1 current state of small culvert inspection & inventory in …docs.trb.org/prp/17-01560.pdf ·...

CURRENT STATE OF SMALL CULVERT INSPECTION & INVENTORY IN THE UNITED STATES 1 2 Natalie Villwock-Witte, Ph.D., P.E. (Corresponding Author) 3 Assistant Research Professor/Research Engineer 4 Western Transportation Institute (WTI) 5 Montana State University (MSU) 6 P.O. Box 174520 7 Bozeman, MT 59717-4250 8 Phone: 505-340-3570 9 Fax: 406-994-1697 10 Email: [email protected] 11 12 David Hadwiger, Ph.D. 13 Research Bureau 14 New Mexico Department of Transportation 15 P.O. Box 94690 16 Albuquerque, NM 87199-4690 17 Phone: 505-819-9757 18 Email: [email protected] 19 20 Karalyn Clouser 21 Research Associate 22 Western Transportation Institute (WTI) 23 Montana State University (MSU) 24 P.O. Box 174520 25 Bozeman, MT 59717-4250 26 27 Laura Fay 28 Research Scientist II 29 Western Transportation Institute (WTI) 30 Montana State University (MSU) 31 P.O. Box 174520 32 Bozeman, MT 59717-4250 33 34 July 2016 35 36 Word Count: 5,279 Words + 0 Table (0 Words) + 8 Figures (2000 Words) = 7,279 Words 37 38 Key Words: Culverts, Training, Inspection, Inventory, Asset Management, Failure39

Villwock-Witte, Hadwiger, Clouser, & Fay 2

ABSTRACT 1 Like many state departments of transportation (DOT) grappling with the need to address aging infrastructure, the 2 New Mexico DOT initiated a study on the state of the practice for small culvert inspection and inventory. The 3 researchers reviewed literature and deployed a survey that was sent to all fifty state DOTs, from which, all but three 4 state DOTs provided a response. Findings from this research effort include: 5

1) nineteen states are currently inspecting and inventorying culverts within their bridge inventory that 6 extend beyond the definitions specified in the Code of Federal Regulation 23 650.305, 7

2) approaches to small culvert inspection and inventory are changing over time, and 8 3) the magnitude of small culverts is staggering, in some states numbering in the hundreds of thousands. 9

How a state defines a small culvert can impact the number of culverts identified. 10 Some recommendations based on the findings include: 11 1) use the approach implemented by the Vermont DOT to assist local entities with small culvert asset 12

management, essentially creating a repository for culverts statewide, as a best practice, and 13 2) employ a tiered approach to small culvert inspection to balance staffing resources with the number of 14

small culverts. 15 Two primary needs were identified as a result of the research effort: 16 1) implementation of a culvert failure reporting system (similar to the fatality analysis reporting system) to 17

improve documentation of culvert failures (including small culverts) and enhance understanding of their causes. 18 2) development of a nation-wide training specific to small culvert inspection. 19

20 21


1. INTRODUCTION 1 Throughout the United States, transportation agencies are grappling with maintaining aging infrastructure. The 2 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act charged states with developing asset management systems to 3 help them gain an understanding of not only what infrastructure they have to maintain, but anticipated costs 4 associated with this maintenance. In many cases, state departments of transportation (DOTs), like the New Mexico 5 Department of Transportation (NMDOT), are already identifying the challenges with maintaining bridges and 6 pavements to desired levels with ever-shrinking budgets. While states have begun to identify the needs and costs 7 associated with bridge and pavement maintenance, their level of attention to other infrastructure such as signs, 8 guardrails, and culverts varies widely from state to state. 9 A bridge, by Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 650.305 definition, is (1): 10 11 “A structure including supports erected over a depression or an obstruction, such as water, highway or railway, 12 and having a track or passageway for carrying traffic or other moving loads, and having an opening measured 13 along the center of the roadway of more than 20 feet between undercopings of abutments or spring lines of arches 14 or extreme ends of openings for multiple boxes; it may also include multiple pipes, where the clear distance between 15 openings is less than half of the smaller contiguous opening.” 16 17 The definition can be graphically described by FIGURE 1. 18 19

20 FIGURE 1 Bridge or culvert (Courtesy NMDOT). 21

22


NMDOT knows that many of the culverts that are within its right-of-way fall outside of the definition of a bridge. 1 In fact, the agency has an inventory of at least 50,000 culverts. A recent culvert failure (FIGURE 2), which cost in 2 the millions of dollars to repair, prompted the NMDOT to initiate a study on best practices for inspecting and 3 inventorying small culverts. 4 5

6 FIGURE 2 Grants, NM Culvert Collapse (Courtesy NMDOT). 7

8 This paper will discuss some of the key findings from the study. The remainder of this paper is divided into four 9 principal sections: 10

1) Literature Review 11 2) Methodology 12 3) Findings 13 4) Conclusions, Recommendations, & Future Needs. 14

15 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 16 This section presents literature that is relevant to the topics presented in the findings. 17 18 Data Collection Beyond the Code of Federal Regulations 19 The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) developed two reports on small culvert inspection and inventorying 20 programs, one in 2007 and one in 2014 ( (2), (3)). According to these reports, Maryland, Minnesota, Ohio, Oregon, 21 and Vermont were inventorying culverts that extended beyond the federal definition. In addition, by reviewing two 22 known culvert inspection manuals that had been developed by states, researchers identified New York DOT as 23 another state inspecting and inventorying culverts outside of those categorized as bridges ( (4), (5)). Therefore, the 24 research team added a question about types of culverts inspected to the survey of state DOTs, to investigate whether 25 additional states were inventorying a broader range of culverts than required. 26 27


The Changing Approaches to Small Culvert Inspection & Inventory 1 When looking collectively at reports from individual DOTs ( (6), (7)) along with the case study reports by the 2 FHWA ( (2), (3)), the research team identified numerous states that are modifying their approach to small culvert 3 inspection and inventory methods by changing inspection scales and making use of technological innovations. Ohio 4 DOT, which has done a lot of work in the area of small culverts, is a prime example. An earlier study (6) indicated 5 that the agency had a culvert inspection manual as early as 1990 and that recommendations were made to move from 6 a five point inspection scale to a ten point inspection scale. When following-up with the Ohio DOT for this study, 7 researchers were informed that the information presented in the 2014 FHWA study (2) had since changed. The 8 agency is no longer using the asset management software featured in the publication; instead, the Ohio DOT is 9 currently developing an iPad application. Furthermore, the Indiana DOT initiated a study (7) to provide 10 recommendations to challenges identified by its personnel, such as issues with the sensitivity of its ten point ranking 11 scale. The report recommended that Indiana DOT make use of tablets to streamline its inspection process (7). 12 Technology advancements are driving other changes as well. New Jersey DOT, for example, had reportedly 13 implemented a culvert information management system (8). 14 15 Small Culvert Failures 16 In several studies ( (2), (3), (8), (9), & (10)), authors have identified a need to better understand culvert failure 17 mechanisms. In addition, Perrin and Dwivedi (9) recommended the development of a culvert failure inventory 18 database. In the end, it appears that a primary driving force behind inspecting and inventorying small culverts is in 19 response to the failure of some of the structures, which have either resulted in significant costs to a DOT or the loss 20 of lives. 21 22 Nation-Wide Small Culvert Inspection Training 23 Literature was reviewed to better understand what trainings were offered by state DOTs for small culvert 24 inspections. One source specifically identified maintenance personnel as responsible for inspecting culverts (11). 25 The Ohio DOT’s central office implemented personnel training to all districts informing them of the new policy and 26 inspection rating procedures (12). Minnesota DOT uses only those inspectors certified by National Bridge 27 Inspection Standards to inspect culvert pipes with a span greater than 10 feet (3). Two other sources recommended 28 the use of student workers or interns to aid with culvert inspection and inventory ( (7), (13)). 29

30 3. SURVEY METHODOLOGY 31 The survey developed for the study was sent to all fifty departments of transportation (DOT). The entire survey 32 instrument, consisting of thirty-one questions, can be found in the NMDOT report entitled, Culvert Asset 33 Management System: Best Practices/Pilot Project (14). All fifty state DOTs were approached from Wednesday, 34 May 11, 2016 through Wednesday, July 16, 2016 with a request to complete the survey. Potential survey 35 respondents were identified by 1) a list provided by NMDOT and 2) a search of state DOT websites, which 36 identified individuals who were listed as bridge engineers, hydraulic engineers, or asset managers. Many times, the 37 initial respondent re-directed the researchers to another individual after reviewing the survey instrument. The initial 38 contact was made via email, identifying the purpose of the project and providing the survey respondent with the 39 opportunity to respond to the survey either via the SurveyMonkey link or by telephone. A follow-up phone call was 40 made to survey respondents if they had not provided a response to the survey within about a week of the email 41 invitation. All forty-seven responses received were obtained through the online link. 42 43 4. FINDINGS 44 This section highlights the more interesting findings from the state DOT survey. Responses to additional questions 45 can be found in the full report (14). 46 47 Data Collection Beyond the Code of Federal Regulations 48 One of the first questions in the survey presented FIGURE 1 to respondents, and asked them whether or not their 49 state inventoried structures beyond the federal definition of a bridge. If survey respondents indicated that they 50 inventoried beyond the federal bridge definition, they were asked to elaborate. 51

The Literature Review showed that several states are collecting data for their bridge inventory beyond the 52 federal definition of a bridge (MD, MN, NY, OH, OR, & VT). Nineteen states (CT, IL, IN, KY, MA, MD, ME, 53 MN, MT, ND, NH, NJ, NV, OH, OR, PA, RI, VT & WI) (FIGURE 3) indicated that they included structures in their 54 bridge inventory that extend beyond the CRF 23 650.305 definition. All states that were identified in the Literature 55


Review as inventorying beyond the definition provided the corresponding response in the survey, with the exception 1 of New York DOT. Details of the state responses can be found in Appendix B of (14). 2 3

4 FIGURE 3 States Inventorying Beyond Bridge Definition. 5

6 Eleven of the nineteen states identified a minimum threshold for width/diameter (W/D), whether 5, 6, 8 or 7

10 feet, above which they inventoried. New Jersey DOT indicated that its staff members “do not inventory 8 structures less than 5 feet.” The Rhode Island DOT survey respondent indicated that by state law, a bridge is a 9 structure greater than or equal to 5 feet. Connecticut and Illinois DOTs indicated that they inventory structures 10 greater than 6 feet. The Montana DOT indicated that it inventories culverts when both: 1) W or D is greater than 8 11 feet, and 2) the culverts are on interstate and critical routes like transporter erector routes and defense highway 12 designations. North Dakota DOT also includes culverts that are greater than or equal to 8 feet in its bridge 13 inventory. Pennsylvania DOT indicated that culverts greater than or equal to 8 feet are inventoried with its bridges. 14 Respondents also indicated that culverts less than 8 feet are “surveyed separately.” The Massachusetts DOT 15 indicated that by state law, it inventories structures greater than 10 feet. Minnesota DOT also indicated that it 16 inventories structures greater than 10 feet. The New Hampshire DOT, like the Massachusetts DOT, indicated that 17 by state law, bridges are defined as being 10 feet or larger. Ohio DOT indicated that it defines a bridge as 10 feet or 18 greater in span. 19

Indiana, Maryland and Vermont DOTs indicated that they have several categories for their inventories. 20 Indiana DOT indicated that while it inventories bridges according to the definition, it also had two additional 21 categories of inventory, one for “large culverts,” which are those 4 feet and above, and one for “small culverts,” 22 which are those below 4 feet. Maryland DOT indicated that it has inventories for pipes from 5 to 20 feet and 3 to 5 23 feet. Vermont DOT also indicated having three tiers for inventorying: long structures that are greater than 20 feet, 24 short structures that range from 6 to 20 feet, and ultrashort structures that are less than or equal to 6 feet. 25

The Maine, Nevada, and Oregon DOTs had some other explanation for their inventories that extended 26 beyond the federal definition. Maine DOT inventories structures greater than 10 and less than 20 feet. Nevada DOT 27 indicated that per the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System MS4 permit, it has inventoried all culverts. 28 The Oregon DOT indicated that if multiple culverts add up to a length greater than 20 feet, it collects the data. 29


The findings from this survey question show that thirty-eight percent of all states (including those that did 1 not respond) are inventorying culverts that extend beyond the federal bridge definition. The survey did not seek to 2 fully understand the why, and this could be part of a future research effort. Legislation, whether at the state or 3 federal level, seems to play some part in the extended scope. 4

5 The Changing Approaches to Small Culvert Inspection & Inventory 6 States that have been inspecting and inventorying small culverts for a period of time have changed their approaches 7 based on identified challenges. In addition, survey respondents provided information that contrasted with 2. 8 Literature Review findings. For example, the Ohio DOT has changed its approach to small culvert asset 9 management over time, as documented in the literature ( (2), (6)). New Jersey DOT appeared to have developed a 10 culvert information management system (8), but after corresponding with current staff members, they did not seem 11 to know of this effort. It could be that the recommendations of a study were not implemented. Maryland DOT had 12 also been featured in the 2007 FHWA case study report (3). However, in follow-up communications, researchers 13 were informed that there was a change in direction within the DOT and the small culvert inspection and inventory 14 program was no longer a priority. The change seemed to be a reflection of the need to consider limited resources 15 within a DOT. As discussed in the next sub-section, the number of small culverts present within a state can make 16 implementing a small culvert inspection and inventory program, essentially a small culvert asset management 17 program, daunting. The Utah DOT, while having gone through the process of inspecting and creating an inventory 18 for its small culverts statewide, indicated in its survey response that while it will retain the data, it has not developed 19 nor does it plan to develop a program that would result in the management of small culverts over time. Through the 20 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 14-26 project, an overview of an updated inspection 21 manual set to be released in 2017 recommends a five point rating scale (15); therefore, it will be interesting to see if 22 state DOTs like Ohio, that do not currently use a five point rating scale, will revamp their programs to align with the 23 NCHRP recommendations. This might show the need for a survey of the practice of state DOTs regarding small 24 culvert inspection and inventory after the NCHRP 14-26 report has been released and states have an opportunity to 25 implement. The Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio and Utah DOTs are just four examples of agencies that are continuing 26 to modify their small culvert inspection and inventory programs over time as more is learned in the process of 27 managing a program. 28 29 Small Culverts, a Numbers Challenge 30 Twenty-four states provided an estimate of the number of small culverts that they manage (FIGURE 4). The 31 Montana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania DOT numbers appear to be exact. 32 33


1 FIGURE 4 Number of Small Culverts by State. 2

3 As shown in FIGURE 4, the reported number of small culverts varies from as a few as 357 small culverts (MT) to as 4 many as 205,000 small culverts (CA). How a state defines a small culvert has an impact on how many culverts a 5 state includes in its inventory. For example, Montana DOT, which identified the fewest, has stipulations that the 6 small culverts include only those on specific roadways and of a specific size, as discussed in Data Collection 7 Beyond the Code of Federal Regulations. States must provide some definition to ensure that they can manage the 8 small culverts, as illustrated by a response from New York DOT. When asked in a subsequent survey question 9 about the number of staff needed to inspect small culverts, the respondent indicated “More than we have.” This 10 sentiment did not seem to be unique to New York DOT, and as mentioned in the previous section, could be why 11 approaches, like that at Maryland DOT, have changed over time. It is also likely one of the reasons why some states 12 have not begun the process of developing a small culvert asset management program or are not integrating small 13 culvert asset management into their larger asset management program. 14 The number of small culverts ties into the need to consider carefully how an agency inspects its small 15 culverts. In another survey question, respondents were asked how often they inspect small culverts. Eight response 16 options were provided based on frequencies found during the 2. Literature Review: annually, every 2 years, every 3 17 years, every 4 years, every 5 years, every 6 years or more, after storm events, or other (please specify). The 18 responses to this question were highly varied as can be seen in FIGURE 5. 19 20


1 FIGURE 5 Frequency of Inspection by State. 2

3 The “Not Applicable” category consists of states that responded in an earlier question that they did not inspect small 4 culvert pipes. FIGURE 5 shows that some states are currently working towards developing an inspection program 5 (MI, NV, SC). This underscores the discussion in the previous section that the management of small culverts is very 6 dynamic. Quite a few states identified a long duration between inspections. This is likely both a reflection of the 7 magnitude of the challenge associated with small culvert inspection and inventory as well as the level of risk 8 associated with small culverts when compared with bridges. States that have the most developed small culvert asset 9 management programs, Minnesota and Ohio, are consistent in that while they both have longer durations between 10 inspections, 6 and 5 years respectively, they also both have a qualifier that if the condition of the culvert is 11 concerning, the inspection frequency is reduced to one year. The researchers have termed this as a “tiered 12 inspection frequency,” and have recommended it as a best practice, in that it balances the need to prioritize culverts 13 with conditions of concern with the realism that the magnitude of the inventory of small culverts would make bi-14 annual (as is federally mandated for bridges) or even tri-annual inspections very difficult. 15 16 Locally Owned Small Culverts 17 Almost all states indicated that they do not inspect small culverts under local jurisdiction (FIGURE 6). 18 19


1 FIGURE 6 State Practices of Inspecting Small Culverts under Local Jurisdiction 2

3 Yet, there is also a need to address the condition of these culverts, as these roads are often the ones that the traveling 4 public uses on a daily basis. In addition, local culverts are known to have failed, in some cases resulting in fatalities 5 ( (16), (17)). Some localities have initiated their own small culvert asset management program: Los Angeles (CA), 6 Shelby County (AL), and Waukesha County (WI) ( (2), (3), (14)). In addition, survey respondents identified an 7 additional four counties and two cities that currently inspect small culverts: 8

• Maricopa County (AZ) 9 • Pima County (AZ) 10 • Ada County Highway District (ID) 11 • Rock County (WI) 12 • Colorado Springs (CO) 13 • Phoenix (AZ) 14

It is likely that this is not an exhaustive list. Rather this shows that localities have also begun to recognize and 15 address this need. The Vermont DOT has implemented an innovative approach to support localities with the 16 inspection of their small culverts. The VTCULVERTS website, https://www.vtculverts.org/, provides the following 17 information for each identified culvert structure: 1) type (bridge or culvert), 2) municipality, 3) road, 4) inventory 18 date, 5) culvert type (other, arch, mixed, round, etc.), 6) culvert material (other, concrete, aluminum, etc.), 7) height, 19 8) width, 9) length and 10) overall condition (unknown, closed, urgent, critical, poor, fair, etc.). Within the map that 20 shows the locations of the culverts (FIGURE 7), a user can search based on importance or condition of the culvert. 21 Users can either choose to view the culverts using GoogleMaps or they can export the data in a shapefile or CSV 22 format. In addition, clicking on a culvert allows the user to view the information about the culvert and photos for 23 the culvert, if available. 24 25

https://www.vtculverts.org/


1 FIGURE 7 VTCULVERTS Home Page (Courtesy Vermont DOT; Vermont Association of Planning & 2

Development Agencies; Resource Systems Group) 3 4 Additional discussions with staff at the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission found that while the 5 Vermont DOT initiated what has become VTCULVERTS, it appears that the planning commissions are continuing 6 the effort with support from the Vermont DOT. Furthermore, similar to how DOT small culvert asset management 7 programs have evolved, VTCULVERTS was originally called the Vermont Online Bridge and Culvert Inventory, 8 but was updated in response to the need to address technological advances (18). Technology appears to be playing a 9 significant part in a DOT’s ability to even consider managing small culverts, and as discussed in the literature 10 review, tools, like iPads, are assisting with streamlining the inspection of small culverts. 11 12 Culvert Failures 13 State DOTs were asked to indicate to the best of their knowledge whether or not a culvert had failed within their 14 state. Almost all respondents indicated that they had at least one culvert failure (FIGURE 8). 15 16


1 FIGURE 8 Culvert Failures 2

3 In addition, for at least one of the states that indicated that it had not experienced a failure, a web search identified a 4 culvert that reportedly failed. Therefore, the survey documents that these structures are failing on a widespread 5 basis. In fact, some state survey respondents simply indicated, 6 7

“We experience relatively frequent culvert ‘failures.’” 8 9 As discussed earlier, the failure of these structures has been linked to fatalities. As U.S. transportation policy 10 continues to prioritize safety (including initiatives such as Towards Zero Deaths), mitigating or eliminating culvert 11 failures will support these national priorities. 12 13 Need for Nation-Wide Training 14 The literature identified several state approaches to culvert inspection training, whether it was National Bridge 15 Inspection Standards certification (MN) or an in-house training (OH) ( (3), (12)). NMDOT was interested in 16 learning more about how other states are currently training inspectors of small culverts. Consequently, one of the 17 survey questions asked respondents what kind of training they provided to small culvert pipe inspectors. Six states 18 (AL, AZ, ID, ME, OK, and VA) indicated that they do not offer training for small culvert inspection. Six states 19 indicated that inspectors of small culverts receive the same training as those who inspect bridges (CO, IL, MD, NY, 20 RI and TN). Fifteen states indicated that they provide some type of in-house developed training (CA, IN, IA, KS, 21 MN, NH, NC, ND, OH, OR, PA, SC, UT, WV, and WI). However, the scope of in-house inspection training is 22 highly variable. For example, the California DOT indicated its training consisted of “confined space, general safety 23 and culvert inspection, and robotic equipment operation.” Others indicated that the training was more information-24 based, sometimes described as “on-the-job” training. As mentioned previously, inspection of small culverts is often 25 delegated to maintenance staff. Therefore, it is no surprise that the training provided to inspectors of small culverts 26 was identified as being up to the discretion of each district within a state, each of which often has its own 27 maintenance staff. 28 Currently, no National Highway Institute (NHI) training for small culverts is available. NHI staff was 29 contacted to determine if such a training was overlooked. The NHI respondent referred the authors to two resources: 30


FHWA-NHI-134108H (Plan Reading: Culvert Plans – WEB-BASED) and FHWA-NHI-135056 (Culvert Design). 1 Based on these limited findings, the research effort identified the need to develop a nation-wide training on the topic 2 of small culvert inspection. While there are some commonalities with bridge failures, there are other culvert 3 conditions that require unique maintenance or replacement needs. Given that small culverts may only receive an 4 inspection every five or six years, it becomes extremely important that staff are properly trained to look for specific 5 defects. The following excerpt from a survey respondent illustrates the potential consequences: 6 7 “They [the inspectors] inspected the small culvert [at an earlier date]. During this inspection, they found that scour 8 had undermined the culvert outlet. This culvert had been widened with a metal pipe. The scour caused the failure of 9 this widened section with the result that the outlet was partly blocked. Our inspectors should have recognized this as 10 a serious problem and downgraded the culvert to CRITICAL condition. They should have prepared a detailed 11 inspection report and submitted it immediately so that remedial action could have been rapidly taken. Sadly, they 12 did not recognize the seriousness of the problem…[a] flood completed the destruction of the culvert and resulted in 13 a fatality.” 14 15 5. CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, & FUTURE NEEDS 16 This research project identified several key conclusions, recommendations, and future needs: 17

