Culvert Vulnerability and Prioritization: Reconciling Currently

Available Approaches and Data

Thomas A. Wall, Ph.D. Adjo Amekudzi-Kennedy, Ph.D.
Risk & Infrastructure Science Center School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Argonne National Laboratory Georgia Institute of Technology

TRB International Conference on Transportation System

Resilience to Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events
Washington, D.C.
September 17, 2015

1
Heavy & Extreme Precipitation
in the United States

Observed
• Changes in the amount of precipitation falling in
heaviest 1% of rain events (increased nationally
by 20% during the 20th century[1])

Projected
• 20-year event return period projection (A1B):
– 12-15 year return period by mid 21st
century[2]
– 6-8 year return period by end of 21st
century[2] nationally

Source (both figures): [3]

2
Heavy & Extreme Precipitation
in the United States
Implications for Highway/Roadway Culverts

• Increased heavy and extreme precipitation in the

future could lead to increased runoff and stream
flows

• Particularly Vulnerable to Increased Flows Source: [10]

– Increase the potential for waterway blockage and

scour[4]
– Hydraulic head pressure exerted on embankment[5]

• Greater Number of Potential Network Failure Points

– Minnesota: 13,120 bridges; 72,414 culverts[6,7]
– New York: 17,420 bridges; 66,533 culverts[6,8]

Source: [11]

3
Risk-Based Adaptation (1)

Review of 29 climate change adaptation

frameworks[12]
• Dominant approach: risk-management
– Risk: f (likelihood, consequence)
– Risk assessment  adaptation prioritization Source: [18]

• Difficult to assign probabilistic likelihood to Threat

future climate impacts Vulnerability Consequence

• Alternate model: the Catastrophe

Model[13,14]
– National Climate Assessment [15]
– Similar to DHS National Infrastructure
Protection Plan[17] – Threat, Vulnerability,
Source: [13]

Consequence

4
Risk-Based Adaptation (2)

• Prioritization using three “dimensions” of risk

1. Asset Data 2. Impact Exposure
• Spatial inventory • Multiple climate scenarios
• Condition and functional • Multiple time frames
• Multiple emission scenarios  robust outcomes performance

3. Asset Vulnerability
• Condition and performance of
assets
• Magnitude of change in
climate impacts

4. Asset Criticality
• Asset importance to the
system based upon several
criteria

5. Asset Prioritization
• Multiple emission scenarios
for each timeframe to
generate robust outcomes

5
Risk-Based Adaptation (2)

• Prioritization using three “dimensions” of risk

1. Asset Data 2. Impact Exposure
• Spatial inventory • Multiple climate scenarios
• Condition and functional • Multiple time frames
• Multiple emission scenarios  robust outcomes performance

3. Asset Vulnerability
• Condition and performance of
assets
• Magnitude of change in
climate impacts

4. Asset Criticality
• Asset importance to the
system based upon several
criteria

5. Asset Prioritization
• Multiple emission scenarios
for each timeframe to
generate robust outcomes

6
Culvert Failure & Vulnerability

• Culvert failure often stems from “failure of the soil/pipe

structure.”[5]
– Piping and seepage
– Scour and embankment erosion
– Blockage and hydrostatic pressure

• Generalization of culvert failure modes

– Embankment-Related[5, 19-23]
– Blockage-Related[5, 24, 25]

• Review of Culvert Inspection and Rating Systems

– NBIS Culvert Inspection Manual[27]
– Subjective numerical rating scales (e.g., 0 to 9; 1 to 5; low/med/high)
– Embankment, blockage, structure

7
 Culvert Vulnerability &
Prioritization – Data (2013)
Culvert Management Practices Vary[27-30]
– No national guidance for culvert management or data collection
– Wide variability in types of culvert data and collection practices

Washington State DOT Minnesota DOT

Four select routes given: 10,413; Inventory only 72,414 items; condition, and functional performance
Oregon DOT New York State DOT
3,190 items; functional performance 66,533 items; condition, and functional performance

8
 Culvert Vulnerability &
Prioritization

Performance-Based Vulnerability Index

Low Medium High
< 1.6 1.6 – 2.3 ≤ 2.3

MnDOT Rating Item

Sediment Percentage
Rating Category
Blockage
Rating Scale
Percentage
• Yes = 3; No = 1; Percentages assigned to ranges Plugged Blockage Yes / No
Erosion Embankment Yes / No
• Items with >3 rating items omitted Piping Embankment Yes / No
Inslope Cavity Embankment Yes / No

NYSDOT Rating Item Rating Category Rating Scale

• Assigned to 1 - 3 scale (used overall condition scale) Small Culverts
Channel Opening Blockage 1 to 7
• Items with >2 ratings omitted Channel Scour Embankment 1 to 7
Large Culverts
Channel Waterway Opening Blockage 1 to 7
ODOT Channel Erosion and Scour Embankment 1 to 7

• Blockage ratings only Corresponding Rating Value

Blockage Rating Item
• Poorest blockage rating used among those recorded 1 2 3
Inside Blockage Rating 0% - 30% 30% - 75% > 75%
Drift Rating 0% - 25% 25% - 75% > 75%
WSDOT Vegetation Obstruction Rating 0% - 25% 25% - 75% > 75%

• Location only (Climate impact exposure)

9
 Results
Vulnerability
Total
State Low Certainty/
1 2 3 Culverts
Unrated*
MnDOT 63677 87.9% 1766 2.4% 152 0.2% 6819 9.4% 72414
NSYDOT 45203 67.9% 4122 6.2% 336 0.5% 16872 25.4% 66533
ODOT 2119 66.4% 835 26.2% 188 5.9% 48 1.5% 3190

10
 Conclusions

• Existing Data can be used for network-level vulnerability assessment

• Data completeness
– Problematic as large numbers of assets (culverts) lack sufficient data items/ratings to
complete classification

• Data consistency (among agencies)

– Some agencies do not collect extensive data about functional performance of culverts
– National guidelines for data collection practices may be more appropriate than national
standards

• Vulnerability assessments
– Flexibility is necessary given differences in data collection and inspection practices
– National guidance could enable greater consistency state to state (region to region)
– Refinement of vulnerability index through weighting, additional indicators

11
Questions?

twall@anl.gov

12
 References
1. Kunkel, K., Brooks, H., Bromirski, P., Cavazos, T., Douglas, A., Emanuel, K., Groisman, P., Holland, G., Knutson, T., Kossin, J., Komar, P., Levison, D., and Smith, R. (2008).
"Observed Changes in Weather and Climate Extremes." Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate Regional Focus: North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and
U.S. Pacific Islands, T. R. Karl, G. A. Meehl, C. D. Miller, S. J. Hassol, A. M. Waple, and W. L. Murray, eds., U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Washington, DC.
2. Kharin, V. V., Zwiers, F., Zhang, X., and Hegerl, G. C. (2007). "Changes in Temperature and Precipitation Extremes in the IPCC Ensemble of Global Coupled Model
Simulations." Journal of Climate, 20, 1419-1444.
3. Walsh, J., D. Wuebbles, K. Hayhoe, J. Kossin, K. Kunkel, G. Stephens, P. Thorne, R. Vose, M. Wehner, J. Willis, D. Anderson, S. Doney, R. Feely, P. Hennon, V. Kharin, T.
Knutson, F. Landerer, T. Lenton, J. Kennedy, and R. