteristics like

slope, length and roughness. The flow is usually subcritical or under pressure through the

structure. While designing outlet control, downstream protection must be considered

against scouring or erosion.

 

 

Figure 2.3: Culverts functioning as Outlet Control
(Source: http://www.hydrocad.net/culvertl .htrn)

Table 2.2: Comparisons between Inlet and Outlet Control

(Source: ht_tp://www.haestad.com/librm/books/fmras/floodplainonlinebook)

 

Inlet Control

Outlet Control

 

Design discharge (Q) is a fiinction of inlet
geometry

Design discharge (Q) is a function of outlet
geometry

 

Inlet capacity is less than barrel capacity

Inlet capacity is greater than barrel capacity

 

Barrel does not flow full

Barrel can flow full

 

Culverts act as an orifice or weir

Culverts act as a pressure conduit

 

Normal depth is less than critical depth

Normal depth is greater than critical depth

 

Culvert slope is greater than critical slope

Culvert slope is less than critical slope

 

 

No influence on headwater elevation by

water surface elevation at culvert exit

Water surface elevation at culvert exit is an
important factor in calculating headwater

elevation

 

 

27

 

2.5.3 Types of Flow (FHWA, 2001)

Full Flow — The hydraulic condition where the culvert is flowing full is called pressure
flow. The back pressure caused by a high downstream water surface elevation causes the
pressure flow condition. The capacity of the culvert operating under pressure flow is
affected by upstream and downstream conditions and by the hydraulic characteristics of

the culvert.

 

Figure 2.4: Culvert Flowing under Pressure Flow
(Source: FHWA, 2001)

Free Flow — Free flow is also called an open channel flow and is characterized as
subcritical, critical, or supercritical. The flow regime is determined by evaluating a

dimensionless number called Froude’s number:

V

1/2

= (gm

r

Where, F, = Froude number
V = Average velocity of flow

y h = Hydraulic depth
g = Gravitational acceleration

28

If F, >1.0, then the flow is supercritical and is characterized as swift flow as shown in

Figure 2.3.

If F, <1.0, then the flow is subcritical and is smooth.

If F, = 1.0, then the flow is critical

 

 

 

 

Figure 2.5: Flow Conditions
(Source: FHWA 2001)

2.5.4 Structural Aspects (FHWA 1986)

Flexible Culvert Behavior — A flexible culvert is a composite structure made up of culvert
barrel and the surrounding soil. The barrel and the soil are both vital elements to the
structural performance of the concrete.

Flexible culverts have less bending stiffness or bending strength on their own. As
shown in the Figure 2.6, as vertical loads are applied a flexible culvert attempts to deflect.
The vertical diameter decreases while the horizontal diameter increases. Soil pressures

resist the increase in horizontal diameter.

Load

 

Horizontal

 

Load

Figure 2.6: Deflection of Flexible Culverts
(Source: FHWA 1986)

When good embankment material is compacted around the culvert, the increase in
horizontal diameter of the culvert is resisted by the lateral soil pressure. In circular
shaped culverts, a uniform radial pressure is developed around the pipe that creates a
compressive thrust in the pipe walls. An arc of a flexible round pipe or other shape will
be stable until soil pressure is achieved and resisted by compressive force on each end of
the arc. Good quality backfill material and proper installation are critical in obtaining a

stable soil envelope around a flexible culvert.

Rigid Culvert Behavior — The load carrying capacity of rigid culverts is provided by the
structural strength and from the surrounding earth. When vertical loads are applied to a

rigid culvert pipe, zones of tension and compression are created as shown in Figure 2.7.

Reinforcing steel is added to the tension zones to increase the tensile strength of concrete
pipe. Shear stress in haunch area can be critical for heavily loaded rigid pipe on hard
foundations. Since a rigid pipe is stiffer than the surrounding soil, it carries a substantial

portion of the load.

Load Tension

 

Compression

Load '3

Figure 2.7: Zones of Tension and Compression in Rigid Pipes

2.5.5 Culvert Types

Culverts can be categorized based on their shapes and sizes. The selection of a shape for
a culvert depends on depth of cover or headwater elevation, potential for clogging by
debris, stream profile, or structural and hydraulic requirements. The common shapes for a

culvert are:

0 Circular
0 Pipe Arch or Elliptical

o Arches

3i

0 Box Sections

0 Multiple Barrels

Circular — The circular shape is the most common shape among culvert materials. It is
hydraulically and structurally eflicient under most conditions. Possible hydraulic
problems are that it generally causes some reduction in stream width during low flows
and it may clog due to diminishing free surfaces as the pipe fills beyond the midpoint.
Elliptical or Pipe Arch — Elliptical culverts are used instead of circular pipe when
distance from channel invert to pavement surface is limited or when a wider section is
desirable for low flow levels. These pipes are also prone to clogging as the depth of flow
increases and the free surface diminishes. Elliptical shaped culverts are not structurally as
efficient as a circular shape. They are used in areas with limited vertical clearance and
low cover conditions.

Arches — Arch culverts have no culvert barrel material at the bottom and offer less of an
obstruction to the waterway than the pipe arches and can be used to provide a natural
stream bottom, where the stream bottom is naturally erosion and abrasion resistant.

Foundation conditions must be adequate to support the footings.

Box Sections or Rectangular - Rectangular culverts are easily adaptable to a wide range
of site conditions, including sites that require low profile structures. Due to angular

comers, boxes are not structurally and hydraulically efficient as other culvert shapes.

32

Multiple Barrels — Multiple barrels are used to obtain adequate hydraulic capacity under
low embankments or for a wide waterway. Sometimes, they are prone to clogging as the

area between the barrels tends to catch debris and sediment.

 

Figure 2.8: Multiple Barrel Culverts
(Source: http://www.shermanconcrete.com/boxculvhtm)

2.5.6 Culvert Materials

Culverts are made up of concrete, metal, masonry, timber, clay, and plastic material. The
strength and physical characteristics of the materials depends upon their chemistry and
the interrelationship between the constituent materials. Metals and plastic are
homogeneous and isotropic materials, whereas concrete and masonry are a mixture or
combination of materials. The method by which the materials are connected significantly

influences whether the strength of the materials may be utilized structurally.

ODOT classified the different culverts according to the material in their

culvert manual as shown in the Table 2.3.

Table 2.3: Culvert Classification according to their Material (ORITE 2005)

 

Culvert Type

Sub - Category

 

Corrugated Metal

Coated Corrugated Steel Pipe

 

Coated with Paved Invert Corrugated
Steel Pipe

 

Galvanized Corrugated Steel Pipe

 

Corrugated Metal, Pipe Use with Shape
Code 1 only

 

Corrugated Metal, Non Sectional Plate
Use with Shape Code 2, 3, 4

 

Corrugated Metal, Sectional Plate Use
with Shape Code L2, 3, 5, 6, 7

 

Corrugated Stainless Steel, Non —-
Sectional Plate

 

Corrugated Stainless Steel, Sectional
Plate

 

Corrugated Aluminum Alloy

 

Steel Casing

 

Corrugated Steel Spiral Rib

 

Cast Iron or Ductile Iron

 

Concrete

Plain or Reinforced Concrete

 

Corrugated Plastic Smooth Interior

 

Plastic

 

Corrugated Plastic

 

Polyvinyl Chloride

 

 

High Density Polyethylene Liner

 

2.5.6.1 Corrugated Metal Culverts

Corrugated Metal Culverts (CMP) is one of the oldest culvert material used in US, other
than concrete. With greatest variety of shapes and sizes available, and ability of
modification to increase the durability of the culvert has made this material preferable in
many sites. According to (Ring 1984), Kent Allemeier, Chairman of Technical Section

for AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials, quoted the following advantages of

Corrugated Steel Pipe:

 

They are ideal for shipping due to their lightweight

Their sizes and shapes vary in a large range

The thickness of the sheets and also the corrugations can be selected from a wide
range in order to obtain the required strength

Easy for the working crew to assemble and install

Also, the disadvantages of Corrugated Steel Pipe are as follows:

Corrugation roughness decreases the rate of flow except for the smooth — line
pipes

Due to presence of sand and/or rock in a high velocity stream, abrasion may cause
loss of metal

High sensitivity to high or low soil pH or water pH, and soil or water resistivity,
which may end up with corrosion

Backfill operations must be handled with care due to the importance of soil

support for load bearing

The most important factors affecting durability of Corrugated Metal Pipes are pH,

dissolved salts, hardness, alkalinity, abrasiveness, and time of water content. The rate of

corrosion of CMP is affected negatively as the difference between acidity and

chloride/sulfate salts and hardness and alkalinity salts increase with presence of abrasion

(Bednar 1989)

Apart from abrasion and corrosion, corrugated metal pipes are also affected by

backfill operations. Improper choices of backfill material selection, presence of ground

35

water, and level of compaction equipment have very significant effects on structural

performance of CMP (Shen 1994).

2.5.6.2 Concrete Culverts

Concrete is one of the oldest materials used in all types of constructions. As the usage of
precast concrete increased, designers started using this material in drainage infrastructure.
Being more rigid compared to metal, concrete culverts are more resistant to the backfill
loading, corrosion, and abrasion. (Ring 1984) quoted the advantages and disadvantages of

concrete culverts as follows:

Advantages of concrete culverts:

0 Their sizes and shapes vary in large range
0 The thickness and strength of the concrete, amount, and configuration of the
reinforcement vary in a large range, making it possible to design appropriately for
a specific site
0 Resistant to corrosion and abrasion in normal installation
0 The flow has better characteristics due to the smoother surface compared to
corrugations
o Rigidity of concrete makes it better in resisting loadings during compaction
(Bealey 1984) explains the effect of different environmental conditions on concrete
culverts. Abrasion and erosion, freeze-thaw, sulfate soils, chlorides; and acids are the
conditions which are the most important factors that determine the durability of concrete
culverts. Acid attack is the only significant harmful attack for precast concrete culverts.

The study compares cast-in-place concrete culverts with precast concrete culverts and

36

reaches the conclusion that precast concrete culverts can withstand the most aggressive

environments if they are designed accordingly.

Concrete culvert structures usually do not face structural problems due to their
rigidity. However, soil conditions adjacent to the concrete pipes can create problems.
Heger and Selig (Heger, 1994) investigated two case studies in rigid pipe installation
failures. According to the results of their investigation, soft soil adjacent to the pipe under
high fills can cause increased earth loads on the structure. They suggest that soft soils be

removed from each side of the culvert for a distance of atleast one diameter.

The performance of concrete culverts depends on the pH of the flow, age of the
culvert, sediment depth, slope, presence of roadway de-icing salts, and soil strata next to
the culvert. From the studies, concrete culverts appear to be more durable than metal

culverts but they are heavier and installation process in harder.

2.5.6.3 Plastic Culverts
Technological improvements in material science enabled pipe manufacturers to produce
lightweight and durable pipes from polymers. Plastic pipes provide equivalent service life

in a potentially broader range of conditions than either metal or concrete.

The two most commonly used plastics are Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) and High
Density Polyethylene (HDPE). Both are unaffected by the chemical and corrosive
elements typically found in soils. They have exhibited excellent abrasive resistance,

particularly when acidic or alkaline conditions are present.

37

ORITE has investigated ten culverts and the most frequently observed
problem was the deflection of the pipes. Localized buckling was the second most

frequent problem followed by misalignment problems at the joints.

Gassman et.al conducted investigation on forty five HDPE culverts in
South Carolina. Visual inspections and measurements were carried out with respect to
AASHTO and ASTM specifications. According to those inspections, 36% of the pipes
exhibited minor cracks, punctures, or bulges. The reason of these deflections and cracks
were given as improper installation techniques such as poor bedding of soils and

inadequate backfilling.

Plastic pipes can be manufactured with a desired durability to with stand
the effects of corrosion and abrasion. However, installation and baclcfilling procedures

have to be handled with care.

2.5.7 Culvert Appurtenances and End Treatments (FHWA 1986)
Culvert appurtenances are structural and fiinctional portions of the culvert that improve

its flow characteristics and functionality. The primary appurtenances include:

0 Headwall or Endwall
o Wingwall

0 Energy Dissipators

o Aprons

0 Fish Passage Device

o Projecting

o Skewed

o Mitered
Headwall - Headwalls are entrance structures that protect the embankment from erosion
and improve the hydraulic efficiency of the culvert. They provide embankment stability
and protection from buoyancy. Properly designed, they shorten the required structure
length and reduce maintenance damage. They also provide structural protection to inlets

and outlets.

Wingwall — Wingwalls recess the inflow or outflow end of the culvert barrel. They
anchor the pipe to prevent disjointing caused by excessive pressures and control erosion

and scour resulting from excessive velocities and turbulences. They are generally used:

0 To retain the roadway embankment
0 Where the side slopes of the channel are unstable

0 Where the culvert is skewed to the normal channel flow

Headwall

  

Wingwall

Figure 2.9: Culvert showing Headwall and Wingwall
(Source: www.tankmasta.com.au/ images/Rural/Culvert.jpg)

39

Other benefits of end structures are that the tapered sides merge with the slope to provide
a neat appearance with erosion, sedimentation, scour, blockage and vegetation growth

reduction.

Energy Dissipators — Energy dissipators are any structures designed to protect
downstream areas from erosion by reducing the velocity of flow to acceptable limits.
They are used to reduce the energy of flowing water and protect the highway, streambed,
and adjacent property. Energy dissipators include several types — riprap basins, impact

basins, drop structures and hydraulic jumps.

A riprap basin is riprapped floor constructed at the approximate depth of
the scour. It is classified as either graded or ungraded. Graded riprap forms a flexible self
healing cover, while ungraded riprap is more rigid and cannot withstand movement of the
stones. Impact basins dissipate energy through the impact of flowing water with various
devices in the basin. One such device is a hook-type dissipater designed for culverts with
low tailwater. Drop structures changes the channel slope from steep to mild by placing a
series of gentle slopes and vertical drops. They control the slope in such a way that highly
erosive velocities never develop. The kinetic energy gained by water as it drops over the
crest is dissipated by aprons or stilling basins. The hydraulic jump is a natural
phenomenon that occurs when supercritical flow changes to subcritical flow. This abrupt
change in flow condition is accompanied by turbulence and loss of energy. It is an
effective energy dissipation device that is often employed to control erosion at hydraulic

structure.

 

Figure 2.10: Riprap Basin to Protect Streambed and Stream Slope
(Source: www.tankmasta.com.au/ images/Rural/Culvertjpg)

Aprons — Aprons are used at the inlets of the culvert to prevent scouring and undermining
from high headwater depths or from approach velocity in the channel to eliminate
clogging by vegetation growth. They are used to improve hydraulic efficiency at the

inlets. Most aprons include a cutoff wall to protect from undermining.

Fish Passage — Culverts exhibit potential obstacles to fish passage along the waterway.
The two most common problems are excessive water velocities through the culvert or
vertical barriers are too high for fish to overcome. Other problems include when depth of
water in the culvert are at high, moderate, or low flows which may not be feasible with
the swimming capabilities of the fish, the coincidence of design flows with seasonal time

of fish migration, icing and debris problem.

To successfully provide fish passage through the culvert, modifications to the
barrel to decrease the velocity and increase the depth of flow by increasing roughness
elements can be made or by providing fish ladders, backwater structures like weirs,

gabions, etc, and a fish pool at the culvert outlet can be provided.

41

Projecting — This is a type of end treatment that has no end structure attached to ends of

the culvert barrel. The barrel is made to extend beyond the face of the embankment.

Mitered end — A mitered end treatment is a culvert end that has been cut to match the
embankment slope. Mitered ends are commonly provided for corrugated metal pipe and

are also called as beveled end.

Skewed End — Culverts which are not perpendicular to the centerline of the roadway are
called skewed. If the ends are cut to be parallel to the roadway, it is called a skewed end

treatment.

2.6 Factors Influencing Performance of a Culvert (AASHTO, 1999)

Performance of a culvert is directly proportional to its remaining design service life. It is
defined as the period of service without a need for major repairs. For corrugated metal
pipes (CMP), this will normally be the period in years from installation until deterioration
reaches the point of either perforation of any point on the culvert or some specified
percent of metal loss. Reinforced concrete pipe service life is the period from its
installation until reinforcing steel is exposed, or a crack signifying severe distress
develops. Plastic pipe service life may be considered at an end when excessive cracking,
perforation, or deflection has occurred. Culvert service life can also be affected by debris
damage or erosion caused by major storm events, improper manufacture, or handling of

the culvert.

Major factors influencing the performance or service life of a culvert are:

0 Durability factors

> Corrosion

42

 

> Abrasion
0 Loss of Structural Integrity

> Joint Separation
Misalignment
Deflection

Seam Defects

VVVV

Stream or Roadway Embankment Erosion
0 Environmental Factors

> Scaling

> Delamination

> Spalling

Chloride Contamination

V7

Effl orescence
Honeycombs
Pop-Outs

Collision Damage

V V VV V

Scouting

2.6.1 Durability

Durability is the property to resist erosion, material degradation, and subsequent loss of
function due to environmental and/or other service conditions. Abrasion and corrosion

are the most common durability problems for culverts. Proper attention must be given to

43

these problems in the design phase. Field inspection of culverts existing on the same

stream will prove valuable in assessing potential problems.

The Ohio Research Institute for Transportation and Environment
(ORITE) conducted research on sixty culverts in May 2005 to determine the significant
parameters for culvert durability. The study determined that culvert alignment was not a
problem in most of the metal culvert sites and stress cracks were not observed at the bolt
lines of any of the metal culverts. Perforations at the inlet and flow line, scour at inlet,
outlet, and headwall were the most frequently encountered problems. According to the
authors, pH, abrasiveness, flow velocity, age and rise were the significant parameters and
invert region was more sensitive to material degradation compared to other regions. Two

major factor influencing durability are as follows:

Corrosion - is the destruction of pipe materials by chemical action. Metal culverts or
reinforcements in concrete pipes are attacked by corrosion as the process of returning
metals to their native state of oxides or salts. Chemical corrosion of culverts may occur in
the presence of soils and water containing acids, alkalis, dissolved salts, and organic
industrial wastes. Sulfates, carbonates, and chlorides degrade concrete which is a process
often accelerated in regions where freeze-thaw cycles leave the material open to deeper
penetration by the offending elements. Electrochemical corrosion of metal culverts may
occur due to the presence of water or some other liquid to act as an electrolyte, as well as
materials acting as an anode, cathode, and conductor. As electrons move from anode to
cathode, metal ions are released into solution, with characteristic pitting at the anode. The
culvert will act as both anode and cathode forming an electrolytic cell around the

material.

 

Figure 2.11: Corrosion in Culverts (Caltrans, 2003)

Hydrogen Ion Concentration (pl-I) — pH is defined as the log of the reciprocal of the
concentration of hydrogen ion in a solution. Values of pH in natural waters are within a
range of 4 — 10. A pH less than 5.5 is usually considered to be strongly acidic, while
values of 8.5 or greater are strongly alkaline. The presence of oxygen at the metal surface
is necessary for the corrosion to occur and is independent of the pH. However, pH
reading that is either highly acidic or alkaline is indicative of a heightened potential for
corrosion. A pH value between 5.5 and 8.5 are not considered to be detrimental to culvert

life.

Soil Resistivity — Resistivity of the soil is a measure of soils ability to conduct electrical
current. It is affected by the nature, concentration of dissolved salts, temperature,
moisture content, compactness, and the presence of inert materials such as stones and
gravel. The greater the resistivity of the soil, the less capable the soil is of conducting

electricity and the lower the corrosive potential.

Chlorides — Dissolved salts containing chloride ions can enhance culvert durability if
their presence decreases oxygen solubility. But, the corrosive potential is increased as the

negative chloride ion decreases the resistivity of the soil and water destroying the

45

protective film on the anodic area. Chlorides attack unprotected metal culverts and
reinforcing steel in concrete culverts if concrete cover is inadequate, cracked or highly

permeable.

Abrasion — Abrasion is the gradual wearing away of the culvert wall due to the
impingement of bedload and suspended material. Abrasive potential is a function of
culvert material, frequency, velocity of flow in the culvert, and composition of bedload.
The effect of abrasion can be seen in the pipe invert where exposure is most severe. It can
result in loss of pipe strength or reduction in hydraulic quality as they gradually remove

wall material as abrasion is a precursor to accelerated corrosion.

Debris — Debris is carried by storm water and can be a destructive element as their
potential is related to clogging of the culvert with the effect of overtopping and erosion.
Large volume of debris can increase bedload abrasion. The most common types of debris

found in culverts are boulders, trees, shrubs, ice, etc.

 

Figure 2.12: Debris at the opening of the culvert
(Source:http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/pubs/tech_news/2005/mar-apr/debris-at—culvertj pg)

Bedload — Bedload is the main cause for abrasion. Critical factors in evaluating bedload

potential are the size, shape, and hardness of the bedload material, and the velocity and

46

frequency of flow in the culvert. Flow velocities greater than 4.5 m/sec which carry a
bedload are considered to be very abrasive. Steel culverts are most susceptible to the dual
action of abrasion and corrosion when they are exposed to low resistivity and/or low pH

environments, which shorten their service life.

 

Figure 2.13: Deterioration due to Abrasion (Caltrans, 2003)
2.6.2 Loss of Structural Integrity

Loss of structural integrity shortens the service life of culverts or affects its performance.
They are due to defect in manufacture of culvert pipes, improper construction techniques,
or from the effects of a large storm event. Losses of structural integrity occurs over a
period of time and are related to factors such as piping seepage, soil movement, scour,

and backfill soil loss. Common defects found in any culvert type are:

Joint Separation — Joint separation depends upon the type of joint used. Joints with an
external sleeve allow a limited amount of axial separation between abutted pipe ends
since the external sleeve will typically maintain joint integrity and limit infiltration. For
bell and spigot type joints, there is no allowable separation. Some minimum amount of

overlap is usually specified.

47

Causes of joint separation or insufficient overlap are due to inadequate quality control
during construction like uneven bedding, poorly compacted backfilling operations, or
unexpected settlements. Joint problems also occur when culverts are installed under
existing roadways by constructing half the width at a time. Adequate backfill compaction
and alignment at the point where the two halves meet is very difficult and proper joining
may not occur. Natural hazards like earthquakes and landslides also lead to joint
separation in culverts. Anchorage and other higher strength joint connection are specified

under these conditions.

 

Figure 2.14: Culvert Pipe showing Cracks and Joint Separation
(Source. http: //www. lagunabeachcity. neu’guvr-
image002 .jpg)

tJ
‘\

r UUUUW ‘ 1
Misalignment — Problems that causes joint separation can also leads to misalignment.
Misalignments are deviations from planned alignments. Segmental construction, where
portions of a single pipe are constructed at separate times, leads to misalignment due to
differential settlement rates, and the difficulty in maintaining constant grade through the
area of segment connection. Poor vertical alignment may indicate problems with the
subgrade beneath the pipe bedding. They trap debris and sediment and may impede flow.

This could saturate the soil beneath and around the culvert, reducing the soils stability.

Minor vertical and horizontal misalignment is not a problem unless it causes shape or

joint problems.

Seam Defects — Seam defects are the result of poor manufacturing or improper handling
of culvert materials. Types of defects include loose fasteners, cocked or cusped seams,

seam cracking, bolt tipping, dents, and localized damage.

The longitudinal seams in steel structures are bolted with high strength bolts in
crests and valleys of the corrugations. These are bearing type connections and are not
dependent on the minimum clamping force of bolt tension to develop interface friction
between the plates. Fasteners must be checked for their tightness, as any loose or missing

fasteners may lead to collapse of the structure.

The shape and curvature of the structure is affected by the lapped and bolted
longitudinal seams. Improper erection or fabrication can result in cocked or cusped
seams. Cusped seams alter the structure’s shape, appearance, and dimensions from that
designed. A cocked seam can result in loss of backfill and may reduce the ultimate ring

compression strength of the seam.

Seam cracking develops along the bolt holes of longitudinal seams. As cracking
progresses, the structure may lose ring compression capability of the seam and this could
result in deformation of the culvert or possible failure. Longitudinal cracks are most
serious when accompanied by significant deflection, distortion, and other conditions
indicative of backfill or soil problems. Cracking may be caused by improper erection

practice such as using bolting force to lay down a badly cocked seam.

49

Bolted seams develop their ultimate strength under compression. Bolt tipping
occurs when the plate slip. As the plates begin to slip, the bolts tip, and the bolt holes are
plastically elongated by the bolt shank. Excessive compression on a seam could result in
plate deformations around the tipped bolts and failure is reached when the bolts are

pulled through the plates.

Pipe wall damages such as dents, bulges, creases, and cracks are found when the
defects are extensive. They impair the integrity of the barrel in ring compression or
permit infiltration of backfill. When the deformation type damages are critical, they result

in distorted cross-sectional shapes.

Longitudinal Cracks - Concrete is strong in compression and weak in tension.
Reinforcing steel is provided to handle the tensile stresses. Hairline longitudinal cracks in
the crown or invert indicate that steel has received part of the load. Longitudinal cracking
in excess of 0.1 inch in width may indicate overloading or poor bedding. If the pipe is
placed on hard material and backfill is not adequately compacted around the pipe or
under the haunches of the pipe, loads will be concentrated along the bottom of the pipe

and may result in flexure or shear cracking as shown in the Figure 2.15.

 

Figure 2.15: Longitudinal Crack in a Culvert Pipe
(Source: http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/images/ui/figure23 .j pg)

Transverse Cracks - Transverse cracks or circumferential cracks are caused by poor
bedding. Cracks occur across the bottom or crown of the pipe when it is supported at the
ends of each section. This is the result of poor installation practices, such as not providing

sufficient depth of suitable bedding material.

 

Figure 2.16: Transverse Cracks in a Culvert Pipe
(Source: Caltrans 2003)

2.6.3 Environmental Factors (Caltrans, 2003)

Scaling — scaling is the gradual and continuing loss of aggregate over an area due to the
chemical breakdown of the cement bond. It starts as a localized small patch which
merges and extends to expose large areas. Light scaling does not expose the coarse
aggregate. Moderate scaling exposes the aggregate and may involve loss of upto 1/8 to
3/8 inch of the surface mortar. In severe scaling, more surfaces will be lost and the

aggregate is separated and exposed. (NRMCA, 1998)

5l

 

Figure 2.17: Scaling exposed on Concrete Surface
(Source: http://www.pci-potomac.com/faq/scaling.jpg)

Delamination - delamination is the sub surface separation of concrete into layers. It is
caused by corrosion of internal expansion. The extent of deterioration in delamination is

often unknown until the delamination is opened up.

 

Figure 2.18: Delamination on a Concrete Surface
(Source: http://www.cdcrestoration.com/structuralhtml)

Spalling — Spalling is a depression in concrete caused by a separation of a portion of the
surface concrete where the topping in popping or peeling off. This is due to the action of
weak top surface, overworking of the concrete, low entrainment, excessive water, and

freeze thaw cycling.

52

 

Figure 2.19: Spalling on a Concrete Surface
(Source: Caltrans, 2003)
Efllorescence — Efflorescence is a combination of calcium carbonate leached out of the
cement paste and other recrystallized carbonate and chloride compounds. It is a white
crystalline or powdery deposit on the surface of the concrete surface and is caused by
water seeping through the culvert wall. The water dissolves salts inside the concrete

surface, while moving through it, and then evaporates leaving the salts on the surface.

 

l"..

Figure 2.20: Formation of Efflorescence on a Concrete Surface
(Source: http://www.housecheckguide.com/photos/600tall/fig—37.jpg)

Honeycombs - Honeycombs are coarse aggregate on the surface without any mortar
covering or surrounding the aggregate particles. The honeycombing may extend deep
inside the concrete and are caused by a poorly graded concrete mix or by insufficient
vibration at the time of placement. Honeycombing must be taken care of when noticed

and repaired to prevent firrther deterioration of the concrete surface.

 

Figure 2.21: Honeycombing on a concrete surface (Source: http://www.arche.ps
u.edu/thinshells/module%20III/concrete_behavior_text_fi1es/ image020.j pg)

Popouts — Popouts are conical fragments that break out of the surface of the concrete
leaving small holes as shown in Figure 2.22. Popouts occur because the concrete has been

overworked, allowing the aggregates to drift upward toward the surface.

 

Figure 2. 22: Popouts in a Concrete Structure

(Source: http: //www. vseal. COIN/l surf ’......g-."’ , Ipuuiaa. .jpg)

Other factors which influence the performance or service life of a culvert are:
0 Size, shape, hardness, and volume of bedload
0 Volume, velocity, and frequency of streamflow in the culvert
0 Material characteristics of the culvert
o Anticipated changes in the watershed upstream of the culvert, such as industrial or

residential development (AASHTO 1999)

2.7 Summary

This chapter reviews various concepts and principles of culvert asset management. The
enforcement of GASB 34 in 1999 requires all state and local agencies to preserve the
infrastructure assets using modified approach. The modified approach follows the asset
management principles which are comprehensive and structured approaches to the long
term management of infrastructure assets. The key feature of an asset management
strategy is customer focus and mission driven. It results in cost saving over the

emergency repair of culvert failures which is an increasing problem in the nation.

Understanding the engineering aspects of the culvert is very necessary in developing an
inventory and inspection model. This chapter briefly explains hydraulic and structural
concepts like inlet control, outlet control, types of flow, flexible and rigid culvert
behavior, culvert types based on shape and material identifies various culvert components
like culvert appurtenances and end treatment and lists the various factors contributing to

culvert deterioration such as durability, loss of structural integration, and environmental.

55

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

Chapter one of the thesis illustrated the importance of an inventory and inspection
model in framing an effective asset management strategy to preserve our deteriorating
culverts; it also explained the need for this research and presented goals and objectives
for this project. Chapter two focused on the asset management principles, engineering
considerations of culverts, factors affecting their performance, and culvert asset
management. Chapter three presents the process in developing inventory and inspection
models that would facilitate the objectives of this research. This research is carried out in

five phases and is explained with respect to the proposed objectives.

3.2 Phase 1: Literature Review
Objective: To study the state of practice culvert asset management

Literature was reviewed to study the state of practice culvert asset management. The
study focuses on various components of a culvert and its structural and hydraulic
behavior. This facilitates identifying the key components for detailed inventory of the
culverts. Reviewing various concepts affecting the performance or the service life of a
culvert, existing inspection, data analysis, and reporting methods gives us an insight in

developing condition assessment model. A national survey was conducted in all fifty

56

states of the US and ten provinces of Canada to study the implementation of culvert

inventory and inspection in addition to asset management strategy.

3.2.1 Developing Questionnaire

A questionnaire is an instrument for collecting data for a particular survey. It consists of a
series of written questions for which respondents provide complete and accurate
information. Questionnaires are a valuable method of collecting a wide range of
information from a large number of respondents. The steps followed in developing a

survey questionnaire are:

0 Determine the goals and objectives of the survey

0 Determine the general question content needed to obtain information
0 Choose a question type based on interview method

0 Determine the form of response

0 Choose the exact question wording

0 Arrange the questions into an effective sequence

0 Categorize the questions based on type of information sought

0 Give an introduction and provide a consent form for the respondents

0 Test the questionnaire and revise it if needed (www.quickmba.com)

The objective of this survey questionnaire is to understand the current developments in
inventory and inspection of culverts spanning less than 10 feet (diameter or opening

length) in the US and Canada. Based on the feedback, the existing literature on culvert

57

inventory and inspection procedures will be collected and later checked with the
proposed research model. This survey would highlight the importance of this research by
giving us an idea about culvert deterioration and the necessity of asset management in

preserving them.

3.2.2 Interview Method

There are twenty six questions in this survey, most of which are closed ended questions
giving the respondents with three choices — “Yes” “No” and “Development Phase.” It is
estimated to take less than 15 minutes to complete this survey. The respondents are given

three options for answering:

1. Web format, which is strongly recommended. The survey was designed in Hosted
Survey software (www.hostedsurvey.com) and hosted on their server. All the respondents

was sent an email with the survey link:

http://www.hostedsurvey.com/takesurvey.asp?c=AnAssel55751

2. PDF format of the survey questionnaire was sent to all respondents with the web
format. They could answer the survey and fax it to the Center for Underground

Infrastructure Research and Education (CUIRE) at (5 1 7)43 2-493 7.

3. Telephone interview, where the respondents will be sent CUIRE telephone number —

(517)335 — 3885 and they could call and give their answers.

All the fifty Department of Transportation (DOT)’s in the US and ten Provinces in
Canada were contacted. The best person to answer this survey in either Highway
Maintenance Division or Asset Management Division or Bridge Management Division or
Hydraulics Division was identified. All the details of the research are explained and their

consent to participate is taken.

The prepared questionnaire will be submitted for approval to the CUIRE team which
consists of Dr. Mohammad Najafi, Director, CUIRE and Peter Funkhouser, Engineer,
Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT); The oversite committee which consists
of industry professionals Mr. Dave Kozman, American Water Services, Mr. Troy Freed,
SOS Service Group, Mr. Shiv Gupta, Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WDOT),
Mr. Greg Wadley, Midwest Regional University Transportation Center (MRUTC), Mr.
Terry McArthur, I-IDR; and to the University Committee on Research Involving Human
Subjects (UCRIHS). UCRIHS reviewers the survey instrument to make sure that human

related matter were handled as per the rules and regulations.

Once all approvals were received and necessary revisions were made, the survey
instrument was mailed to all the respondents. All the responses were collected in the
Hostedsurvey server and a database of all the agencies responded was maintained in a
Microsoft Excel sheet. A total of three reminders was sent to all the unanswered

respondents, one every week for three weeks.

59

3.2.3 Data Analysis & Results

The collected data was recorded in Excel format. Because of the small sample size of
thirty three, a statistical study of the data will not be carried out, so a qualitative analysis
of the data will be used. The responses was evaluated and separated into different
categories. The entire background of the respondent, his/her technical knowledge, and
experience in culvert inspection and management will be given significance in drawing

the conclusion.

3.3 Phase 2: Inventory Model
Objective: Development of inventory protocol

Based on through literature review in phase 1 of the methodology, survey, and discussion
with the industry professionals, a data collection format or the inventory database was
developed. The concept of whole to part will be implemented, where the identification
starts from state level (Ex: Culverts in Michigan) to very specific component of the
culvert. A coding system was followed throughout the data collection format to create a
platform for Global Positioning System (GPS) and Geographical Information System
(GIS). Most of the coding system follows national standards like the Federal Information
Processing System (F IPS). This inventory database was accompanied by a coding
manual, which defines all the details and codes. All the culverts will be assigned a unique
identification number (UI) for linking them to GIS and other financial softwares used by
the DOT’s. This inventory database will be the foundation in developing a condition

assessment or inspection model for culverts.

60

3.4 Phase 3: Condition Assessment Model

Objective: Development of inspection or condition assessment protocol, condition rating

system, and performance score calculator.

The development of a condition assessment system requires a good understanding of the
structural and hydraulic performance of the culverts, various factors that affect their
service life, and contribute towards their deterioration, existing inspection and repair
procedures for other or similar structures like bridges, guardrails, etc., and thorough
management and statistics knowledge. The condition assessment system was divided into

two parts:

0 Basic Condition Assessment

0 Advanced Condition Assessment

In basic condition assessment, only the major components of the culvert will be inspected
and will be assigned a rating between 5 — 0, where 5 represents excellent or new
condition and 0 represents failed condition. Using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP),
“a decision making process which involves structuring multiple choice criteria into
hierarchy, assessing the relative importance of these criteria, comparing alternatives for
each criterion, and determining overall ranking of the alternatives” (http://www. rfp-
templates.com/Analytical-Hierarchy-Process-(AI-IP).html), a matrix will be developed for
all the major components of the culvert and a relative weight will be assigned to them.
Using the relative weights of all the components, a performance score calculator will be

established and all the culverts will be categorized into three zones as follows:

61

0 Green zone or safe zone
0 Yellow zone or intermediate zone

0 Red zone or danger zone

Short and long term plans for culvert inspection will be proposed based on these
categories. But, for the culverts in the red zone or danger zone, which need immediate

attention, advanced condition assessment will be performed.

In advanced condition assessment, all the structural, hydraulic, and environmental
parameters influencing the performance or service life of the culvert will be identified.
These parameters are given a rating system between 5 — 0, where a rating of 5 would
indicate a very minor problem and a rating of 0 would indicate a very severe or major
problem. Again, using AI-IP performance, factors were determined for all culverts. Using
the performance factors of the advanced condition assessment, two formulas were

developed:

0 Percent Performance Improvement Factor

0 Percent Performance Deterioration Factor will be formulated

3.5 Phase 4: Validation

Objective: Validating the above models

The above models are validated using two procedures:

0 Carrying out the pilot field study

62

0 Discussion with the industry professionals and Michigan DOT officials

Validating is an important phase in any research process, as the theoretical models and
frameworks should go well with the practical problem. Using the As-Built plans from
Michigan DOT, maintenance division, the culvert sites in and around Mid-Michigan will
be located. All the safety and inspecting permits from related agencies will be obtained
before going to the culvert sites. Culvert inventory and basic condition assessment are
conducted together. First, the culvert is tracked using the data collection format
accompanied by the culvert inventory coding manual. Using the basic condition rating
system, the major components of each culvert are inspected and documented in the
condition assessment format. Then the overall culvert performance factor is determined
and the culvert is categorized into the three zones defined in phase three. All the culverts
identified under red or danger zone are subjected to advanced condition assessment.
Using the advanced condition assessment rating system, all the details are documented in

the respective format. Finally, the performance factor is determined and recorded.

Another validating procedure is the discussion with the industry professionals and
Michigan DOT officials. Once the inventory and inspection model is developed, a
meeting will be arranged in the CUIRE office. A Microsoft PowerPoint presentation of
the models will be presented to the officials. Feedback from the discussion will be
documented and later necessary revisions will be incorporated in the models. Similarly,
the models will be emailed to all the over-site industry professionals and a teleconference
will be arranged in the CUIRE office. The discussion will be documented and later any

suggestions or revisions will be incorporated in the inventory and inspection models.

63

3.6 Phase 5: Conclusion

Objective: Conclusion and Recommendation for implementing effective culvert asset

management strategy.

This phase summarizes all the steps adopted in the methodology to complete this
research. Based on the discussion with the Michigan DOT officials and industry
professionals, practical recommendations will be suggested for implementing this
research on a large scale. The recommendations will be useful in developing short and
long term plans. Also, areas for future research and development related to culvert asset

management will be proposed.

64

 

Engineering Concepts

 

Factors Affecting Culvert Paforrnance

— A... Mammalian |

 

 

 

 

Existing inventory and inspection

 

 

Set up a questionnaire

Call up DOT’s and look for
respondents
Send the questionnaire
Collect and Analyze

V

       

Conduct a
National Survey

   
 
  

    
 
 
 
 

 

 

Feedback from Industry
Professionals

V I

 

 

fl Pilot Field Study ll

Basic Condition
Assessment

 

 

l I l

-l ‘1 Yellow, Zane l

Advanced Condition

Figure 3.1: Detailed Methodology

 

CHAPTER 4

SURVEY RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS

4.1 Introduction:

The objective of this survey was to understand the current development and
implementation of culvert asset management in United States and Canada. The survey
questionnaire was simple and focused on two main tasks: culvert inventory (12 questions)
and inspection & decision support system (11 questions). The supporting documents to
answer the questions were requested to return with the questionnaire for logical
assessment of questions. Fifty (50) USDOT’s and ten (10) Canadian DOT’s were
contacted and the best person to answer the survey was identified based on his/her
designation, experience, and work area. An invitation, with an electronic format of the
survey was sent to all the participants. The responses were stored and monitored on a
private server. A simple statistical analysis was performed to analyze the importance of
culvert asset management. Table 4.1 shows the US States and Canadian Provinces

participated in the survey.

66

Table 4.1: States participated in the Culvert Asset Management Survey

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alaska Iowa Missouri Ohio New Hampshire
Arkansas Idaho Maryland Oregon Nova Scotia
California Illinois Minnesota Pennsylvania Ontario
Delaware Kansas Nevada Tennessee Alberta

Florida Louisiana North Carolina Virginia Quebec

Georgia Michigan North Dakota Washington State Washington DC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.2 Culvert Inventory:

More importance was given to understand the culvert inventory practices and guidelines
followed in US and Canada. This is because a good inventory of culverts was the core
foundation in developing an effective long term asset management framework. The more
we understand our culverts, the better strategies we can develop in preserving them. The
survey questions were developed focusing on culvert inventory based on condition, size,
material, design, inspection frequency and agency responsible for maintaining it. Overall
response rate for this part of the survey was 70%. The seven questions on culvert

inventory, responses and analysis are as follows:

67

1. What is the condition of majority of culverts in your state?

Total of 32 respondents responded for this question. Eighty one (81%) of the respondents
felt that the culverts in their state were in good condition and has not given any
indications of reaching their useful service life. Six percent (6%) of the respondents felt
that their culvert was in very good condition and could serve their purpose without any
danger/problems for few more years. Thirteen percent (13%) of the respondents felt that
their culverts are in the verge of their useful service life and need some type of
assessment protocols to track and assess their condition. The figure 4.1 and 4.2 shows the

conditionof majority of culverts in US and Canada.

 

Figure 4.1: Condition of Majority of Culverts in United States

Color Condition

I Very Good

I Good (continued...)

Cl Poor

I Deteriorated

 

 

Figure 4.2: Condition of Majority of Culverts in Canada

2. Does your state have a standard set of inventory guidelines for culverts?

This question was intended to study the type of guidelines the DOT’s are following in
tracking their culverts. These guidelines would give a base to develop our inventory
framework. The response rate for this question was 85.3%. Sixty two percent (62%) of
the respondents answered that they had some form of tracking system for the large
culverts. Whereas, they had no tracking system for smaller culverts spanning less than 3’.
Twenty four percent (24%) of the respondents answered that they had no tracking system
for both large and small culverts. The state of Iowa uses information cards to track each
culvert. Virginia has a inventory module in their Asset Management System (AMS).

They are working on the feasibility of using this system for culverts. North Carolina has

69

no tracking system for culverts. They randomly select smaller culverts for inspection.
Idaho does not differentiate between large and small culverts. They have a tracking
system for large culverts spanning greater than 20’ (bridges). They don’t track small
culverts, manholes, sewer holes. Pennsylvania tracks culverts spanning greater than 8’
using their Bridge Management System (EMS). The state of Nevada follows the
guidelines of Maintenance Management System (MMS). Ohio follows their Culvert
Management System for guidelines in tracking their culverts. The state of Washington is
developing a culvert inventory database that includes guidelines for culvert types,
conditions and priority lists for replacement. The figures 4.3 and 4.4 show the states that
have developed some form of guidelines to track their culverts. In Canada, Quebec,

Alberta and Montreal have developed some form of guidelines for culvert inventory.

 

Figure 4.3: States that have Developed Standard Set of Guidelines for Culvert Inventory
in United States

. Yes, there is a form of tracking system (continued...)

70

O No, there is no form of tracking system for culverts

0 Development Phase

 

 

Figure 4.4: States that have Developed Standard Set of Guidelines for Culvert Inventory
in Canada

3. What are the minimum and maximum sizes of culverts in your state?

This question was to study the culvert size ranges followed in different states. The culvert
definition is based upon its size. As, the size varies, the definition and its purpose varies.
To design the global inventory/inspection framework, it is very important to understand
these size ranges and accommodate them in the respective modules in the framework.

Table 4.2 shows the different size ranges for concrete, metal and plastic culverts.

7l

Table 4.2: Max and Min Culvert Sizes in United States and Canada

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Concrete Metal Plastic
Min Max Min Max Min Max
(Inches) (Inches) (Inches) (Inches) (Inches) (Inches)
Arkansas 1 8 96 18 96 1 8 48
Iowa 18 20 18 20 18 20
Illinois 72 - 72 - 72 -
Virginia 5184 sq _ 5184 sq _ 5184 sq _
1n rn 1n
North Carolina 15 72 15 72 15 24
Idaho - 240 - 240 - -
California 18 240 18 240 18 240
Alaska 120 - 120 - 120 -
North Dakota 30 - 24 - - -
Minnesota 12 120 12 120 12 -
Maryland 36 239 36 239 36 239
New Hampshire 120 240 + 120 240 + 120 -
Pennsylvania 96 240 96 240 24 96
Delaware 48 - 48 - 48 -
Indiana 48 240 48 240 48 240
Ohio 12 120 12 120 12 60
Washington 18 240 18 240 18 60
Ontario 24 - 24 - 24 -
Alberta 6O - 6O - 6O -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

72

 

4. Original design of majority of culverts are based on — 10, 20, 50, 100 or other year

flood?

This question focused on the inventory of design data. It is very important to record the
original design peak flow of every culvert. This data can be related to the condition of the
culvert at any point of time and can be prioritized for maintenance. The response rate for
this question was 62%. Most of the respondents (21%) responded that majority of their
culverts were designed for 50 year flood. The figure 4.5 shows the graph of number of
responses to the culvert’s design. Also, figures 4.6 and 4.7 shows the location of these

designed culverts in United States and Canada.

 

 

10 Year 20 Year 50 Year 100 Year Other
Flood Flood Flood Flood

 

 

 

Figure 4.5: Graph of Number of Responses to Culvert Design

5. Does your DOT have a culvert dictionary?

Culvert dictionary is a list or database of all components of a culvert. It would serve as a

checklist during the inventory or inspection process. The response data from this question

73

would indicate the number of states that have developed some kind of checklist for
culverts. The total response for this question is 24 out of 34 (70.58% response rate),
Eleven (11) DOT’s indicated that they have some kind of culvert dictionary or checklist
for culvert inventory and inspection. Four (4) DOT’s are in the process of developing a

culvert dictionary. The figure 4.6 is the graph depicting the survey results.

 

Culvert Dictionary

Percentage

 

Yes No Development
Phase

 

 

Figure 4.6: DOT’s Response to Culvert Dictionary

6. Do you have any failure cases reported?

The objective of this question was to understand if DOT’s record and manage the failure
information of the culverts. This information can be used to understand the failure modes
of different types of culverts. The failure modes are very useful in condition assessment
and failure prediction of culverts. The DOT’s response to this question was that 75% of
the agencies record the failure information, 20% of the agencies do not record the failure
information and 5% of the agencies are working towards setting up a tracking system for

failed culverts.

74

7. How often do you inspect culverts located on state highways and interstates?

The inspection frequency is an important parameter for both culvert inventory and
inspection. Usually the culverts must be inspected for every 2 years due to change in
population, change in loads due to traffic movement, change in climatic and geographical
locations, changes in user needs and finally changes in design peak flows. The figure 4.7

shows the inspection frequencies and DOT responses.

Inspection Frequency

 

7U
50 i '
4U .
Percentage 30
2E! - .
10 1
U test
Less than 1 Every 1-2 Every 2-5 More than 5 N0 Specific
Year Years Years Years Frequency
Time Span

Figure 4.7: Culvert Inspection Frequencies

4.3 Culvert Inspection and Decision Support System (DSS):

The second category of the survey focused on the culvert inspection and D88. As the
culverts reach the end of their design life, and also due to changing environmental,
structural and hydrological behavior of the culvert, it is very necessary to have an
inspection program as a part of culvert asset management system. The following survey

questions deal with the culvert components and inspection procedures.

75

8. Does your agency have a standard set of inspection guidelines for culverts?

Twenty six (26) DOT’s responded to this question at a response rate of 76.5%. The state
of Illinois follows the inspection guidelines posted on their website under the structural
category. Virginia inspects culverts greater than or equal to 36 square feet in gross
openings as per National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) and Federal Highway
Association (FHA). For culverts having longer inspection frequencies (greater than 48
months) follow National Bridge Inventory (NBI) guidelines. The state of North Carolina
has the inspection guidelines covered in their Maintenance Condition Assessment
Manual. California groups the culverts under different inspection categories and inspects
them using their state wide standard culvert guidelines. Ohio follows their Culvert
Management Manual (CMM). The state of Washington is working on developing
standardized guidelines for their culverts. In Canada, Ontario follows the Ontario
Structural Inspection Manual (OSIM). The figures 4.8 and 4.9 show the graphical
representation of the US states and Canadian provinces having culvert inspection

guidelines.

76

 

Figure 4.8 Establishment of Inspection Guidelines for Culverts — US DOT’s

. Yes
. No

0 Development Phase

 

 

Figure 4.9: Establishment of Inspection Guidelines for Culverts — Canadian Provinces

77

9. Which of the following are included in your inspection guidelines?

(Drainage Inlet, Channel, Manholes, Junction Box, Headwall, Endwall, Wingwall,
Footing and other components)

This question was framed to understand the importance given to the culvert components
in the inspection guidelines. Not all components were included in the guidelines followed
by different DOT’s. The graph 4.10 shows the number (expressed in percentage) of
DOT’s including certain components in their inspection guidelines or manuals. Headwall,
wingde and endwall was given the highest importance followed by footings &

channels, drainage inlet, junction box and finally manholes & other components.

Components Included In the Inspectlon Manual

40

Percentage 30

 

Drainage Channel Manholes Junction Headwall Endwall Wingwall Footing Other
Inlet Box

Figure 4.10: Graph Showing the Percentage Importance Given to Culvert
Components in Inspection Guidelines and Manuals by DOT ’s

10. Does your agency have an inspection manual?

This question was framed to check if the DOT’s had compiled the culvert inspection
guidelines in the form of a manual. This would allow us to go back to them and collect
their guidelines, which would be helpful in framing our condition assessment inspection

checklist. The response rate was 74%. According to figure 4.11 and 4.12, twelve (12)

78

DOT’s had compiled their guidelines in the form of an inspection manual, eleven (1 1)
DOT’s had not compiled their guidelines in the form of a manual and two (2) DOT’s

were in the development stage of the manual.

 

Figure 4.11: DOT’s in US. Who Have Established a Culvert Inspection Manual

0 Yes
O No

0 Development Phase

/T.%F
PvfiTW \
r i 7 ‘ (”a ‘5')“
O,

Figure 4.12 Canadian Provinces Who Have established a Culvert Inspection Manual

     

 

79

11. Which of the following factors are considered in the inspection guidelines?
Please rank the factors in the order of their importance - (Hydraulic capacity,
Soil conditions, Joint Failures, Corrosion, Wall Thickness, Deflection and
Cracking)

Twenty Eight (28) DOT’s responded to this question at a response rate of 82.35 percent.

All the DOT inspection guidelines had considered corrosion, joint failures and deflection;

for metal culverts - Seventy Eight (78) percent of the inspection guidelines had hydraulic

capacity; Seventy Seven (77) percent had guidelines for cracking; Sixty One (61) percent

had soil conditions and Fifty Three (53) percent had wall thickness. Similarly, figure 4.13

shows the factors considered in inspection guidelines for concrete culverts.

 

Factors Considered In Inspection Guidelines - Concrete Culvert

Percentage

    

it)“

Hydraulic Soil Joint Corrosion Wall Deflection Cracking
Capacity Conditions Failures icknese

 

 

 

Figure 4.13: Factors Considered in Inspection Guidelines for Concrete Culverts

Hydraulic capacity, joint failures, corrosion and deflection was ranked as very important.
Cracking was given medium importance and soil conditions & wall thickness was

considered as least important.

12. What factors are considered in replacing or renewing a culvert?

Structural, hydraulic and environmental factors play an important role in altering the
condition of the culvert over a period of time. Regular inspection helps us in determining
whether the culvert is in a good condition or need renovation/replacement. This question
focused on determining the important factors considered by DOT in deciding
replacement or renovation of a culvert. According to the responders (fig 4.14) structural
problems (96%) were the no 1 factor followed by hydraulic problems (84%), material
degradation (76%), deflection (68%), inspection results (64%), roadway surface (52%),

age of culverts (40%), others (4%).

 

Factors considered In lipleclng or knowing a Culvert

Percentne

 

lehuic Structural Deflection Material Riadway lrspection Ageoi Others
Problems Ftobierrs Degradation Surface karts Oil/arts

 

 

 

Figure 4.14: Factors Considered in Replacing or Renewing a Culvert

81

13. Is there a model or formula your state uses in order to predict the remaining

service life of culverts.

This question was to find out if any of the states had formulated a model to predict the
remaining service or useful life of culverts. Seventy Eight (78%) of the respondents
answered that they had no model to predict the service life of culverts, thirteen (13%)
answered that they were developing some kind of model or formula. The state of Virginia
has developed some kind of formula using statistical values with the help of American
Mathematical Society (AMS) and Delaware uses Pontis Deterioration Models. Quebec

uses a condition rating system to evaluate the service life of culverts.

14. Is it based on the condition assessment of culverts?

Sixty (60%) of the responses indicated that the relationship was based on condition
assessment of culverts and ten (10%) said it was based on other relationship. Thirty

(30%) of the responders said the relationship was under development stage.

15. Explain briefly how you overcome confined space problems while inspecting

culverts

Confined space is one big obstacle in inspecting culverts. As per OSHA (Occupational

Safety and Health Administration), entry will not be made into culvert:

0 With a diameter/opening size of less than 18”
0 Part of sanitary sewer system

0 So lengthy that the coworker is unable to see the entrant

82

0 Contain hazardous materials or substantial quantities of decaying organic
material

0 Require work which could create an atmospheric hazard

(Safety Bulletin, NYSTD dated 2/03/03 available at
https://www.nysdotggov/portal/page/portal/divisionsloperafing/emfiployee-
health-safety/repository/culvertsbbg,Ldf)

This question wanted to explore the different methods followed by DOT’s in inspecting
their culverts. Twenty Six (26%) of the responses indicated that DOT’s use CCTV to
inspect and analyze the condition of their culverts, thirty five (3 5%) of the respondents
answered that they inspect the inlets, outlets and other outer components of the culvert
and inside is not inspected. Thirty nine (39%) of the respondents use other methods. The
states of Iowa, Maryland, Delaware and Washington monitors and tests the oxygen
content inside the culvert as per confined space guidelines. Idaho follows OSHA and
MSHA (Mine safety and Health Administration) rules for larger culverts and don’t
inspect smaller culverts (less than 18”). Minnesota shoots video inside the culvert using a
zoom camera. The province of Quebec either inspects from the ends of the culvert or

uses a video camera depending upon dimensions and visibility.

16. What are the major structural or hydraulic culvert problems do you encounter

in your culverts statewide?

Table 4.3: Structural Problems Encountered in Various States

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Structural Problems

Arkansas Age of the culvert

Iowa Joint failures, crack development

Louisiana Invert corrosion/loss

Illinois Deterioration of concrete walls and slabs

Nevada Deterioration of CMP

Virginia Scour, undermining, cracking, corrosion, settlement, concrete cracking
and joints

Idaho ASR for concrete, cracks, joint failure, scour damage, corrosion

California Corrosion

Alaska Embankment settlement & permafrost degradation

 

North Dakota Sagging

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minnesota Rusting, joint separation

Maryland Deteriorating flowlines

Delaware Corrosion

Indiana Deterioration of barrels due to rust and cracks
Ohio Corrosion, deflection

Oregon Crushed end sections

 

 

 

Table 4.4: Hydraulic Problems Encountered in Various States

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Hydraulic Problems
Arkansas Age of culverts, sediments, debris
Iowa Loss of hydraulic capacity
Louisiana Siltation or loss of cross sections
Illinois Scour/undermining
Nevada Inadequate capacity
Virginia Sedimentation and Debris accumulation
Idaho Scour, debris buildup, improper size
California Debris
Alaska Beaver debris, waste fill, permafrost degradation
North Dakota Erosion
Minnesota Sediment deposits
Maryland Unstable streambed material
Indiana Insufficient opening, change in drainage area and blockage by debris
Ohio Waterway adequacy, channel alignments, and scour
Washington Abrasion, corrosion and debris accumulation
Ontario Siltation, erosion downstream and occasional over stopping
Alberta Undersized culverts
Nova Scotia Loss of capacity due to debris, flooding during high intensity rainfalls

 

 

85

 

17. What are the major repair methods do you use for aforementioned problem?

Repair is the reconstruction of short pipe lengths, and not the reconstruction of whole
culvert length to extend the design life of a culvert. Forty seven (47%) of the responses
indicated that DOT’s use point source repair, forty two (42%) grouting, and twenty six
(26%) internal seal method for culvert structural and hydraulic problems. The other

methods used by different states (3 7%) are as shown in Table 4.5:

Table 4.5: Culvert Repair Methods Followed in Various States

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Repair Methods
Iowa Structural concrete, flowable mortar and cement grout
Virginia Cleaning, joint repair, sleeving, replacement
Alaska Trenchless technology methods
Minnesota Pipe lining or jacking
Delaware No repair, just replacement
Washington Complete replacement
Quebec Manual cleaning of culverts

 

 

 

18. What are the major renewal methods you use for problems listed in question 16?

(Cured In Place Pipe, Slip Lining, Pipe Bursting, Other)

Culvert renewal is the process of providing a new design life to the existing pipeline
system. Sixty four (64%) of the respondents indicated that they would use Slip Lining

methods of renewal for problems mentioned in question 16, followed by Cured In Place

86

Pipe (18%) and Pipe Bursting (8%). Twenty three (23%) of the DOT’s mentioned other

types of renewal methods as shown in the table below:

Table 4.6: Culvert Renewal Methods Followed in Various States

 

 

 

 

 

State Renewal Methods
Louisiana Culvert replacement
Virginia Sleeving
Idaho Spot Repairs

 

 

 

l9 and 20. Does your culvert have a computer database inventory and what
software do you use?

The objective of this question is to determine if there is any artificial intelligence systems
being applied/used in DOT’s to track and monitor culverts. Fifty two (52%) of the
respondents said they had some kind of tracking and monitoring system for culverts and
nineteen (19%) of DOT’s are developing some kind of model or system to track the
culverts. The state of Virginia uses HTRIS, PONTIS and ORACLE for managing their
culverts, Idaho and Delaware uses PONTIS, California stores all their culvert information
in MS ACCESS, Alaska, Indiana, Ohio and Alberta has their own in-house software and

Ontario has OBMS in visual basics.

87

21. Do you have a Decision Support System (DSS) for selection of a specific method
for renewal or repair or rehabilitation of old and deteriorated culverts?

A Decision Support System (DSS) is a computerized system for helping making
decisions between alternatives based on estimates of the values of those alternatives
(www.wikipedia.org). Managing hundreds of thousands of culverts is a challenging task
and need a good DSS designed as a part of state asset management program. As per figs
4.15 and 4.16 total of twenty three (23) DOT’s responded to this question and eighty
three (83%) of the respondents said they had no DSS for culverts. Thirteen percent (13%)
said they had some kind of DSS and four (4%) of the states were in the development
stage. The state of Virginia uses a decision model based on the statistically generated

condition data from RCA (Random Condition Assessment).

 

Figure 4.15: USDOT’s having DSS

0 Yes
0 No

0 Development Phase

 

 

Figure 4.16: Canadian Provinces having DSS

22. Do you have a model for integrating culvert inventory and condition assessment

to predict the life cycle performance of culvert?

Life cycle performance of a culvert is a factor to determine the remaining service life of a
culvert. The inventory data and the condition assessment results can be used as inputs to
determine the performance factor. The question was an attempt to understand if any of
the DOT’s had an artificial intelligence or formula to determine the performance of
culverts. A total of sixty two (62%) responded to this question. As per figs 4.17 and 4.18,
sixty seven (67%) of the DOT’s responded that they had no model to determine the
performance of culverts. Nineteen (19%) of the DOT’s had some model to determine the
culvert performance. The state of Virginia and Delaware uses PONTIS to assess the
culvert performance. The province of Quebec integrates the anticipated intervention
timeframe with culvert condition rating to determine the number of years it would

perform as designed.

89

 

Figure 4.17: USDOT’s having a Model to Determine Culvert Performance Factor

0 Yes
0 No

0 Development Phase

 

 

Figure 4.18: Canadian Provinces having a Model to Determine Culvert Performance
Factor

90

23. How do you rate the importance of culvert asset management in your state?

The response rate to this question was sixty eight (68%). The rating system was —

7 — 9 = Very important

3 — 6 = important

Less than 3 = Not so important

As per the fig 4.19, thirty (30%) of the DOT’s responded that culvert asset management

was very important (rating — 7), seventeen (17%) responded as important (rating 5) and

four (4%) as not so important (rating — 3). Figs 4.20 and 4.21 show the rating system for

different states in US and Canada.

 

Importance of Culvert Asset Management

Percentage fig
10

 

Very 7 5
Important
9

Importance Level

 

Not so
Inportant
3

 

Figure 4.19: Graph indicating the Culvert Asset Management Importance Rating System

91

 

 

Figure 4.20: Culvert Asset management Importance Rating System in US

Very Important

EBEEIHE

Not so Important

r . wt?"
\ El ‘ 4'5
V

Figure 4.21: Culvert Asset Management Importance Rating System in Canada

 

92

4.4 Summary:

Culvert asset management is a relatively new concept in USA and Canada. The
awareness to implement culvert asset management in every state is growing due to the
number of sudden collapses of culverts. The survey indicates that eighty one (81%) of the
DOT’s feel that their culverts are in good condition. This is the right time for DOT’s to
track and maintain a good database of culverts with their condition information to avoid
firture disasters. We also understood from the survey that there are some form of
guidelines to track and inspect large culverts (opening 3’ or above). Most of the culverts
are designed for 50-year flood and are inspected every 2-5 years. Most of the culverts are
repaired or renewed due to structural and hydraulic problems of which, hydraulic
capacity, corrosion, joint failures and cracking are rated high. PONTIS is the most
commonly used software used to track the culverts. None of the states have developed a
good decision support system which monitors tracking, inspection and suggests necessary
repair or renewal methods based on the extent of the damage. Thirty (30%) of the
respondents voted culvert asset management as an very important concept in preserving

our deteriorating infrastructure.

93

CHAPTER 5

DEVELOPNIEN T OF AN ASSET (CULVERT) INVENTORY MODEL

5.1 Introduction

An inventory model is an important component of a good asset management framework.
It helps the state and local agencies to measure the current level of service their assets
deliver and their customers expected level of service. Through this model, agencies can
manage the asset infrastructure to the level of service expected by the customers and
determine the future investment to maintain these assets. The most important aspect of
asset management is the knowledge of ownership. Planning for asset renewal or
rehabilitation is not possible until these agencies know exactly what assets they own, and
where these assets are located. Developing a good asset inventory model is a prerequisite

to asset management planning.

5.2 Benefits of an Asset Inventory Model
The benefits of developing an asset inventory model in preserving the infrastructure
assets are as follows (FHWA 2005):
0 With an asset management inventory model, it is easy to locate all types of assets
using an uniform location reference system
0 Asset data can be shared across departments, divisions, sections, and units in

various geographical locations. Sharing information effectively would develop a

94

transparent culture in the organization, which fosters cooperative approaches to
problems and needs

0 It improves analysis, reporting, and display capabilities for effective decision
making between decision makers, policy makers, and the public

0 An inventory model eliminates inconsistencies and conflicts among databases

0 It improves data collection methods, which can save money and internal data
consistency

o It develops uniform measurement units and measurement methods throughout the
state, improving the reliability of asset attribute measurement

0 It develops a broad, integrated approach for asset management programs

5.3 Asset (Culvert) Inventory Model

The culvert inventory model is a process of identifying and numbering the culverts in a
systematic and defined way. It provides a starting point for greater understanding and
identification of culverts which were overlooked for years. This model is a set of useful
questions in the form of protocol used to identify the culverts. The identification includes
logical details of the culvert, its components, and the surrounding area. Once the culverts
are identified and entered in the inventory database using a unique identification number,
it can be linked to various information and decision support systems for financial,

economical, and management purpose.

95

The model consists of fifty five questions grouped in six modules - general,
structural, hydraulic, safety, repair and additional information. All the questions will be
coded as given in the inventory manual (Appendix). The coding is of two types:

0 National Standards like the Federal Information Processing System (F IPS)
0 User defined
The information and coding when incorporated into the system database must exhibit the
following characteristics (Pantelias 2005)
o Integrity: whenever two data elements represent the same piece of information,
they should be equal.
0 Accuracy: the data values represent as closely as possible the considered piece of
information.
o Validity: the given data values are correct in terms of their possible and potential

range of values.

The general identification of the culvert location is the first module in the inventory
model. This module aims in identifying the culvert from bigger region to specific culvert
structure. The items covered in this module are:
0 State code: coding of the culvert based on state codes. It follows the Federal
Information Processing System (F IPS) standards.
0 County Code: coding of the culvert based on the state counties. It follows the
FIPS standards.
0 Place Code: coding of the culvert based on the cities, townships and villages. It

follows the FIPS standards.

96

0 Inventory Code: it is a unique identification number for culverts based on route
signing, level of service, route number, direction and the structure number.

0 Mile Marker: coding of the culvert based on the nearest mile marker on the
roadway

0 Year Built: year in which the culvert was built. This can be determined through
Asbuilt drawings.

0 Latitude and Longitude: latitude and longitude coordinates of the culvert can be
determined using the Global Positioning System (GPS) techniques.

0 Maintenance Responsibility: the primary responsibility of the agencies in
maintaining the culverts will be coded.

0 Average Daily Traflic (ADT): the ADT shall be determined for the route under
which culvert exists.

0 Approach Roadway Width: the width of the roadway above the culvert shall be
determined.

0 Culvert marker: the type of culvert marker used in identification shall be coded.

The second module in the inventory model is the structural information. This module
is very important to understand the structural concepts or design of the culvert. It can
be used as a benchmark to measure the structural deteriorations during inspection.

The identification items in this module are:

0 Culvert Shape
0 Material

0 Number of Cells

97

0 Length

0 Diameter

0 Span

0 Rise

0 Other Geometric Dimensions

0 Pitch, Depth, and Gauge (for CMP only)

0 Height of the cover from crown of the culvert to road surface

The third module in the culvert inventory model is the additional information which
identifies the components of the culvert and other features. This module acts as a
benchmark for various culvert component distress or deficiencies. The identification

items in this module are:

0 End Treatment — Type, Material, and Thickness
0 Slope of Embankment

o Skew Angle

o Roadway Material

0 Number of Lanes

The fourth module is the identification related to hydraulics of the culvert. Hydraulic
features are the major factors affecting the design performance of the culverts.

Identification of these features in the inventory model acts as a benchmark during culvert

98

inspection and determines the rate of deterioration of the culvert due to hydraulic factors.

The items considered in this module are:

0 Type of Stream Bed Material

0 Drainage Area Surrounding the Culvert
0 Design Peak Flow

0 Manning ’3 C oeflicient ‘n ’

0 Design Discharge ‘Q ’

0 Design Headwater Depth

0 Slope of the Culvert

0 Bank Protection

0 Type of Fish Passage

0 pH of Water

The fifth module is the identification of the safety features of the culvert like culvert rails
or guard rails. The identification and assessment of these features are a part of highway
safety for travelers. Also, defects in these components indicate problems in the culvert

underneath them. The items in this module are:

0 Type of Safety Component
0 Material

0 Span

99

The sixth and final module in the culvert inventory model is the identification of previous
repair or rehabilitation to the culverts. This information gives an understanding of the
problems or defects existed in the culverts and methods or techniques used in repairing or

rehabilitating them. The items in this module are:

0 Type of Renewal and date renewed

0 Type of Rehabilitation and date rehabilitated

5.4 Summary
This chapter is about the development of a culvert inventory model. The output of the
model is a protocol with useful a set of questions. The six modules of the model cover all
the necessary details for implementation of an effective asset management framework in
the state. While collecting culvert information in the model, inspectors should check the
data for its accuracy. The inventory program should enable quality control procedure for
data collection such as:

0 Using historical data for verification

o Calibrating all the data collecting equipments

0 Proper storage and management of the collected data

0 Establishing standard procedures for collecting data

Some of the terminologies in the protocol and pictures in the manual is derived from

ORITE (2005).

100

CHAPTER 6

DEVELOPMENT OF CONDITION ASSESSMENT MODEL

6.1 Introduction

Asset management is a continuous improvement process which includes construction,
preservation and disposal of infrastructure assets to optimize service delivery and cost
over its entire life cycle. For continuous improvement in the system, we need to have
knowledge of the existing assets, their current condition and remaining service life. In
1999 American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) conducted a study on wastewater
utilities under Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Cooperative Agreement. Their
study reported that an average of 57.5% of the assets was reported to be between 21 and
100 years old, 41.1% reported as between 21 and 50 years old and 16.8% greater than 51
years old. The data suggested that by 2020, half of the assets would be midpoint of their
useful service life. Culverts which are not inspected and maintained regularly deteriorate
faster than expected due to various changing environmental, hydraulic and social
conditions. This will lead to a higher emergency or replacement cost as shown in Figure

6.] (EPA, 2005)

101

Excellent """""~

on
o
‘0
‘0

Emergency o,
‘o Emergency repair or
‘. Rehabilitation
s. Performance

 

 

 

 

Failure
Time

Figure 6.1: Asset Deterioration Curve

The lack of knowledge of the condition of culverts, duration of its use and remaining
service life, it is difficult to determine which improvements to make and when to make in
order to ensure their sustainability. General deterioration of the culverts in the past few
years has increased the risk of catastrophic breakdown, thus demanding an effective
condition assessment model (Lalonde et. Al). The benefits of developing a condition

assessment model are:

0 Through condition assessment model, the culvert utilities can be better understood

0 Risk of sudden failure can be minimized by analyzing the likely failure
mechanisms

0 Maintenance and optimization plans can be developed

0 Culvert performance and utilization can be assessed

0 Estimate the remaining service life of the culverts

102

0 Development of short and long range asset management plans

0 Development of culvert condition rating system

6.2 Condition Assessment Model

The condition assessment model is a set of protocols that identifies the culverts which are
underperforrning, determine the reason for its deficiency, predict when failure is likely to
occur and develop short and long term plans for its preservation. This model is based on
the inventory model developed in chapter 5, literature review, survey, field studies and
discussion with the Department of Transportations (DOT). The condition assessment

model is divided into two categories:

0 Basic Condition Assessment, and

0 Advanced Condition Assessment

6.2.1 Basic Condition Assessment

The basic condition assessment is the general inspection of the culvert, its components
and surrounding area. It is the quickest way of collecting relevant and good information
during inspection. The assessment begins with recording the general identification of the
inspection site and the culvert structure. Then the various components of the culvert are
inspected for defects against a condition rating system. The culvert and its components
are assigned a condition rating as shown in Table 6.1 and recorded in the protocol. Using
AHP, relative weights for these components are assigned and culvert performance score

is calculated. Based on the performance score, the culvert is categorized into three zones:

103

0 Red Zone — The culverts in this zone are in the verge of failure and need

immediate attention
0 Yellow Zone — The culverts in this zone are in intermediate stage. They can be

taken care after the culverts in red zone are addressed

0 Green Zone — The culverts in this zone are safe and free from deterioration.

The culverts which fall in the danger zone are investigated further for “Advanced
Condition Assessment”. Based on the zoning, short and long range planning for culvert

preservation and maintenance is implemented.

Table 6.1: Condition Rating

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rating Description
5 Excellent
4 Good
3 F air
2 Poor
1 Failure/Critical

 

 

 

 

Module one of the basic condition assessment is about general information. The
identification of the inspection site is very necessary for any condition assessment
system. The items in this module are the same, considered in the module one of the

inventory model. They are as follows:

0 State Code

104

0 County Code

0 Place Code

0 Culvert Identification Number
0 Year Built

0 Date of Inspection

0 Inspector ’s Name .

0 Maintenance Responsibility

Module two is the culvert site information. Documentation of the site information is
necessary because deteriorated site conditions indicate the deterioration of the culvert and
its components. Also, recording the time, season and temperature during the inspection is
important because they have some influence on the effectiveness of the inspection. The

items in this module are:

0 Inspection Season

0 Climate

0 Time of Inspection
0 Type of Stream

0 Type of Inspection

0 Water Level

pH of Water

Soil Resistivity

Vegetation

105

0 Natural Hazards

Module three is the identification of culvert. Basic structural understanding is very
necessary before inspection of the culverts. Comparison of the inspected geometric
dimensions with the design dimensions would indicate various structural defects. The

items in this module are:

0 Shape

0 Material

0 Number of Cells

0 Type of End Treatment

0 Geometric Dimensions

Module four is the condition assessment of the culvert. GASB 34 requires a measurement
or rating scale be used for condition assessment of any asset and a minimum acceptable
condition be established as a benchmark. This module lists the various components of the
culvert to be inspected against a condition rating system as shown in Table 6.1, which
defines the various degree or magnitude of the defects. The inspector should carefully
inspect the culvert and assign a single rating for all the components. The condition rating

system for various components of the culvert is as follows:

106

A. Condition of the Inverts

Condition of the inverts has a major impact on the performance of the culvert. Common
problems with the inverts are abrasion, corrosion and settlement of debris. Age
deterioration was seen in most of the culverts during initial field study. Table 6.2 gives

the condition rating system for culvert inverts.

Table 6.2: Condition Rating System for Inverts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rating Condition

5 Looks new or in excellent condition

4 Age deterioration is minor, no deformations of the openings, no or
less settlement of the debris, invert not corroded or eroded

3 Age deterioration is moderate, some deformations of the opening,
minor cracks, moderate settlement of debris, inverts corroded or
eroded

2 Age deterioration is significant or failure of the inverts is
imminent, inverts heavily corroded or eroded, large settlement of
debris, major cracks

1 Ends totally/partially broken

 

B. Condition of End Protection (Headwall, Wingwall)

End protections like headwall and Wingwall are usually concrete structures. They should
be inspected for common concrete problems like cracks, Spalling, scaling, leakage,
efflorescence and reinforcing steel corrosion. Table g3 gives the condition rating system

for end protection.

107

 

Table 6.3: Condition Rating System for End protection

 

 

 

 

Rating Condition
5 Looks new or in excellent condition
4 Good condition, light scaling, hairline cracking, no leakage, no
gialling, minor rotation
3 Horizontal and diagonal cracking with or without efflorescence,

minor rusting, leakage and erosion, minor scaling, differential or
rotational settlement

 

 

 

2 Cracking with white efilorescence, major cracks, failure is
imminent, heavily scaled or rusted, partial collapse of end
protection

1 Total/partial collapse of end protection

 

 

C. Condition of the Roadway

The condition of the roadway above the culvert indicates the structural or hydraulic
problems in the culvert. Settlement of the roadway is the common problem and is due to
poorly compacted embankment material. Cracks and pavement patches indicate the
structural problems associated with the culvert. Table 6.4 gives the condition rating

system for roadway.

Table 6.4: Condition Rating System for Roadway

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rating Condition
5 Looks new and in excellent condition
4 Minor settlement of the roadway, no cracks
3 Minor settlement of the roadway and minor cracks
2 Heavy settlement of the roadway or major cracks
1 Roadway collapse is imminent

 

 

108

 

 

D. Condition of the Embankment

Deterioration of embankments indicates defects in culvert. Erosion is a common problem,

which can be due to undercutting and rotation of culvert footings or severe differential

settlement. Embankment defects sometimes lead to cracking in headwall or Wingwall.

Table 6.5 gives the condition rating system for culvert embankments.

Table 6.5: Condition Rating System for Culvert Embankment

 

 

 

 

 

Rating Condition
5 Soil in very good condition, no erosion found in and around the
structure
4 Minor erosion away from the structure, no problem to the culvert
3 Moderate erosion near the structure, no cracks on the headwall
2 Slope stability problem near the culvert, extensive hairline cracks

found near the headwall

 

 

 

Embankment has collapsed or failure is imminent

 

E. Condition of the F ootings

Footings should be inspected for settlement along the length of the footing which is

generally due to erosion. CMP can tolerate some differential settlement but will be

damaged due to excessive settlement. The stretching or compression of CMP results in

cracking or crushing across the footing. Deterioration in concrete footings may lead to

distortions. The condition rating system for culvert footings is as shown in Table 6.6.

109

 

Table 6.6: Condition Rating System for Culvert footing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rating Condition
5 Footing intact and in good condition
4 Minor erosion or cracking or settlement in the footing
3 Moderate cracking or differential settlement of the footing
2 Severe differential settlement has caused distortions in the culvert
1 Culvert has collapsed or failure is imminent

 

F. Overall Condition of Culvert

The overall condition of the culvert is determined by taking into account all the
hydraulic, structural, environmental and social factors. The analysis is done irrespective

of the culvert type and size as per Table 6.7.

Table 6.7: Condition Rating System for Overall Condition of the Culvert

 

 

 

Rating Condition
5 Newly installed or lined culvert
4 Looks new with possible discoloration of the surface, galvanizing

partially worn, hairline cracking, no settlement of the above
roadway, light deformation, no debris inside the structure, light
corrosion inside or outside the culvert

 

3 Medium rust or scale, pinholes throughout the pipe material,
minor cracking, slight discoloration, isolated damages from
cracking, minor settlement of the roadway, minor deformation of
the culvert, minor settlement of debris inside the culvert

 

2 Heavy rust or scale, major cracks with Spalling, exposed surface of
the reinforcing steel, heavy settlement of the debris inside the
structure, visible settlement of the above roadway, heavy
deformation

 

 

1 Culvert is structurally or hydraulically incapable to function,
exceeded its design life, culvert partially collapse or collapse is
imminent

 

 

llO

 

Module five is the calculation of performance score for the culvert. The steps followed in

calculating the relative weights for all the components selected above are as follows:

Step 1: Each culvert component selected above is pair wise compared with remaining
components in its importance on the overall performance of the culvert. The following

Table 6.8 is used for pair wise comparison.

Table 6.8: Scale for Relative Importance for Pair Wise Comparison

 

 

 

 

 

 

Importance Level Description
1 Equal Importance
2 Moderate Importance
3 Intermediate Importance
4 Strong Importance
5 Extreme Importance

 

 

 

 

Step 2: The matrix of comparison is developed after all pair wise comparisons are made
as shown in Table 6.9. The values entered in the matrix of comparison are based on the

researcher’s knowledge in culvert inspection and maintenance.

Table 6.9: Matrix of Comparison for Culvert Performance Calculation

Culvert Invert End Treat Footing Roadway Embank

1 3 3
1 2
1

Embankment

 

lll

Step 3: The values in the shaded region are the reciprocals of the corresponding elements
above the main diagonal. Next step is to normalize the column by summing all the
elements in a column and dividing each element in that column by this sum. For the first
column, each element will be divided by (1 + 0.2 + 0.333 + 0.333 + 0.2 + 0.2) = 2.266.
Thus, new values in the first column are (1/2.666) = 0.4413, (0.2/2.2666) = 0.0882,
(0.333/2.2666) = 0.1469, (0.333/2.2666) = 0.1469, (0.2/2.2666) = 0.0882, (0.2/2.2666) =

0.0882. The normalized matrix looks as follows:

Table 6.10: Normalized Matrix for Culvert Performance Calculation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Culvert Invert End Treat Footing Roadway Embank
. ment

Culverts 0.4413 0.5454 0.4000 0.3428 0.2941 0.3333
Inverts 0.0882 0.1818 0.2666 0.2285 0.2352 0.2666
End Treat 0.1469 0.0909 0.1333 0.2285 0.1176 0.1333
Footing 0.1469 0.0909 0.0666 0.1142 0.2352 0.1333
Roadway 0.0882 0.0454 0.0666 0.0285 0.0588 0.0666
Embankmen 0.0882 0.0454 0.0666 0.0571 0.0588 0.0666
1

 

 

Step 4: The final step is to add all elements in a row of the normalized matrix and divide
it by the number of elements in that row. So, for the first row, the new value is (0.4413 +
0.5454 + 0.4000 + 0.3428 + 0.2941 + 0.3333) / 6 = 0.3920. Similar calculations are done
to obtain relative weights of the remaining rows. The relative weights of the components
according to their importance level in performance calculation are as shown in Table

6.11.

112

Table 6.11: Relative Weights of the Culvert Components

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type Relative Weights
Overall Culvert Condition 0.39280
Condition of Inverts 0.21115
Condition of End Treat. 0.14175
Condition of F ootings 0.13118
Condition of Roadway 0.05901
Condition of Embankment 0.06378

 

 

 

Module six is the zoning of the culverts based on their performance. The formula for

calculating performance score of the culvert is as follows:

Performance Score of the culvert = 2 Condition Rating x Relative Weight

The performance score of a culvert is a factor used as a benchmark to develop short and
long term planning. Based on the performance score, the culvert is zoned into three

categories — Red, Yellow and Green. The maximum score a culvert can obtain is 5.0 and

minimum is 0. The scoring system is as shown in the Table 6.12.

Table 6.12: Culvert Performance Zones

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Score Zone Zone Meaning
Above 3.5 Green Safe
3.5 — 2.5 Yellow Intermediate
Below 2.5 Red Danger

 

 

113

 

6.2.3 Advanced Condition Assessment (ACA)

Advanced condition assessment is a detailed inspection of the culvert structure. Any
culvert with a performance score below 2.5 is inspected for specific problems which has
caused decay. The objective of ACA is to have a condition rating system for problems
causing deterioration specific to concrete, metal and plastic culverts (APPENDIX). The
assessment begins with the detailed inspection at the inlet, outlet and inside the culvert
pipe. The condition rating system between 5-0 is used as a benchmark in identifying the
problems. Using AHP, as described in basic condition assessment, relative importance
weights are calculated for all the problems as shown in Tables 6.13, 6.14 and 6.15.

Performance score for the culvert is calculated for the culvert using the formula:

ACA Performance Score of the culvert = Z ACA Condition Rating x Relative Weight

Then, the inspector recommends repair or rehabilitation to fix the specific problem
causing culvert deterioration. After the culvert is treated, performance score is calculated
to check the percent performance improvement in the culvert using the formula given

below:

 

Percent Performance Improvement =
(PS)F

Where, (PS ) F = Performance score after the culvert is repaired or rehabilitated
(PS )1 = Performance score when the culvert problem was identified or before

repair or rehabilitation of the culvert

114

Table 6.13: ACA Condition Rating Factors and their Relative Weight for Concrete

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Culverts
Condition Rating Factors Relative Weight
Cracking 0.3170
Scouring 0.1703
Settlement 0. l 563
Joint Opening 0.1521
Misalignment 0.1348
Concrete Surface 0.0690

 

 

Table 6.14: ACA Condition Rating Factors and their Relative Weight for CMP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Condition Rating Factors Relative Weight
Misalignment 0.2351
Settlement 0.1378
Vegetation 0.1378
Seam 0.1748
Shape 0.1748
Corrosion 0.1048
Scouting 0.0693

 

 

 

 

6.3 Summary

This chapter discusses in detail the development of the condition assessment model for
culvert asset management. The need and benefits of condition assessment model is
discussed in first section. The condition assessment model is a set of protocols to identify
the deteriorating culverts and is divided into two categories — Basic condition assessment
and advanced condition assessment (ACA). Basic condition assessment is the general
inspection of the culvert, its components and surrounding area. A condition rating system
and relative weights are developed for major culvert components to determine the

performance score. Based on the performance scores, the culvert is categorized into three

115

zones — green, yellow and red. Culverts in red zone are further investigated using ACA.
ACA is a condition rating system developed for metal, concrete and plastic culverts. It
groups the various problems according to their intensity and magnitude and assigns a
condition rating. Finally, Relative weights are calculated based on the relative importance

of the problems to calculate ACA performance score.

116

CHAPTER 7

VALIDATION: PILOT FIELD STUDY

7.1 Introduction

In chapter four and five, the culvert inventory and inspection model was developed as a
part of effective asset management framework. In this chapter, the model will be applied
in tracking and inspecting culverts in Lansing, Michigan. The objective of inventory
model is to assign a unique identification number for all the culverts and collect relevant
site information. Whereas, the objective of inspection model is to perform the basic
condition assessment of the culverts against the condition rating system developed,
calculate its performance score and categorize the culvert into three zones as mentioned
in the chapter five. If a culvert is labeled as red zone, then advanced condition assessment
is carried out and ACA performance score is calculated. This field pilot study will help in
validating and measuring the feasibility of the developed model. Also, application of the
model will be discussed with the MDOT highway maintenance officials and over-site
committee who consists of industry people. The feedback will be recorded and necessary

changes will be implemented in the model.

7.2 Pilot Field Study

This section summarizes the pilot field study of culverts conducted in Lansing, Michigan.
The first step in the pilot field study was to identify the culverts for condition assessment.
A request was sent to MDOT to recommend a few culverts in bad condition. MDOT

suggested inspecting culverts on M 13, Shiawassee County; about 500 culverts there

117

were on the verge of deterioration. An old inventory list (Appendix 6) and as-built
drawing of the highway M 13 was studied to find location of the culverts. Permission
from MDOT was obtained to inspect the public utility (culverts) on the highway M 13.
Occupational Safety and Health Authority (OSHA) regulations were studied to ensure
safety of the inspection team. According to OSHA Standard 1910.146, work within
confined space is prohibited and this includes the interior of the culvert. A confined space
is defined to mean space which is large enough for an employee to enter and perform the

assigned work.

The inspection team looked for either the culvert marker or the roadway condition in
locating the actual culvert. At the culvert site, the following step by step procedure was
used in validating the model:

Step 1: The culvert was issued an 11 digit unique identification number based on the

following details (Appendix 3):

Route Signing Prefix
0 Level of Service
0 Route Number
0 Directional Suffix
0 Structure Number
For culvert 1; which was located on US 127 in Ingham County, the identification number
was as follows:
Route Signing Prefix — US numbered highway, so code 2 as the first digit

Level of Service — Business, so code 5 as the second digit

118

Route Number — 127, so code 00127 as the next 5 digits

Directional Suffix — South, so code 3 as the eight digit

Structure Number — A01 was coded as the structure number as it was the first culvert in
the direction of inventory

So, the 11 digit unique identification number for culvert 1 is — 25001273A01. The

identification number for other culverts is as shown in the Table 6.1.

Table 7.1: Unique Identification Number for Culverts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Culvert , Identification Number
2 31000131B01
3 31000131B02
4 31000131303
5 31000131B04
6 31000131305

 

Step 2: The next step was to perform the Basic Condition Assessment (BCA) using the
condition rating system developed in chapter 5. The factors considered in BCA are as
follows:

0 Condition of the invert

0 Condition of the end treatment

0 Condition of the overall culvert

0 Condition of the roadway

0 Condition of the embankment

0 Condition of the footing

119

The culvert 25001273A01 (48” circular CMP) located in Ingham County was scheduled
for replacement in 2006. The invert was damaged (formation of a big hole, about 1’ in
diameter) and corroded in few places as shown in fig 7.1. The age deterioration was very
significant. The headwall and Wingwall at the culvert outlet had major Spalling and cracks
in few places. The embankment had moderate erosion around the structure. A layer of the
concrete bed had eroded and perched due to high velocity of flowing water at the outlet.
The water was flowing back at the inlet due to serious misalignment of the culvert from
its design (fig 6.2). The road above the culvert looked new and was in excellent

condition. The condition rating for this culvert is as shown in the Table 7 .2.

Table 7.2: Condition Rating for Culvert 25001273A01

of
of End Treatment
of Overall Culvert

 

Figure 7.1: Big Hole and Corrosion in the Invert of the Culvert 25001273A01

120

 

Figure 7.2: Misalignment of the Culvert 25001273A01

The culvert 31000131B01 (24” Circular Concrete) located in Shiawassee County is about
65 years old and is in the verge of failure. Age deterioration was significant with heavy
vegetation surrounding the culvert. The headwall was partially broken as shown in figure
6.4; minor cracks and major Spalling was found inside the culvert structure. Moderate
misalignment of the culvert was found as shown in the figure 7.3. The erosion around the
headwall was moderate. This may be one of the reasons for headwall failure. The

roadway above the culvert structure was in excellent condition. The condition rating

system for this culvert is as shown in Table 7.3.

Table 7.3: Condition Rating for Culvert 31000131B01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Culvert Rating Components Condition Rating
Condition of the Invert 2
Condition of End Treatment 1
Condition of Overall Culvert 3
Condition of Roadway 5
Condition of Embankment 3
Condition of Footing 5

 

121

 

Figure 7.3: Misalignment of the Culvert

 

Figure 7.4: Failure of the Headwall due to Heavy Spalling

The culvert 31000131B02 (24” Circular Concrete) located in Shiawassee County is also
about 65 years old. The invert was eroded due to large deposition of soil sediment. The
joint opening in the middle of the culvert was significant which resulted in soil
infiltration and misalignment of the culvert as shown in figure 7.5. The culvert headwall
and the barrel were partially broken as shown in figure 7.6. This can be due to heavy
superimposed load or due to significant soil erosion surrounding the headwall. The
culvert was surrounded by heavy vegetation, which would affect its performance. The

roadway had minor settlement and cracks as shown in figure 7.7. Overall the culvert

122

deterioration was very significant. The condition rating system for this culvert is as

shown in the Table 7.4.

Table 7.4: Condition Rating for Culvert 31000131B02

 

Culvert Rating Components Condition Rating j

 

Condition of the Invert
Condition of End Treatment
Condition of Overall Culvert
Condition of Roadway
Condition of Embankment
Condition of Footing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UINUJr—Ii—AUJ

 

 

Figure 7.5: Significant Misalignment of the Culvert Structure

 

Figure 7 .6: Vegetation and Heavy Spalling in the Headwall

123

 

Figure 7.7: Cracks on the Roadway Surface

The culvert 31000131B03 (Slab - 8’ opening, 7’ rise; Concrete) located in Shiawassee
County is also about 65 years old. Age deterioration is moderate with moderate
settlement of vegetation and soil. Minor cracking was found at the construction joints
between the top slab and walls. Minor infiltration on the side walls of the culvert as
shown in figure 7.8; Minor cracks on the roadway due to infiltration. The headwall and
Wingwall has hairline cracks and the embankment is eroded. The footings are in good

condition. The condition rating system for this culvert is as shown in the Table 7.5.

Table 7.5: Condition Rating for Culvert 31000131B03

of the Invert

 

124

Minor
Cracking

Soil Settlement in

Infiltration water

 

Figure 7.8: Condition of Culvert 31000131B04

The culvert structure 31000131B04 (24” CMP Circular) is totally failed. The pipe is
completely closed on one side. Overall, the pipe is corroded inside and outside. The
roadway has a pothole and moderate cracks due to culvert deterioration. The
embankment is partially eroded. The culvert has no end treatment. The condition rating

for this culvert is as shown in the Table 7.6.

Table 7.6: Condition Rating for Culvert 31000131B04

the Invert

Overall Culvert

 

125

 

Figure 7.10: Total Failure of the Culvert End

The culvert 31000131305 (Slab — 8’ opening and 7’ rise) is located in Shiawassee
County and is also about 65 years old. This culvert is deteriorated, but functioning
normal. Moderate deposition of soil sediments over the invert, headwall and Wingwall is
heavily damaged with Spalling. This has led to heavy corrosion of the reinforcing bars.
There is minor cracking between the footing and Wingwall; the roadway above the
culvert has potholes and major cracks. The embankment is heavily eroded. The condition
of the footing looks good. Overall, the culvert is in poor condition. The condition rating

for this culvert is as shown in the Table 7.7.

126

Table 7.7: Condition Rating for Culvert 31000131B05

the Invert

Overall

Condition of Embankment
Condition of

 

Corrosion of
the
Reinforcing
Bars

 

Figure 7.11: Condition of Culvert Structure 31000131B05

Step 3: The third step in this process is to calculate the performance score of the culverts
and categorize them in three zones — Green, Yellow and Red.

The calculation of relative weights of the different components affecting the
performance of the culvert is explained in Chapter 6 and is as shown in Table 7.8. The
performance score is calculated by multiplying the condition rating of each component
with their respective relative weight and finally summing up all the vales. The

performance score for culvert 25001273A01 is as shown below:

127

Table 7.8: Performance Score Calculation for Culvert 25001273A01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Culvert 25001273A01 Condition Relative Performance .
g Rating weight Score
Condition of the Invert 1 0.21115 0.21115
Condition of End Treatment 3 0.14175 0.42525
Condition of Overall Culvert 2 0.39280 0.78560
Condition of Roadway 5 0.05901 0.29505
Condition of Embankment 3 0.06378 0.19134
Condition of Footing 5 0.13118 0.65590
Final Performance Score 2.56000

 

 

The final performance score for culvert 25001273A01 is 2.56. This culvert will be
categorized under the yellow or intermediate zone for short and long term planning.

Similar calculation is done for other culverts and categorized as shown in Table 7.9.

Table 7.9: Performance Score Calculation and Zoning for Inspected Culverts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Culvert Identification Number Performance Score Zone
31000131B01 2.884 Yellow
31000131302 2.120 Red
31000131B03 3 .800 Green
31000131B04 2.430 Red
31000131B05 2.470 Red

 

 

 

The final step in the validation process was to identify the culverts in danger zone and
calculate the advanced condition assessment (ACA) performance score. The culverts in
red zone are inspected in detail for specific problems and given a condition rating
between 5-0 (APPENDIX), where 5 is excellent or new condition and 0 is complete
failure. The ACA performance score is calculated in the same way as BCA as shown in
previous step. The ACA is inspection of the culvert barrel; if the culvert is not

functioning or totally damaged, then ACA performance score will be zero. Since, the

128

culvert 31000131B04 was totally collapsed, the ACA performance score is calculated as
zero. The calculation of ACA performance score for culverts 31000131B02 and

31000131B05 are as shown in Table 7.10 and 7.11.

Table 7.10: ACA Performance Score Calculation for Culvert 31000131B02

Concrete
Surface

Final
Performance

 

Table 7.11: ACA Performance Score Calculation for Culvert 31000131B05

Concrete

Final
Performance

 

129

7.3 Summary:

This phase of study was the validation of the developed models by conducting field pilot

study in Lansing, Michigan. Six culvert sites were identified for the field study, one in

Ingham County and other five in Shiawassee County. All the culverts were given an

unique identification number as a part of inventory study. Then, basic condition

assessment was carried out and performance scores for all culverts were calculated.

Based on the performance score, the culverts were categorized into Green (Safe), Yellow

(Intermediate) and Red (Danger) zones. The culverts under red zone were further

investigated to calculate the ACA condition rating and performance score. The summary

of the investigation is as shown in the Table 7.12.

Table 7.12: Summary of the Pilot Field Study

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Culvert No. County Shape Material Span BCA Zone ACA Year
Score Score Built

25001273A01 Ingham Circular CMP 48” 2.560 Yellow - -
3 10001 3 1801 Shiawassee Circular Concrete 24” 2.884 Yellow - 193 1
3100013 1B02 Shiawassee Circular Concrete 24” 2.120 Red 2.361 193 1
31000131803 Shiawassee Slab Concrete 96” 3.800 Green - 1931
31000131804 Shiawassee Circular CMP 24” 2.430 Red 0 1931
31000131805 Shiawassee Slab Concrete 96” 2.47 0 Red 2.5 13 193 1

 

130

 

CHAPTER 8

CONCLUSION AND RECOMNIENDATIONS

8.1 Research Summary

The main goal of this research was to develop a model for culvert inventory and
inspection, as a part of the asset management strategy. Asset inventory and inspection
model is the foundation in developing any management strategy for preserving our
deteriorating infrastructure. This research studied the state of practice culvert asset
management in USA and Canada, developed a model for culvert inventory and
inspection, and validated the model by conducting pilot field study.

The culverts throughout the nation are facing significant performance challenges
as they are nearing the end of their design life. Different types of culverts have different
life expectancies; concrete culverts have about 70 — 100 years, CMP and plastic culverts
have about 50 years of design service life. These culverts are in need of special attention
in terms of proactive or preventive asset management approach. The DOT’s throughout
the nation do not have any protocols to track and inspect these deteriorating culverts. This
would increase the field problems and safety risk. The developed models in the form of
condition rating system and performance calculator will assist the state and local agencies
in making proper decisions and implementing a good asset management program.

The field study conducted in Lansing, Michigan successfiilly identified six
culverts using a unique identification number and assessed the condition of the culverts.
Three out of six culverts inspected were in danger zone. The common problems identified

were misalignment, joint failure, cracking, Spalling, corrosion, scouring, age

131

deterioration, erosion of the embankments, potholes or cracks on roadway and heavy
vegetation or settlement problems. The DOT’s can use this model in categorizing the

culverts in different zones and develop short and long term plans for each zone.

8.2 Recommendations:
This section gives recommendations for DOT’s in developing an effective culvert asset

management strategy.

0 Establishment of asset management team for culvert structures — The successful
implementation of culvert asset management requires all divisions in the agency
to participate in the program. The establishment of asset management team
would result in better co-ordination of financial, strategic planning, information
technology and asset management activities, and having wider accountability for
achieving and reviewing asset management goals and objectives.

0 Identify the existing assets — The DOT’s using the inventory model should track
all the culverts nationwide. They can link all the state inventories into a one
nation wide culvert database and share information across the states. This would
help the federal to make decisions regarding budget allocations based on culvert
information.

0 Condition assessment and performance monitoring — It is critical for agencies to
have a good knowledge of the condition of their assets and how they are
performing. They have to access the existing condition assessment practices

based on environmental factors, asset factors, maintenance or failure history, and

132

agencies condition assessment objectives and policies. The impact of time, cost
and risk issues on condition assessment goals and objectives must be identified to
investigate alternative options.

0 Identification of failure modes — The agencies by analyzing how the asset can fail,
will help in developing maintenance plans, planning for emergency budget and
investigative activities to embrace the uncertainties associated with sudden
failure of culvert structures.

0 Maintenance planning — Developing an maintenance plan like developing failure
data or reports, maintenance documents, identifying those failures that cannot be
prevented, predicted or delayed and develop renewal or rehabilitation strategies
to improve the performance of the culverts

0 Develop a decision support system — Development of a decision support system
would integrate the inventory, inspection, failure modes, maintenance planning
and repair or rehabilitation information and give optimized management plans to

preserve the culverts.

8.3 Limitations

This study though gives a practical solution for a practical problem; it does not take two
important factors — time and cost into consideration. These factors can have considerable
impact on the implementation of the models by DOT’s. Good data for developing
condition rating system was difficult to collect. Therefore, the DOT’s by recording good
performance or maintenance standards can have a better condition rating system. In

performance calculator, the calculation of relative weights for BCA and ACA using AHP,

133

depends upon the researchers knowledge and experience in culvert inspection and
maintenance. So, the DOT’s can have better relative weights for the culvert components
and problems by having a culvert expert calculating it. The field pilot study on six
culverts was insufficient in understanding the type and magnitude of field problems.

More the culverts are studied; the better model can be developed.

8.4 Areas of Future Research

There are different possible areas of future research associated with this study. This study
creates a platform for different research related to culvert asset management. Few of the

research topics related to this study are as follows:

Development of an Asset Management Model for Culvert Repair and Rehabilitation
This study on inventory and inspection of culverts indicated a high rate of deteriorating
culverts nationwide. Once the state and local agencies have sufficient knowledge of
ownership of their assets and their current condition, there is a need for renewal,
rehabilitation and repair of these culverts. By developing an asset management model for
renewal and rehabilitation incorporating trenchless technology methods, various complex
issues after condition assessment can be addressed. Also, determining the most cost
effective planned and unplanned maintenance methods is a key to advanced culvert asset

management.

134

Determination of Culvert Failure Modes for Effective Asset Management
Maintenance Planning

As culvert failures are sudden, it is very important for an agency to know how a culvert
may fail to deliver required level of service. The understanding of these failure modes
would contribute in developing deterioration curves, failure timing, risk assessment and

treatment options for effective culvert maintenance.

Development of an Asset Management Framework using Artificial Neural Networks
An artificial neural network is an effective tool in the area of decision making as it is
based on knowledge expertise and experience. It can be used to manage, analyze and
optimize the flow of information from various components or departments of an asset
management framework. The agencies by implementing a decision support system like
artificial neural networks would benefit in having a cost effective, time saving, and
optimized flow of information. This helps in making better decisions at all levels of the

organization.

135

APPENDIX -1

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

136

wan

The Center for Underground Infrastructure Research and Education (CUIRE), Michigan
State University and University of Cincinnati are collaborating on a major Midwest
Regional University Transportation Center (MRUTC) project regarding the asset
management of drainage infrastructure and culverts. The Primary objective of this project
is to establish business rules and protocols for culvert inventory, inspection, renewal and
maintenance of culverts spanning less than 10’ (small culverts). The project also focuses
on developing a platform for decision support system. This national survey is one of the
most important tasks in achieving this objective since it will provide valuable information
regarding the state of practice of culvert asset management throughout the nation. To
show our appreciation for your time and efforts, we will send you a copy of the research

findings upon completion.

There are 25 questions, and we estimate it will take an average of 15 minutes to
complete. Your completion of this survey is completely voluntary. You are free to not
answer any question or to stop participating at any time. As this is an electronic survey,
we don’t track 'or record the IP address from which you are responding. There are no
risks or individual benefits (accept receiving a copy of the research findings as noted
above) associated with taking this survey. The responses collected will be kept

confidential by the researcher to the maximum extent allowable by law.

137

If you have any questions about this project, please contact Dr. Mohammad Najafi
(najafi@msu.edu), Director, CUIRE, Michigan State University at (517)432-4937 or Dr.
Sam Salem (osalem@.uc.edu), Director, Infrastructure Systems and Management
Program, University of Cincinnati at (513)556-3759. Also, if you have questions or
concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with
any aspect of this study, you may contact — anonymously, if you wish — Dr. Peter
Vasilenko, PhD, Director of Human Research Protections, MSU, by phone: (517)355-
2180, by fax: (517)432—4503, e-mail: irb@msu.edu or by regular mail: 202 Olds Hall,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1047. By completing this survey,
you indicate your voluntary consent to participate in this study and have your own

answers included in the project data set.

 

fiPersonal Details:

gRespondent’s Agency: I I I 7 Y Department of Transportation ‘ j V
Respondent’s Name:

Title:

Address:

City: State: Zip code:

Phone Number: Fax Number:

E — mail Address:

 

 

138

 

 

1. What is the definition of a culvert in your state?

 

 

 

 

2. What is the condition of the majority of culverts in your state?

 

 

Very Good
Good
Poor

Deteriorated

DUDE]

Very good — Looks new with possible discoloration of the surface, galvanizing partially
worn, hairline cracking, isolated damage from cracking.

Good - Medium rust or scale, pinholes throughout the pipe material, minor cracking,
slight discoloration, isolated damages from cracking.

Poor — Heavy rust or scale, major cracks with Spalling, exposed surface of the
reinforcing steel, invert eroded/corroded.

Deteriorated - Culvert is structurally or hydraulically incapable to function, exceeded its
design life, culvert partially collapsed or collapse is imminent.

 

139

 

 

 

 

 

3. Does your DOT have a standard set of inventory guidelines for the following:

 

Culverts Drainage Infrastructure
1:] Yes [:1 Yes

D No C1 No

I] Don’t Know D Don’t Know

. Inventory guidelines are business rules or protocols which indicate policy or procedure
to list or track the current assets.

. Drainage Infrastructure includes manholes, catch basins, storm sewers, etc

If “Yes” to above, please provide a link to access the associated files via Web or attach a
copy with this questionnaire.

 

 

 

4. Does your agency have a standard set of inspection guidelines for the following:

 

Culverts Drainage Infrastructure
[I Yes [I Yes

[:1 No 1:1 No

D Don’t Know 1:1 Don’t Know

Inspection guidelines are business rules or protocols which indicate policy or procedure to
inspect the current condition of the asset.

If “Yes” to above, please provide a link to access the associated files via Web or attach a
copy with this questionnaire.

 

If yes to above, then continue with Question 5, otherwise go to question 8

140

 

 

5. Which of the following are included in the inspection guidelines?

 

Drainage Inlet: DYes 1:] No

(Ex: catch basins)

 

Channel: Bites 1:! No

(Ex: open drains, ditches, etc)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Manholes: DYes [:lNo

Junction Box: DYes 1:] No

Headwall: |:IYes [:1 No

Endwall: DYes I] No

Wingwall: DYes E] No

Footing: DYes [No

Other: DYes EINo (Please Specify)

 

 

6. What are the minimum and maximum sizes of inspectedculverts'in‘your'istatefi". . ~ , _-

 

 

 

 

Metal: Minimum Size:____ inches
Maximum Sizez—inches
Concrete: Minimum Size: __ inches
Maximum Size: —— inches

 

141

 

 

 

 

CONTINUE QUESTION 6

 

 

 

 

Plastic: Minimum Size: inches
Maximum Size: inches

Other: Minimum Size: inches (Please specify the type of material)
Maximum Size: inches

 

 

 

 

7. Which of the following factors are considered in the inspection guideline? Please rank
the factors in order of their immrtance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Metal Concrete
Hydraulic Capacity: [3 Yes [:1 No DYes DNo [:1
Soil Conditions: I] Yes [I No DYes DNo |:|
Joint Failures: [:1 Yes [:1 No [:1 Yes EINo 1:]
Corrosion: DYes E] No DYes I] No [:3
Wall Thickness: [:I Yes I] No [:1 Yes [:1 No [:3
Deflection: [I Yes [:1 No DYes E] No [:1
Cracking: E] Yes EINo [I Yes I] No [:1

 

 

 

 

 

Others: (please explain)

Hydraulic Capacity includes:

 

142

 

 

 

. Amount of sediments in the culvert

. Surface conditions of the pipe material

. Inlet and outlet conditions

. Change inflow conditions due to land development upstream

 

 

8. Original hydraulic design of majority of culverts in your state is based on:

 

 

10 year flood

20 year flood

50 year flood

100 year flood

Others: (please explain)

DDDDD

 

 

9. Does your DOT have a culvert dictionary?

 

 

|_—_] Yes
I] No
El Don’t Know
Culvert dictionary is a list of parameters which includes all the culvert elements to be inspected

during inspection.

If “Yes” to above, please provide a link to access the associated files via Web or attach a
copy with this questionnaire.

 

143

 

 

 

 

10. How often do you inspect culverts located on state highways and interstates?

 

 

Less than 1 Year
Every 1 — 2 years
Every 2 — 5 years

More than 5 years

DECIDE!

No specific frequency

 

 

11. Does your agency have an inspection manual for:

 

 

Culverts Drainage Infrastructure
El Yes D Yes
[:1 No [:1 No
1:] Don’t Know 1:] Don’t Know

If “Yes” to above, please provide a link to access the associated files via Web or attach a
copy with this questionnaire.

 

 

12. What factors are considered when replacing or renewing a culvert?

 

 

Hydraulic problems
Structural problems
Deflection

Material degradation
Roadway Surface
Inspection results
Age of the culvert

DDUDDDDD

Other, (please explain)

 

144

 

 

 

 

 

13. Do you have any culvert failure cases reported?

 

1:] Yes
[:1 No
Cl Don’t Know

Failure is collapse of culvert due to deterioration.

 

 

 

 

14. Which division or who makes decisions regarding culvert repair, renewal
or replacement projects or programs in your DOT?

 

. Repair is reconstruction of short pipe lengths, but not the reconstruction of a whole
pipeline. Therefore, a new design life is not provided.

. In culvert renewal, a new design life is provided to the existing pipeline system
. Replacement is when a new culvert is constructed to take place of the old culvert

 

 

 

 

15. Is there a model or formula that your state uses in order to predict the life
expectancy of culverts?

 

D Yes

|:] No
C] Don’t Know

If “Yes” to above, please provide a link to access the associated files via Web or attach a
copy with this questionnaire

 

 

145

 

 

16. Explain briefly how you overcome confined space problems while inspecting
culverts.

 

El CCTV
E1 Don’t inspect inside, just inlet and outlet
El Others (Please explain):

 

 

 

 

17. What are the major structural or hydraulic culvert problems do you encounter in
your culverts state wide?

 

 

 

 

'18. What are the major repair methods do you use for aforementioned problems?

 

 

 

146

 

 

 

 

19. What are the major renewal methods you use for problems listed in question 17?

 

 

 

 

20. Does your DOT have a computer database inventory for:

 

Culverts Drainage Infrastructure
El Yes UYes

[1 No Cl No

El Don’t Know D Don’t Know

 

 

21. If “Yes” to the above question, what software is used?

 

 

 

 

Culvert:

 

 

 

Drainage Infrastructure:

 

 

 

 

147

 

 

 

 

22. Do you have a decision support system (DSS) for integrating culvert inventory,
condition assessment and prediction of life cycle performance of a culvert?

 

El Yes

[:1 No
[I Don’t Know

If “Yes” to above, please provide a link to access the associated files via Web or attach a
copy with this questionnaire.

 

 

 

23. Do you have a DSS for selection of a specific method for renewal! repair] rehabilitation
of old and deteriorated culverts and drainige infrastructure?

 

1:] Yes

El No
El May be

If “Yes” to above, please provide a link to access the associated files via Web or attach a

copy with this questionnaire.

 

 

 

 

24. Do you think study or improvement in culvert asset management is very necessary
in your state?

 

[I Yes
I] No

[:1 No comments

 

 

 

 

25. Additional questions or comments

 

 

 

 

148

APPENDIX -2

SURVEY RAW DATA

149

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respondent Aggcy Definition of Culverts in your state

Missouri No Response

Georgia No Response

Arkansas A structure less than 20 feet of open span which carries
water under or parallel to the road surface.

Iowa Drainage structure with a span less than a bridge of 20 feet.

Louisiana Any drainage structure under a roadway or other facility not
defined as a bridge.

Illinois We do not have an official definition.

Nevada A structure used to convey off-site runoff through roadway
embankment: Usually covered with embankment material
and is composed of structural material around the entire
perimeter.

Virginia As defined in NH] course "Safety Inspection of In-Service
Bridges" and FHA "Bridge Inspector's Training Manual "

Virginia Drainage structure used on roads and driveways to carry

stream flow, storm water runoff, or ditch flow. (This part of
this survey is specifically for culverts with less than a 36
square foot opening)

 

North Carolina

A pipe that carries storm drainage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Idaho Almhing with a span of less than 20 feet.

Ontario A conduit usually covered by fill, whose primary function is
to convey surface water through an embankment. There is
also another definition based on the Canadian Bridge Design
code which we also use which is "A structure the forms an
opening through soil"

Alberta A bridge size culvert is defined as a culvert that has a
diameter of 1.5 m or larger. Non-round culverts having an
equivalent flow area of at least a 1.5 m diameter round
culvert are also consider bridge size culverts.

California A conduit with a diameter or span less than 20 feet.

Alaska No Response

North Dakota No Response

Minnesota No Response

Maryland No Response

Quebec A culvert is generally a small-scale engineering structure that

 

is constructed underneath a roadbed, with an opening that is
smaller than 3.0 m. It may be a conventional reinforced—
concrete structure, or it may consist of a thin design that is
built using reinforced concrete, corrugated metal, or
thermoplastic.

 

150

 

 

New Hampshire

Currently we inspect ONLY single culverts 10' and greater
OR multiple culverts that are greater than 10' combined
length where the distance between them is less than half the
radius of the pipes.

 

Florida

The F 1 Specification Book defines as any structure not
classified as a bridge that provides an opening under the
roadway

 

Michigan

A structure that is usually designed hydraulically to convey
surface runoff through an embankment. The span is less than
20 feet.

 

Pennsylvania

We do not have a formal definition, but it is a hydraulic
structure that passes water flow under our highway system.
Typical span range is 8-20 feet.

 

Nevada

No Resmnse

 

Delaware

A culvert is a structure designed hydraulically to take
advantage of submergence to increase hydraulic capacity.

 

Indiana

Drainage structures that have span(s) length of 20'-0 or less.
They are grouped in two (2) categories: 'small culverts' less
than 4'-0 span and 'large culverts' from 4'-0 through 20'-0.
Answers to this questionnaire are in reference to the 'large
culverts'

 

Ohio

Culvert: A structure that conveys water or forms a
passageway through an embankment and is designed to
support a super-imposed earth load or other fill material plus
live loads. For the purposes of this manual, a culvert will
consist of all of the following even though they may support
traffic loads directly: 1. Any structure with a span, diameter,
or multi-cell structure with total span less than 10 feet when
measured parallel to the centerline of the roadway. (This is
known as the National Bridge Inventory span.) 2. Any
structure that forms a passageway or conveys water through
an embankment not inspected according to the definitions
and terms of the Ohio Department of Transportation Bridge
Inspection Manual.

 

Kansas

Pipes, Arch or Box Bridge Length > 20' We inspect "500
Series" between 10' and 20'

 

Oregon

Pipe, galvanized or steel.

 

Nova Scotia

A single structure with a span less than 3 metres.

 

Tennessee

A structure that is less than 20 feet in length. Structures 20
feet and over are classified as a bridge.

 

Washington State

A culvert is a conduit under a roadway or embankment used
to maintain flow fiom a natural channel or drainage ditch

 

 

 

151

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N o State/Province
1 Missouri

2 Georgia

3 Arkansas

4 Iowa

5 Louisiana

6 Illinois

7 Nevada

8 Virginia

9 Virginia

10 North Carolina
1 1 Idaho

12 X

13 Ontario

14 Alberta

15 California

16 Alaska

17 XXX

18 North Dakota
19 Minnesota
20 Maryland

21 Quebec

22 New Hampshire
23 Florida

24 Michigan

25 Pennsflvania
26 Nevada

27 Delaware

28 Indiana

29 Ohio

30 Kansas

3 1 Oregon

32 Nova Scotia
33 Tennessee
34 Washington

 

152

 

 

No

Q1:

Q2:

 

Very Good

Good

Poor

Deteriorated

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 0 1 0 0

2 0 0 0 0

3 1 0 0 0 No

4 0 1 0 0 Yes

5 0 1 0 0 No

6 0 1 0 0 Yes

7 0 1 0 0 No

8 0 1 0 0 Yes

9 0 1 0 0 Develop Ph
10 0 1 1 0 Yes

11 0 0 0 0 Yes

12 0 0 0 0

l3 0 1 0 0 Develop Ph
14 0 1 0 0 Yes

15 0 1 0 0 Yes

16 0 1 1 0 Yes

17 0 0 0 0

18 0 1 0 0 No

19 0 1 0 0 Yes
20 0 1 0 0 Yes
21 1 0 0 0 Yes
22 0 0 1 0 No
23 0 l 0 0 Yes
24 0 0 0 O
25 0 1 0 0 Yes
26 0 1 0 0 Yes
27 0 1 0 0 Yes
28 0 l l 0 Develop Ph
29 0 1 0 0 Yes
30
31 0 1 0 0 No

32 0 1 0 0 No

33 0 l 0 0 Yes

34 0 1 0 0 Develop Ph

 

153

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N 0° Q 4: Q5: Q6: Q7:
1
2
3 50 year Development Phase Yes Every 2-5 years
4 50 year No Yes Every 1-2 years
5 100 year No Yes Every 2-5 years
6 20 year Development Phase No Every 2-5 years
7 No Yes No Specific Freq
8 100 year Yes No Every 2-5 years
9 Other Yes Yes No Specific Freq
10 50 year
11 20 year No Yes Evegy 2-5 years
12
13 Other Yes Yes Less than 1 year
14 100 year Yes Yes Every 2-5 years
15 50 year Yes Yes Every 2-5 years
16 100 year No Yes Every 2-5 years
17
18 20 year No Yes No Specific Freq
19 50 year Yes Not Recorded No Specific Freq
20 100 year Yes No Every 2-5 years
21 10 year Yes Yes Every 2-5 years
22 No No Every 1-2years
23
24
25 50 year Yes Yes Every 2-5 years
26
27 Other Yes No Every 2—5 years
28 100 year Development Phase Yes Every 1-2 years
29 Other Yes Yes Every 2-5 years
30
31 No Yes Less than 1 year
32 50 year No Yes Every 1-2 years
33
34 Development Phase Yes No Specific Freq

 

 

154

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N 0: Q 8: Q9:
Dr. Cha Man Junc Head End Wing Foot Oth
Inl nnel hole

1

2

3 No

4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

5 No

6 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

7 No

8 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

9 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

1 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

12 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

13 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

14 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

1 5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

16 No

17

1 8 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

19 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
20 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

21 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
22 No

23 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
24

25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

26

27 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

28 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
29 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

30

31 No

32 No

33

34 Dev. Ph Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

155

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. Q10. Q11.
Metal Culverts
Hyd Soil Joint Corr Wall Def Crack

1

2

3 No

4 No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
5 No

6 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
7 No

8 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
9 Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No
10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
1 1 No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
12

13 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
14 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

15 Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
16 No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
1 7

18 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
19 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
20 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No
21 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
22 Yes

23

24

25 Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No
26

27 No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
28 Dev. Ph Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
29 Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
3 0

3 1 No

32 No

3 3

34 Dev. Ph No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

156

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. Q1 1. cont
Concrete Culverts
Hyd Soil Joint Corr Wall Def Crack

1

2

3

4 No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
5

6 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
7

8 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
9 Yes No Yes No Yes Yes
10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
1 1 No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
12

13 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
14 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
1 5 Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
16 Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes
17

18 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
19 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
20 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes
21 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
22
23
24
25 Yes No No Yes No No Yes
26
27 No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes
28 Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes
29 Yes Yes Yes No Yes
3 0
3 1
3 2
3 3
34 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

157

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. Q12.
Hyd Struct Def Mat Road Insp Age Other

1

2

3 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No
4 Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No
5 Yes Yes No Yes No No No No
6 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No
7 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
8 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
9 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
1 0

1 1 Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No
12

13 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No
14 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No
1 5 No Yes No Yes No No No No
16 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No
17 No No No No No No No No
l 8 Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No
19 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
20 Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No
21 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
22 Yes Yes No No No No No No
23

24

25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No
26 No No No No No No No No
27 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
28 Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No
29 Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No
30

31 No No No Yes No No No No
32 Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No
33 No No No No No No No No
34 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

 

158

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. Q13. Q14. Q15.
1
2
3 No CCTV
4 No Others
5 No Other Don’t iigrect inside, just inlet and outlet
6 No Others
7 Dev. Ph. CCTV
8 No CCTV
9 Dev. Ph. Other Don’t inspect inside, Lust inlet and outlet
10
11 No Others
12
13 No Yes Don’t inspect inside, just inlet and outlet
14 Dev. Ph. Yes Others
15 No CCTV
16 No Don’t ingect inside, just inlet and outlet
17
18 No No Don’t inspect inside, just inlet and outlet
19 No Other CCTV
20 Yes Yes Others
21 No Yes Others
22
23
24
25 No Don’t inspect inside, just inlet and outlet
26
27 Yes Yes Others
28 No Yes Others
29 No Others
30
31 No Don’t inspect inside, just inlet and outlet
32 No Don’t inspect inside, just inlet and outlet
33
34 No CCTV

 

 

 

 

159

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N o. Q17.
Point Source Internal Seal Grouting Robotic Rgair Other
1
2
3 No Yes Yes No No
4 Yes Yes Yes No No
5 Yes No No No No
6 Yes No No No No
7 No Yes Yes No No
8 Yes Yes Yes No No
9 No No No No No
10
11 No No No No Yes
12
13 Yes Yes Yes No No
14 No No No No Yes
15 No No Yes No No
16 Yes No No No Yes
17 No No No No No
18 No No No No No
19 No No No No No
20 No No Yes No No
21 No No No No Yes
22 No No No No No
23
24 .
25 Yes No Yes No No
26 No No No No No
27 No No No No Yes
28 No No No No Yes
29 No No No No No
30
31 Yes No No No No
32 Yes No No No No
33 No No No No No
34 No No No No Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

160

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N 0. Q 18.
Cured In Place Pipe Sliplining Pipe Bursting Other
1
2
3 No Yes No No
4 No No No No
5 No No No Yes
6 No No No No
7 No Yes No No
8 No Yes No No
9 No No No No
10
11 No No No Yes
12
13 No Yes Yes No
14 No No No Yes
15 No Yes No No
16 No No No No
17 No No No No
18 No No No No
19 Yes Yes No No
20 Yes No No No
21 No Yes No No
22 No No No No
23
24
25 No Yes No No
26 No No No No
27 No No No No
28 No Yes No No
29 No No No No
30
31 No Yes No No
32 Yes No No No
33 No Yes No No
34 No No No Yes

 

161

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(L19. Q 20. Q 21. Q 22.
1
2
3 No No No
4 No No Dev. Ph.
5 No No No
6 Dev. Ph. No No
7 No No No
8 Yes HTRIS, No Yes
PONTIS/ORACLE
9 Dev. Ph. Asset Management System Dev. Ph. Dev. Ph.
10
11 Yes PONTIS No No
12
13 Yes OBMS in VB> 3m No No
14 Yes In House Yes Yes
15 Yes MS Access No No
16 Dev. Ph. In House No No
17
18
19 Yes Oracle No No
20 Yes Yes Yes
21 Yes Oracle No No
22
23
24
25 No
26
27 Yes PONTIS Yes Yes
28 Yes In House Access Database No No
29 Yes In House Software No No
30
3 1 No No No
32 No No No
33 No
34 Dev. Ph. No Dev. Ph.

 

 

 

 

 

162

 

l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

wwwwNNNNNNNNNN
WNl—‘OOOOQONUI-bWN—‘O

 

w
A

163

APPENDIX -3

CULVERT INVENTORY PROTOCOL

164

A. GENERAL

 

1. Date of Inventory:

2. Name of the Person:

 

3. State Code:

4. Country Code:

 

5: Place Code:

6. Inventory Code:

 

7. Functional Classification:

8. Mile Marker

 

9. Year Built

10. Latitude

 

l 1. Longitude

12. Maintenance Responsibility:

 

13. ADT:

14. Approach Roadway Width:

 

 

15. Culvert Marker:

 

 

B. STRUCTURAL

 

 

 

 

 

 

Banal
16.Shape 17. Material:
18. Number of Cells 19. Length *

* Length of the barrel

. .

 

165

 

 

geometric Dimensions

Please enter relevant dimensions according to shape; refer figure below for
standard dimensions.

Note: All dimensions in feet and inches.

 

 

20. Diameter: 21. Span 22. Rise:

 

 

 

2312’ =

 

 

 

 

 

 

166

 

 

Metal Pipes

 

 

28. Pitch: 29. Depth: 30. Gauge:
(thickness)

 

 

 

i.__ PITCH ——1 __i

 

 

31. Maximum Height of Cover from Crown to Road Surface:

 

(See figure below)

167

 

 

Roadway Surface

   

- ‘ Clllver‘i

C. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of End Treatment

32. Type: 33. Material: 34. Thickness:
Other

35. Slope of Embankment: 36. Skew Angle:

37. Roadway Material: 38. No. of Lanes:

 

 

 

 

D. HYDRAULIC

 

39. Streambed Material:

40. Drainage Area:

 

41. Design Peak Flow:

9

42. Manning’s Coefficient ‘n :

 

43. Design Discharge ‘Q’:

44. Design Headwater Depth:

 

45. Slope of the Culvert:

46. Bank Protection:

 

 

47. Type of Fish Passage:

48. pH of Water:

 

 

E. SAFETY ITEM

 

49. Type:

50. Material:

51. Span:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F. RENEWAL or REHABILITATION

 

52. Type of Renewal:

53. Date of Renewal:

 

 

54. Type of Rehabilitation:

55. Date Rehabilitated:

 

 

169

 

 

 

APPENDIX -4

CULVERT INVENTORY MANUAL

170

Item 1. Date of Inventory: (6 digits)

Print the date of culvert inventory performed. The coding for date of inventory is as
MM/DD/YY.

Ex: If the culvert inventory is performed on Jan 15m 2006, the coding will be:

01/15/06

Item 2. Name of the Person:

Print the name of the person performing the culvert inventory as follows:
Last Name, First Name, Initial

Ex: Stevenson, Mark, P
Item 3. State Code: (2 digits)

The state code is a national standard given by the Federal Information Processing (FIPS).
The state codes are as follows:

Code State Code . State

01 Alabama AL 15 Hawaii HI

02 Alaska AK 16 Idaho ID

03 NOT USED N/A 17 Illinois IL

04 Arizona AZ 18 Indiana IN

05 Arkansas AR 19 Iowa IA

06 California CA 20 Kansas KS

07 NOT USED N/A 21 Kentucky KY
08 Colorado CO 22 Louisiana LA
09 Connecticut CT 23 Maine ME

10 Delaware DE 24 Maryland MD
11 District of Columbia DC 25 Massachusetts MA
12 Florida FL 26 Michigan MI

13 Georgia GA 27 Minnesota MN
14 NOT USED N/A 28 Mississippi MS
29 Missouri MO 49 Utah UT

30 Montana MT 50 Vermont VT

31 Nebraska NE 51 Virginia VA
32 Nevada NV 52 NOT USED N/A

171

53
54
55
56
6O
64
66
68
69
70
72
78

Ex: For Michigan, code — “26”

33 New Hampshire NH
34 New Jersey NJ
35 New Mexico NM
36 New York NY
37 North Carolina NC
38 North Dakota ND
39 Ohio OH
40 Oklahoma OK
41 Oregon OR
42 Pennsylvania PA
43 NOT USED N/A
44 Rhode Island RH
45 South Carolina SC
46 South Dakota SD
47 Tennessee TN
48 Texas

Item 4. County Code:

Washington WA

West Virginia WV
Wisconsin WI

Wyoming WY

American Samoa AS

Fed States of Micronesa FM
Guam GU

Marshall Islands MI-I
Northern Mariana MP Islands
Palau PW

Puerto Rico PR

Virgin Islands VI (US)

(3 digits)

The highway agency district in which the culvert is located shall be represented by a
three digit code given by the Federal Information Processing (FIPS) as follows:

Code
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
01 1
01 2

County/District
Alcona
Alger
Allegan
Alpena
Antrim
Arenac
Baraga
Barry
Bay
Benzie
Berrien
Branch

172

For Michigan:

Code
037
038
039
040
04 1
042
043
044
045
046
047
048

County/District
Isabella
Jackson
Kalamazoo
Kalkaska
Kent
Keweenaw
Lake
Lapeer
Leelanau
Lenawee
Livingston
Luce

013
014
015
016
017
018
019
020
021
022
023
024
025
026
027
028
029
030
03 1
032
033
034
035
036
O73
O74
075
076
077
078
079
080
081
082
083
084

Calhoun
Cass
Charlevoix
Cheboygan
Chippewa
Clare
Clinton
Crawford
Delta
Dickinson
Eaton
Emma
Genesee
Gladwin
Gogebic
Grand Traverse
Gratio
Hillsdale
Houghton
Huron
Ingham
Ionia

Iosca

Iron
Saginaw

St Clair

St Joseph
Sanilac
Schoolcrafi
Shiawassee
Tuscola
Van Buren
Washtenaw
Wayne
Wexford
Entire State

049
050
051
052
053
054
055
056
057
058
059
060
061
062
O63
064
065
066
067
068
069
070
071
072

173

Mackinac
Macomb
Mani stee
Marquette
Mason
Mecosta
Menominee
Midland
Missaukee
Monroe
Montcalm
Montrnorency
Muskegon
Newaygo
Oakland
Oceana
Ogemaw
Ontonagon
Osceola
Oscoda
Otsego
Ottawa
Presque Isle
Roscommon

Ex: If the culvert is located in Ingham County, then code “033”

Item 5. Place Code: (3 digits)

The cities, township, villages and other census designated places shall be identified using
the Federal Information Processing Standards (F IPS) codes given in the current version

‘ of the census population and housing - geographic identification code scheme. Ifthere is
no F IPS place code, then code all zeros.

Item 6. Inventory Code: (8 digits)

Cl Route Signing Prefix (1 digit) — Identify the route signing prefix for the
inventory route using the following codes:

Code Description

Interstate Highway

US Numbered Highway
State Highway

County Highway

City Street

Federal Lands Road
State Lands Road

Other

WQQMAWNi—I

El Level of Service (1 digit) — Enter the designated level of service of the above
route as shown below:

Code Description

Mainline

Alternative

Bypass

Spur

Business

Ramp or Connector

Service road or Unclassified
Other

WQCDKI’IADJNr—I

0 Spur route is a short road forming a branch from a longer, more important
route like freeway, interstate roadway or motorway

o Bypass or beltway is a road which always reconnects with the major road

174

o A business route is a branch from numbered highway which links the
mainline of its parent route to the central business district of a city or town

0 Route Number (5 - digit): Code the route number of the inventory route in 5
digits. This value will be right justified with leading zeros filled in. Code 00000
for culverts on roads without numbers.

Ex: Route Number Code
U8127 00127

I 96 00096

I 90 00090

El Directional Suffix (1 digit): Code the directional suffix to the route number of
the inventory route, which is a part of the route number using the following codes:

Code Description
1 North
2 East
3 South
4 West
0 Not Applicable

Example of coding “Inventory Code ” for a culvert located on Interstate 90 West
1‘" digit — Route signing prefix — Interstate — “1 ”

2"“ digit — Level of service — Mainline — “I ”

Next 5 digits — Route number — I 90 — “00090 "

Last digit — Direction suflix — West — “4 ”

So, Inventory Code is 11000904

175

Item 7. Functional Classification: (2 digit)

Code the functional classification of the inventory route using the list below:

Code Description
Rural

01 Principal Arterial - Interstate
02 Principal Arterial - Other
03 Minor Arterial
04 Maj or Collector
05 Minor Collector
06 Local

Urban
11 Principal Arterial - Interstate
12 Principal Arterial — Freeways or

Expressways

13 Other Principal Arterial
14 Minor Arterial
15 Collector
16 Local

The culvert shall be located rural if not inside a designated urban area. The urban or rural
designation shall be determined by the culvert location and not the character of the
roadway.

Item 8. Mile Marker: (7 digits)

Code the nearest mile marker number on the roadway to establish location of the culvert.
It is a 7-di git code aligned to the assumed decimal point and zero filled wherever needed.

Ex:
Mile marker Code
27.00 0002 700
120.67 0012067

176

Item 9. Year Built: (4 digit)
Print the year, the culvert was built as follows:

Ex: If the culvert is built in 1950, then print “1950”

Item 10. Latitude: (8 digits)
xx degrees xx minutes xx.xx seconds
Determine the latitude of each in degrees, minutes, and seconds to the nearest hundredth

of a second. The leading zero can be added where ever necessary. The point of coordinate
may be the invert of the culvert or any suitable point in the direction of inventory.

Ex:

Latitude Code

81 degrees 10 minutes 10.52 seconds 81 101052

9 degrees 02 minutes 9.30 seconds 09020930

Item 11. Longitude: (8 digits)

xx degrees xx minutes xx.xx seconds

Determine the longitude of each in degrees, minutes and seconds to the nearest hundredth
of a second. A leading zero shall be coded where ever necessary. The point of coordinate
may be the invert of the culvert or any suitable point in the direction of inventory.

Ex:

Longitude Code
19 degrees 20 minutes 35.40 seconds 19203540
7 degrees 10 minutes 45.00 seconds 07104500

177

Item 12. Maintenance Responsibility: (2 digit)

This code shall represent the type of agency that has primary responsibility for
maintaining the structure. If more than one agency has equal responsibility, then code one
agency in the hierarchy of state, federal, county, city and other private.

Code Agency

01 State Highway Agency

02 County Highway Agency

03 Town or Township Highway Agency
04 City or Municipal Highway Agency
05 Park, Forest, or Reservation Agency
06 Local Park, Forest, or Reservation Agency
07 Other State Agencies

09 Other Local Agencies

10 Private (other than railroad)

11 Railroad

12 State Toll Authority

13 Local Toll Authority

14 Other Federal Agencies (not listed below)
15 Bureau of Fish and Wildlife

16 US. Forest Service

17 National Park Service

18 Bureau of Land Management

19 Bureau of Reclamation

20 Corps of Engineers (Civil)

21 Corps of Engineers (Military)

22 Unknown] others

Ex: If Bureau of fish and wildlife is incharge of culvert inventory, then code “ 15”

Item 13. Average Daily Traffic (ADT): (6 digit)

Code the average daily traffic volume (over the culvert) for the inventory route. The ADT
coded should be most recent ADT counts available.

Ex:

ADT Volume Code
350 000350
24, 300 024300

178

Item 14. Approach Roadway Width: (4 digit)

Code the normal width of useable roadway approaching the structure. The code is the
summation of all measurements as shown below:

 

 

 

 

44 N #4 W a
10 23 any length 33 6.5

All measurements in feet

Ex:
So, width ofthis road is 10 + 23 + 33 + 6.5 = 72.5 feet
Width Code
72.5 0725
100.5 1005
Item 15. Culvert Marker: (2 digits)

Code the culvert marker type present on or near the culvert structure.

Code Type

01 Wood Post
02 Metal Post
03 Other type
00 No Marker

Ex: If culvert marker type is wood, then code “01”

179

Item 16. Barrel Shape: (2 digits)

Code the shape of the culvert using the list below:

 

 

 

 

Code Type
01 Circular
02 Pipe Arch
03 Horizontal Ellipse
04 Vertical Ellipse
05 Rectangular
06 Slab or 3 - sided
07 Arch
Circular Culvert Pipe Arch
0 i
Horizontal Ellipse Vertical Ellipse
Rectangular Slab Culvert
:" 3.
In. .3-
Arch

Ex: If the culvert is circular, code “01”

180

Item 17. Barrel Material: (2 digits)

Following are the common culvert material types available:

Code Type

11 Concrete

12 Corrugated Metal Pipe

13 Corrugated Steel Pipe

14 Corrugated Aluminum Pipe
15 Plastic Pipe

16 High Density Polyethylene
17 Polyvinyl Chloride

18 Vitrified Clay

19 Wood

20 Bituminous Fiber

Ex: If the culvert material is corrugated steel pipe, then code “13”

Item 18. Number of Cells: (3 digits)

From the Asbuilt culvert drawings, count the number of barrels and print as shown in the
example. If, the number if not available, then code “000”

Ex: If the culvert has 10 barrels, code “010”

Note: Procedure to fill Items 1 9 to 3] is given on the Inventory Sheet

Item 32. Type of End Treatment: (2 digits)

Code the type of end treatment at the inverts:

Code Type

10 Projecting

11 Mitered

12 Pipe End Section
(Flared or Terminal)

13 Headwall

181

14 Wingwall
15 Headwall and Wingwall

Mitered End
Headwall

   

Wingwall

 

Flared End

 

Item 33. Material: Refer Item 17

Item 35. Slope of Embankment:

Slope of embankment is determined as follows:

Slope of Embankment

 

 

Length = A + 2 B

Slope of Embankment =_H_
V

Item 36. Skew Angle: (2 digits)

Stand at inlet, look across road perpendicular to road length and estimate degree of skew
downslope.

Inlet

    

400+ 26-40° ‘\
Skew Angles
Code Skew Angle (degrees)
00 0
01 1 — 25
02 26 — 40
03 40 +

183

Item 37. Roadway Material (Alphabets)

The Federal Highway Administration (F HWA) roadway classification and respective
codes are as follows:

Code Roadway Type

A Primitive Road

B Unimproved Road

C Graded and Drained Earth Road

E 2 Gravel or Stone Road

F Bituminous

G 1 Mixed Bituminous - combined base with surface under 7”
G 2 Mixed Bituminous - combined base with surface 7” or more
H 1 Bituminous Penetration - combined base under 7”

H 2 Bituminous Penetration - combined penetration 7” or more
I Bituminous Concrete — sheet asphalt or rock asphalt road

J Portland Cement Concrete Road

K Brick Road

L Block Road

Z Water Macadam Road

Z 1 Reinforced Concrete Road

Item 38. Number of Lanes: (2 digits)
Code Type

01 Single Lane

02 Double Lane

03 Four Lane

04 Six Lane

05 Eight Lane
Item 39. Stream Bed Material: (Alphabets)

Code the type of stream bed material as follows:

Code

Type

184

OQWWO

Clay
Silt
Sand
Gravel
Other

Item 40. Drainage Area:

Drainage area is an important factor in estimating the flood potential. The area of the
watershed should be carefully defined by means of survey, photographic maps, U.S
geological Survey (U SGS) topographic maps or a combination of these.

Maps are available at:

US. Geological Survey,

Map Distribution,

Federal Center,

Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225
Item 41. Design Peak Flow:

Code the design peak flow of the culvert as follows:

Code

01
02
O3
O4
05

Design Peak Flow

10 Year Flood
20 Year Flood
50 Year Flood
100 Year Flood
Other

Item 42: Manning’s Coefficient (n)

(2 digits)

Manning’s coefficient of roughness is used to estimate the capacity of a culvert to convey

water. 11

values given below:

value is determined by inspecting the culvert and comparing them to the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of Culvert Roughness or Manning’s “n”
Corrugation

Concrete pipe Smooth 0.010 — 0.011

Concrete box Smooth 0.012 — 0.015

Corrugated Metal 68 x 13 mm 0.022 — 0.027

Pipe (Arch and Box) 2 2/3 x 1/2 in

 

 

185

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Annular
68 x 13 mm 0.011 — 0.023
2 2/3 x 1/2 in
Helical
150 x 25 mm 0.022 — 0.025
6 x 1 in
Helical
125 x 25 mm 0.025 — 0.026
5 x l in
75 x 25 mm 0.027 — 0.028
3 x 1 in
150 x 50 mm 0.033 — 0.035
6 x 2 in
Structural plate
230 x 64 mm 0.033 — 0.037
9 x 2 1/2 in
Structural plate
Corrugated Smooth 0.009 — 0.015
Polyethylene
Corrugated Corrugated 0.018 — 0.025
Polyethylene
Polyvinyl Chloride Smooth 0.009 — 0.011
(PVC)

 

 

 

 

 

Note: For Item 43, 44 and 45 enter the design discharge (Q), design headwater depth
and slope of the culvert from Asbuilt drawings

Item 46. Bank Protection: (3 digits)
Code the type of bank protection according to the list as follows:
Code Type

010 Rip Rap

186

020
021
030
040
041
050

Loffelstein Block

Gabions

Earth Reinforcement System
Timber Retaining Walls
Steel Retaining Walls
Concrete Paving

Loffelstein blocks are a type of block retaining wall system. It is a caste concrete
block with spoon like hollows.

Gabions are pre-assembled wire-mesh basket filled with rock. They are used for
stabilizing slopes against movement and erosion.

Reinforcement of earth is the inclusion of resistant elements in a soil mass to
improve its mechanical properties.

Concrete paving is paving the earth slopes with reinforced concrete

 

Rip-Rap

 

Loffel stein Blocks

Go bions

 

Eonh
Reinforcement

187

 

Concrete Paving of Earth Slopes

Item 47. Type of Fish Passage: (3 digits)

Code the type of fish passage installed in the culvert according to the list below:

Code Type

01 1 Baffle Wall
021 Fish Ladder
031 Resting Pools

Baffle Wall

 

Fish Ladder

Resting Pools

 

Item 48. pH of Water:

Print the pH of the water in the inventory sheet.

Item 49. Safety Item

Code the safety structures accompanying the culvert as listed below:

Code Type
10 Culvert Railings
20 Approach Guardrails

189

 

Culvert Railings

Approach Guardrails

Item. 52 Type of Renewal: (Alphabets)

Code the type of renewal according to the list below:

Code

ILR
ThP
SL
MSL
PL
CFP
CIPP

Type of Renewal

In-Line Replacement
Thermoformed Pipe
Sliplining

Modified Sliplining
Panel Lining
Close-Fit Pipe
Cured-In-Place Pipe

190

APPENDIX -5

CULVERT CONDITION ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL

191

BASIC CONDITION ASSESSMENT

Basic condition assessment is performed to any culvert less than 10 foot diameter or

opening irrespective of its shape or material.

A. General Information:

 

 

 

 

 

1. State Code: 2. County Code: 3. Place Code:
4. Culvert Identification Number: 5. Year Built:
6. Date of Inspection: 7. Inspector’s Name:

 

 

 

8. Maintenance Responsibility:

 

B. Site Information:

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. Season: 10. Climate:

11. Time of Inspection: 12. Type of Stream:
13. Type of Inspection: 14. Water Level:
15.pH of Water: 16. Soil Resistivity:
17. Vegetation: 18. Natural Hazards:

 

 

C. Culvert Information:

 

l9. Shape: 20. Material:

 

 

21. Number of Cells: 22. Type of End Treatment:

 

 

192

 

 

 

9. Condition Assessment:

 

a. Condition of Invert

 

 

b. Condition of End Treatment

 

 

c. Condition of Overall Culvert:

 

 

(1. Condition of Roadway:

 

 

e. Condition of Embankment:

 

 

 

 

 

 

f. Condition of Footings:

 

E. Zone: (please tick one)

 

We=e=¢‘r~&2r:ri'a'if-:—r-atg
P1 ‘ r, .

it '4"
[3," = x35:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F. Comments: G. Recommendations:

 

 

193

 

ADVANCED CONDITION ASSESSMENT

METAL CULVERTS

 

A. Alignment

 

 

B. Settlement

 

 

C. Vegetation

 

 

D. Seam

 

 

 

 

E. Shape

 

 

F. Corrosion

 

 

G. Scouring

 

 

Performance Score

 

 

 

 

 

Comments: Recommendations:

 

 

Performance score after repair or rehabilitation of the culvert

% Performance Improvement

194

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONCRETE CULVERTS

 

A. Cracking

 

 

B. Securing

 

 

C. Settlement

 

 

D. Joint Opening

 

 

E. Misalignment

 

 

F. Concrete Surface

 

 

 

 

Performance Score

 

 

 

Comments: Recommendations:

 

 

Performance score after repair or rehabilitation of the culvert

% Performance Improvement

195

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLASTIC CULVERTS

 

 

A. Misalignment

 

 

 

B. Shape

 

 

 

C. Seam

 

 

D. Settlement

 

 

E. Scouting

 

 

 

 

F. Split or Cracking

 

 

 

Performance Score

 

 

 

Comments: Recommendations:

 

 

Performance score after repair or rehabilitation of the culvert

% Performance Improvement

196

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX -6

CULVERT CONDITION ASSESSIVIENT MANUAL

197

General Information

Items 1 to 8 refer Inventory Manual
Item 9. Season: (2 digits)

Code the season of the year, culvert condition assessment was performed. The list is as
follows:

Code . Season

01 - ~ Spring

02 Summer

03 F all

04 Winter

Item 10. Climate: (2 digits)

Code the climate of the day, condition assessment was performed.

Code Climate

21 Very Hot (Above 100 F)
22 Hot (80 - 100 F)
23 Good (65 - 79 F)

24 Fair (40 — 64)

25 Cold (32 — 40)

26 Freezing Cold (Below 32)

Item 11. Time of Inspection:

Code the time of culvert inspection

198

Item 12. Type of Stream: (2 digits)

Code the type of stream entering into the culvert as follows:

Code Type of Stream

10 Braided Stream

11 Straight Stream

12 Meandering Stream
13 Other

00 No Stream

Braided streams consists of multiple and interlacing channels. They are wide, and the
banks are poorly defined and unstable.

nmwm- ...

 

Braided Stream

Straight streams are straight without branches and the ratio of the length of the thawing,
or path of deepest flow, to the length of the valley proper is less than 1.5

 

199

Meandering streams consists of alternating bends of an S-shape as shown in the figure.