• Many states are inspecting, and in many cases inventorying, culverts that extend beyond the CRF 23 18 650.305 definition in conjunction with their bridge inventory. 19

• Small culvert inspection and inventorying practices are dynamic and evolving. 20 • The magnitude of the national small culvert inventory presents a daunting challenge to agencies. 21 • VTCULVERTS is a best-practice for the inventory of small culverts at the local level. 22 • A tiered inspection frequency approach is recommended for small culverts. 23 • Small culverts were found to play a part in failures that result in fatalities. 24 • There is a need to develop and implement a nation-wide training program for small culvert pipe inspection. 25

Findings within the literature and from the state DOT surveys showed that many states currently include structures 26 in their bridge inventory that extend beyond the CFR definition. Several states (MA, NH, and RI) reported that the 27 expansion of their inventory was driven by a state law. NMDOT was interested in better understanding why such 28 state laws were developed, which is a future research need. Furthermore, since a question was not included in the 29 survey instrument regarding whether or not states were mandated by law to inspect and inventory culverts, future 30 research efforts should try to fill this gap. 31 State interest in inspecting and inventorying small culverts has changed over time. The FHWA case studies 32 identified management support for a small culvert asset management program as a significant factor in the status of 33 a program. 34 Not all states currently inventory their small culverts. In some cases, states inspect the culverts, but they do 35 not have a record of their condition over time. Based on the information that is available, states have identified a 36 staggering number of small culverts ranging up to hundreds of thousands of small culverts in just one state. Some 37 states have identified only a few small culverts in their inventory, although it seems like those states may use a 38 definition that assists with limiting their scope to a manageable number. In other words, these states may have 39 additional small culverts that do not fit within their definition. The feedback from some states clearly expressed that 40 the number of small culverts was daunting. 41 Almost all states indicated that they do not inspect/inventory small culverts under local jurisdiction. Yet, 42 there is a need to address the condition of these culverts, as these roads are often the ones that the traveling public 43 uses on a daily basis. Furthermore, small culverts under local jurisdiction are known to have failed. 44 Many states indicated that their staff was trained by the NHI bridge inspection course. A few indicated that 45 they developed their own in-house training. However, one survey respondent pointed to an example of a small 46 culvert that had not been inspected properly, and then subsequently failed. Bridges and small culverts have different 47 failure mechanisms that require unique inspection procedures. An inquiry to NHI indicated that there currently is no 48 national training for small culvert inspection. The researchers see a need for the development of a small culvert 49 inspection course that can be deployed at the national level. 50

As mentioned above, the magnitude of the small culvert inventory can be intimidating as a management 51 challenge. Therefore, how does a state approach the inspection and inventory of hundreds of thousands of assets? 52


Some states have developed a tiered approach to inspection of small culverts that also requires that a state inventory 1 them. Culverts that are identified as exhibiting conditions of concern are inventoried on a more frequent basis, 2 typically annually, until the defect can be repaired or the culvert can be replaced. 3