 

Meandering Stream

Item 13. Type of Inspection: (Alphabets)
Code the type of inspection procedure.
Code Type of entry

Inspection from culvert ends

S Manned entry inspection
V CCTV inspection
Item 14. Water Level: (2 digits)

Code the water level in the culvert:

Code Water Level

05 Pressure flow

06 Half flow

07 Quarter flow

08 Small stream flowing
09 Ponding water

00 No water

Item 15. pH:

Enter the pH value of the water in the inspection sheet

Item 16. Soil Resistivity:

Enter the soil resistivity in ohm-mm

Item 17. Vegetation:

Code the vegetation in and around culvert as follows:

Code Vegetation

51 No vegetation in and around culvert for atleast 40 feet

52 Minor vegetation around culvert, but has no or less effect on
culvert

53 Heavy vegetation in and around culvert

54 Culvert is completely covered by vegetation

Item 18. Natural Hazards:

Determine the natural hazards on the culvert site.

Code Type

AA Animals in culvert site
KY Poisonous plants

HU Slippery Surfaces

MN Posted Warnings

YO No Danger

201

 

Animals in culverts

   

Slippery surface Posted warning

202

Basic Condition Assessment

Rating Scale: Score

A - New or excellent condition
B — Good Condition

C — Fair condition

D — Poor Condition

E — Critical Condition

t—‘Nw-hUI

Condition of the Inverts

Condition of End Treatment

Condition of the Roadway above Culvert
Overall Condition of the Culvert
Condition of the Embankment

Condition of the Footing

Condition of the Invert
A — Looks new or in excellent condition

B — Age deterioration is minor, no deformations of the openings, no or less settlement of
the debris, invert not corroded or eroded

C — Age deterioration is moderate, some deformations of the opening, minor cracks,
moderate settlement of debris, inverts corroded or eroded

D - Age deterioration is significant or failure of the inverts is imminent, inverts heavily
corroded or eroded, large settlement of debris, major cracks

E — Ends totally/partially broken

203

Condition of End protection (headwall, Wingwall, etc)
A — Looks new or in excellent condition

B — Good condition, light scaling, hairline cracking, no leakage, no Spalling, minor
rotation

C — Horizontal and diagonal cracking with or without efflorescence, minor rusting,
leakage and erosion, minor scaling, differential or rotational settlement

D - Cracking with white efflorescence, major cracks, failure is imminent, heavily scaled
or rusted, partial collapse of end protection

E — Total collapse of end protection

Overall condition of the culvert

A — Newly installed or lined culvert

B — Looks new with possible discoloration of the surface, galvanizing partially worn,
hairline cracking, no settlement of the above roadway, light deformation, no debris
inside the structure, light corrosion inside or outside the culvert

C — Medium rust or scale, pinholes throughout the pipe material, minor cracking, slight
discoloration, isolated damages from cracking, minor settlement of the roadway,
minor deformation of the culvert, minor settlement of debris inside the culvert

D — Heavy rust or scale, major cracks with Spalling, exposed surface of the reinforcing
steel, heavy settlement of the debris inside the structure, visible settlement of the

above roadway, heavy deformation

E - Culvert is structurally or hydraulically incapable to fiinction, exceeded its design life,
culvert partially collapse or collapse is imminent

Condition of the roadway
A — Looks new and in excellent condition
B — Minor settlement of the roadway, no cracks

C — Minor settlement of the roadway and minor cracks

204

 

D — Heavy settlement of the roadway or major cracks

E — Roadway collapse is imminent

Condition of the Embankment

A - Soil in very good condition, no erosion found in and around the structure
B — Minor erosion away from the structure, no problem to the culvert

C — Moderate erosion near the structure, no cracks on the headwall

D — Slope stability problem near the culvert, extensive hairline cracks found near the
headwall

E — Embankment has collapsed or failure is imminent

Condition of the Footings

A — Footing intact and in good condition

B -- Moderate erosion and may cause cracking or settlement in the footing
C — Moderate cracking or differential settlement of the footing

D — Severe differential settlement has caused distortions in the culvert

E — Culvert has collapsed or failure is imminent

205

 

Calculation of Performance Factor

Rating system for performance calculation:

1 — Equal Importance

2 — Moderate Importance

3 — Intermediate Importance
4 — Strong Importance

5 - Extreme Importance

Invert Treat Footing

3
Inverts
Treat

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Culvert Invert End Treat Footing Roadway Embankment
Culverts 0.4413 0.5454 0.4000 0.3428 0.2941 0.3333
Inverts 0.0882 0.1818 0.2666 0.2285 0.2352 0.2666
End Treat 0.1469 0.0909 0.1333 0.2285 0.1176 0.1333
Footing 0.1469 0.0909 0.0666 0.1142 0.2352 0.1333
Roadway 0.0882 0.0454 0.0666 0.0285 0.0588 0.0666
Embankment 0.0882 0.0454 0.0666 0.0571 0.0588 . 0.0666

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Relative weights obtained from above matrix:

Relative

0.39280
0.21115

0.14
of 0.131 18
of 0.05901
Condition 0.06378

 

206

Q o o @ go

Upper Limit Lower Limit

 

 

Final Performance Score for categorizing the culverts into zones

Performance Score Zone Zone Meaning
3.5 + Green Safe
3.5 — 2.5 Yellow Intermediate Stage
> 2.5 Red Danger

207

Advanced Condition Assessment for Culverts in Red Zone

 

Metal Culverts
o Misalignment
o Settlement problems
0 Vegetation
o Seam problems
0 Shape
0 Corrosion problems
0 Securing
Misalignment

A —- No alignment problem found. The culvert is straight as designed
B — Minor misalignment problem at the joints. No ponding of water

C — Minor misalignment problem — offset less than V2” and ponding of water is less than
or equal to 2”

D — Significant misalignment — offset more than V2” and less than 2” and ponding of
water is greater than 2” and less than 5”

E — Significant misalignment — offset greater than 2” and ponding of water greater than
5”

F — Culvert partially collapsed/collapse is imminent due to alignment problems

Seam problems
A — No seam problem, seams are tight or in excellent condition
B - Minor efflorescence or loss of galvanizing at seams, minor cracking at few bolt holes

C - Minor cracking, evidence of backfill infiltration, minor rusting around bolts, more
than 3 missing bolts in a row

D — Moderate cracking at bolt holes, more than 6 bolts missing in a row, deflection
caused by loss of backfill through open seams, major cracking at crown

E — Metal plate cracked from bolt to bolt on one side, significant backfill infiltration,
crown open

208

 

F — Seams failed/failure is imminent

Settlement problems
A — No settlement of debris/culvert functioning as designed
B — Minor settlement of debris less than 5% of cross sectional area

C - Minor settlement of debris less than 10% of cross sectional area, vegetation growing
inside the culvert

D -— Settlement is more than 10% and less than 40% of cross sectional area, vegetation
restricts the channel flow

E — Settlement more than 40% and less than 80%, occasional overtopping of the roadway

F — Culvert completely blocked causing water to pool, road closed due to channel failure

Vegetation/Debris

A - Very lighting floating debris or no debris

B — Light floating debris - small limbs or sticks, refirse, small plants growing
C - Medium floating debris (large sticks), large plants growing

D — Heavy floating debris (logs or trees) or heterogeneous fluid mass of clay, silt, sand,
gravel, rock or refiise

E — Fairly uniform bedload of silt, sand, or gravel and less devoid of floating debris

F - Large boulders and large rock fragments carried as a bedload

Shape
A - New condition, smooth curvature in barrel

B — Top half of the pipe is smooth but minor flattening of the bottom, dimensions within
1% of the design

C — Top half has smooth curvature but bottom half has flattened significantly, dimensions
more than 1% and less than 15% of the design

209

 

D — Significant distortions or deflections throughout the length of the pipe, dimensions
between 10 -— 15% of the design

E — Structure partially collapsed with crown in reverse curve, extreme
deflection/distortions, dimensions greater than 15% than designed

F — Structure collapse/failure is imminent

Corrosion/rusting

A — No corrosion looks new

B -— Superficial corrosion (less than 5% of the exposed area)

C — Moderate corrosion (more than 5% and less than 20% of the exposed area)

D — Significant corrosion (greater than 20% and less than 50% of the exposed area)
E — Heavy corrosion (greater than 50% of the exposed area)

F —— Extensive perforations throughout the body of the culvert due to corrosion

Securing or Abrasion problem

A — No indication of scouring or bank erosion

B — Mild indication of scouring or bank erosion (< 6”)

C - Moderate bed scour or bank erosion (6” — 2’)

D — Significant bed scours and bank erosion (> 2’)

E - Structure has been displaced or settled due to scouring or bank erosion

F — Structure failed or failure is imminent due to bed scouring and bank erosion

C heck for localized damage like dents, bulges, creases, and tears. Document the type,

extent and location of these defects in the comments box and recommend fitture repair
action. ,

210

 

l
0
0.2440 0.1875

0
0.0768 0.1200 0.0900 0.0580 0.0580 0.0200 0.0625

 

211

Concrete Culverts

Cracking
Securing
Settlement

Joint Opening
Alignment
Concrete Surface

Cracking
A - New condition and looks excellent
B - Minor hairline cracks on the surface of the culvert and on end treatments

C - Extensive hair line cracks with/without minor delaminations or spalling (depth less
than 0.25 inches)

D - Maj or delaminations or spalling exposing reinforcing steel (depth between 0.25 —- 0.5
inches)

E — Extensive cracking, spalling and/or delaminations (depth exceeding 0.5 inches)

F — Structure fully or partially collapse due to cracking

Securing

A — No scouring, looks new and in excellent condition

B — Minor Securing at the inlet, outlet and/or inside the culvert (depth < 6”)

C - Moderate scouring at the ends and/or inside the culvert (depth between 6” — 2’)
D — Significant scouring of the concrete bed (> 2’)

E — Reinforcing rods exposed due to extensive scouring

F — Culvert collapsed/partially collapsed due to securing

212

 

Settlement
A — No settlement of debris or culvert functioning as designed
B — Minor settlement of debris less than 5% of cross sectional area

C - Minor settlement of debris less than 10% of cross sectional area, vegetation growing
inside the culvert

D — Settlement is more than 10% and less than 40% of cross sectional area, vegetation
restricts the channel flow

E — Settlement more than 40% and less than 80%, occasional overtopping of the roadway

F - Culvert completely blocked causing water to pool, road closed due to channel failure

Joint Opening

A — Joints are tight in excellent condition/ looks new

B — Minor settlement at the joints, but in good condition

C — Minor backfill infiltration due to joint opening

D — Joint opening (less than 3”) and allowing backfill to infiltrate

E — Significant infiltration or exfiltration due to joint opening (greater than 3”)

F — Culvert fully or partially collapsed due to joint opening

Misalignment
A — Culvert is in excellent condition as designed, no misalignment
B -— Minor misalignment problem at the joints. No ponding of water

C - Minor misalignment problem — offset less than ‘/2” and ponding of water is less than
or equal to 2”

D -— Significant misalignment — offset more than V2” and less than 2” and ponding of
water is greater than 2” and less than 5”

E — Significant misalignment — offset greater than 2” and ponding of water greater than
5”

213

 

F — Culvert partially or fully collapsed due to misalignment of culvert

Concrete Surface
A — Concrete surface looks new or in excellent condition

B - Minor discoloration of the concrete surface; light scaling less than ‘/4 inches, light
honeycombing or efflorescence (less than 5% of the surface area)

C — Moderate discoloration; minor age deterioration; medium scaling (1/ ” — 1/2”) and/or
honeycombing or efflorescence (5 — 15% of the surface area)

. D - Age deterioration and discoloration is significant; major scaling (1/2” — 1”);
major honeycombing or efflorescence (15 — 20%)

E — Age deterioration and discoloration is extensive; severe scaling (> 1”); severe
honeycombing or efflorescence (greater than 20%)

F — Culvert is partially or fully failed; failure is imminent due to all or any of the above
factors

 

214

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cracking Scourin Settlemen Joint Mis Concrete
g t Opening alignment Surface
Cracking 0.3330 0.5140 0.4737 0.2068 0.1875 0.1875
Securing 0.1110 0.1714 0.1579 0.2068 0.1875 0.1875
Settlement 0.1110 0.0857 0.1579 0.2068 0.1875 0.1875
Joint 0.1660 0.0857 0.0789 0.2068 0.1875 0.1875
Opening
Misalignm 0.1660 0.0857 0.0789 0.1034 0.1875 0.1875
ent
Concrete 0.1110 0.0570 0.0525 0.0688 0.0624 0.0625
Surface '
Relative Weight

Cracking 0.3170

Securing 0.1703

Settlement 0.1563

Joint Opening 0.1521

Mi salignment 0.1348

Concrete Surface 0.0690

 

 

 

 

215

Plastic Culverts

Definitions:

Deflection — A deviation from the original design shape without the formation of sharp
peaks or valleys

Buckling - A bend, wrap or crumbling. Types of buckling:

Hinging — Yielding of the material due to excessive bending moment in the pipe
wall.

Wall crushing — Yielding in the wall produced by excessive compressive stresses
Dimpling — Used to describe a wavy or wafiling pattern that occurs in the inner

wall of the pipe due to instability

Split — A split is any separation in the wall material other than at the designed joint

Problems:

Mi salignment

Shape — Deflection and Buckling

Seam problem

Settlement

Securing

Split or cracking

Misalignment

A — Culvert looks new or as designed; No misalignment

B — Minor misalignment problem at the joints. No ponding of water

C - Minor misalignment problem — offset less than V2” and pending of water is less than
or equal to 2”

D — Significant misalignment — offset more than V2” and less than 2” and ponding of

216

water is greater than 2” and less than 5”

E — Significant misalignment — offset greater than 2” and ponding of water greater than
5”

F —- Culvert partially or fully collapsed due to misalignment of culvert

Shape
A — Culvert looks new or in excellent condition; Culvert wall smooth and as designed
B — Culvert wall is smooth but deflection is less than 5% of the design; no buckling

C — Deflection is between 5 - 10% of the design; minor dimpling thought the culvert pipe
(< 1/2”)

D -— Deflection between 10 — 20% of the design; moderate dimpling (V2” - 1”); minor wall
hinging or crushing in some locations

E - Deflection greater than 20% but less than 40% of the design; severe dimpling (>1”);
moderate or severe hinging or crushing throughout the culvert pipe

F - Deflection greater than 40% of the design; culvert partially or fully collapsed due to
severe dimpling or hinging

Seam problem

A - Culvert looks new and in excellent condition.

B — Minor offset at the seam (< V2”) and possible infiltration

C — Moderate offset at the seam (between V2” — 2”) and minor infiltration or exfiltration

D — Significant offset at the seam (between 2” — 4”) and moderate infiltration or
exfiltration

E — Severe offset at the seam (> 4”) and severe infiltration or exfiltration

F — Seam open or culvert partially or fully collapsed due to scam opening

217

Settlement
A — No settlement of debris or culvert functioning as designed
B — Minor settlement of debris less than 5% of cross sectional area

C — Minor settlement of debris less than 10% of cross sectional area, vegetation growing
inside the culvert

D — Settlement is more than 10% and less than 40% of cross sectional area, vegetation
restricts the channel flow

E — Settlement more than 40% and less than 80%, occasional overtopping of the roadway

F — Culvert completely blocked causing water to pool, road closed due to channel failure

Securing

A — No evidence of securing of culvert invert or ends

B — Minor scour holes at some locations

C — Moderate scour holes (< 1”) throughout the culvert material

D — Significant scour holes (between 1”- 2”) or perforations at the invert
E — Severe scour holes (>2”) or loss of significant invert material

F — Culvert is partially or totally collapsed due to securing

Split/Cracking
A — Culvert in good condition as designed without any splits or cracking

B — Small splits (less than 3”; width less than Mr”) in few locations and/or hairline
cracking

C — Minor splits (greater than 3” but less than 6”; width between 1/4” — V2”) in few
Locations and minor cracking at crown or any location

218

 

D — Maj or Splits (greater than 6”; width greater than V2”) and major cracking at crown or
any location

E — Splits wide open or crown failure

F — Culvert partially or fully failure due to wide splits or severe cracking

219

Bibliography:

AASHTO. (1999). “Highway Drainage Guidelines for Culvert Inspection and
Rehabilitation, Volume XIV”, Task Force on Hydrology and Hydraulics, AASHTO
Highway Subcommittee on Design

Bealey. (1984). “Precast Concrete Pipe Durability: State of the Art” Transportation
Research record (TRR), Journal of Transportation Research Board, Vol. 1001, National
Research Council, Washington DC

Bednar, L. (1989). “Plain Galvanized Steel Drainage Pipe Durability Estimation with a
Modified California Chart.” Transportation Research Record (TRR), Journal of
Transportation Research Board, Vol. 1231, National Research Council, Washington DC

Caltrans. (2003). “Caltrans Supplement to FHWA Culvert Repair Practices Manual”,
Office of State Highway Drainage Design, California Department of Transportation

EPA. (2005). “Fact Sheet: Asset Management for Sewer Collection Systems”, Office of
Wastewater Management, Report Number: 833-F-02-001, US Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington DC

FHWA. (1986). “Culvert Repair Practices Manual, Volume 1”, FHWA-RD-94-O96,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC

FHWA. (1999). “Asset Management Primers”, Office of Asset Management, Federal
Highway Association, US Department of Transportation, Washington DC

FHWA. (2000). “Primer: GASB 34”, Office of Asset Management, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington DC

F HWA (2001). “Culvert Management System, User Manual”, Report No. FHWA — LT —
02 — 001, Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC

FHWA. (2001). “Hydraulic Design of Highway Culverts”, Publication No. FHWA-NH]-
01-020, Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC

220

 

FHWA. (2005). “Why Your Agency Should Consider Asset Management Systems for
Roadway Safety”, Federal Highway Association, Washington DC, report number
FHWA-HRT-05-077

Gassman, S. L., Schroeder, A. J ., and Ray, R. P. (2002). “Performance Evaluation of high
Density Polyethylene Culvert Pipe” Transportation Research Record (TRR), Journal of
Transportation Research Board, Vol. 1814, National Research Council, Washington DC

Heger, F. J., and Selig, ET. (1994) “Rigid Pipe Distress in High Embankments over Soft
Soil Strata” Transportation Research Record (TRR), Journal of Transportation Research
Board, Vol. 1431, National Research Council, Washington DC

Hughes, D. (2002). “Assessing the Future: Water Utility Infrastructure Management”,
American Water Works Association, Denver, CO

Lalonde, E., Prince, B., and Begin, L. (2003), “Innovative Approach for the Condition
Assessment of Infrastructure within Right-of—Way”, available at http:/Mwwtac-
atc.ca/english/pdf/conf2003/ljlondepdf date visited July 28th 2006

Najafi, M., and Gokhale, S. (2004). “Trenchless Technology — Pipeline and Utility
Design, Construction and Renewal”, McGraw-Hill

NCHRP. (2002). “Transportation Asset Management Guide”, National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 20-24(11)

NCHRP. (2002). “Assessment and Rehabilitation of Existing Culverts”, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis 303

NRMCA. (1998). “Concrete in Practice, What, Why and How?” National Ready Mix
Concrete Association, available at http://www.nrrnca.orgiaboutconcrete/cips/OZp.pdf,
visited on July 11th 2006

OCED. (2001). “Asset Management for the Road Sector”, Organization for Economic
Co-Operaticn and Development

221

 

Mitchell, G., Masada, T., Sargand, S., Tarawneh, B., Stewart, K., Mapel, S., and Roberts,
J. (2005). “Risk Assessment and Update of Inspection Procedures for Culverts”, Ohio
Research Institute for Transportation and the Environment (ORITE), Russ College of
Engineering and Technology, Ohio University

Pantelias, A. (2005) “Asset Management Data Collection for Supporting Decision
Processes”, Master’s Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic and State University

Joseph, P. Jr and Jhaveri, S. C. (2004) “The Economic Costs of Culvert Failure”,
American Concrete Pipe Association

Joseph, P. Jr., and Dwivedi, R. (2005). “A Need for Culvert Asset Management”, Civil
and Environmental Engineering Department, University of Utah

Ring G. W. (1984). “Culvert Durability: Where Are We?” Transportation Research
Record (TRR), Journal of Transportation Research Board, Vol. 1001, National Research
Council, Washington DC

Sehn, A. L., and Duncan, J. M. (1994) “Investigation of Large Deformations of a
Corrugated Metal Pipe in Silty Scil” Transportation Research Record (TRR), Journal of
Transportation Research Board, Vol. 1431, National Research Council, Washington DC

Turner, D. S. (1999) “America’s Crumbling Infrastructure”, USA Toady (Society for
Advancement of Education)

222

 

   

lifliliijjiiiliiijijjiiii‘ijjl