Most of the states that responded have indicated that a culvert has failed within their state. It is unknown if 4 the culverts were defined as bridges or if they fell outside of the CRF definition. While many states were willing to 5 provide detailed information on the failures, some states indicated that they were too numerous to detail. This 6 highlights the need for a national database on culvert failures, similar to the Fatality Accident Reporting System, 7 which could capture, store, and allow for the use of this information to, for example, identify if culverts of a certain 8 age or type fail more often. 9 10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 11 The authors would like to express their appreciation to Ted Barber, David X. Trujillo, Elias Archuleta, John Baker, 12 Ray Chavez, Yolanda Duran, Gloria Garcia-Salazar, Tammy Haas, Antonio Jaramillo, Phillip Montoya, Thiet 13 Nguyen, Gerry Trujillo, and Jeff Woodman, all of the New Mexico Department of Transportation, for their guidance 14 and insights provided as the project panel. They would also like to recognize the technical editing provided by Carla 15 Little and the graphic design by Neil Hetherington of WTI. 16 17 BIBLIOGRAPHY 18 19 1. U.S. Government Publishing Office. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. 20 2. Venner, Marie. Culvert and Storm Drain Management Case Study: Vermont, Oregon, Ohio, and Los Angeles 21 County. Washington DC: Federal Highway Administration, 2014. 22 3. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Culvert Management Systems: Alabama, Maryland, Minnesota, 23 and Shelby County. s.l.: FHWA, 2007. 24 4. New York State Department of Transportation. [Online] 2006. 25 https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-26 maintenance/repository/CULVERT%20INSPECTION%20FIELD%20GUIDE%201-18-06.pdf. 27 5. Ohio Department of Transportation. Ohio Department of Transportation Culvert Management Manual. 28 [Online] 2015. 29 https://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Engineering/Hydraulics/Culvert%20Management/Culvert%20Management%30 20Manual/CMM%20-%20July%202015.pdf. 31 6. Mitchell, Gayle F, et al. Risk Assessment and Update of Inspection Procedures for Culverts. Ohio Research 32 Institute for Transportation and the Environment, Ohio University. Athens: s.n., 2005. p. 412. 33 7. Bowers, J. D., et al. Processes of small culvert inspection and asset management. Purdue University. West 34 Lafayette: Joint Transportation Research Program Publication No. FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/08, 2014. 35 8. Culvert Information Management System. Meegoda, J N, Julilano, T M and Tang, C. 2009, Transportation 36 Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2108, pp. pp.3-12. 37 9. Need for Culvert Asset Management. Perrin, Joseph and Dwivedi, R. Washington, D.C.: s.n., 2006, 38 Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1957, pp. 8-15. 39 10. Broviak, Pam. Good culverts gone bad: The high cost of culvert failures. 2005. 40 11. Management of Utah Highway Culverts. Beaver, Jesse L. and McGrath, Timothy J. 2005, Transportation 41 Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1904, pp. 113-123. 42 12. New Inspection and Risk Assessment Methods for Metal Highway Culverts in Ohio. Masada, Teruhisa, et al. 43 2006, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1976, pp. 141-148. 44 13. Geographic Information System Framework for Stormwater Drainage Asset Management. Gharaibeh, Nasir 45 G., et al. 2009, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2121, pp. 1-12. 46 14. Culvert Asset Management System: Best Practices/Pilot Project. Villwock-Witte, Natalie Marie, Clouser, 47 Karalyn and Fay, Laura. Albuquerque: New Mexico Department of Transportation, 2016. 48 15. Beaver, Jesse L and Richie, Matthew C. Culvert and Storm Drain System Inspection Manual. s.l.: 49 Transportation Research Board of The National Academies, 2016. 50 16. Humbles, Andy. Man killed as road collapses in Cumberland County. s.l.: The Tennessean, July 3, 2015. 51 17. Tankersley, Michele. Storm death toll for state hits 15. Freelance Ok. May 7, 2003, p. 8A. 52 18. Geilich, Michael. Analysis and Recommendations for the Vermont Online Bridge and Culvert Inventory Tool 53 (VOBCIT). s.l.: Resource Systems Group (RSG), 2012. 54 19. WRCB Staff. UPDATE: Rhea Co. road washed out after storms, one killed, two injured. December 24, 2015. 55 56

1 current state of small culvert inspection & inventory in …docs.trb.org/prp/17-01560.pdf ·...

Documents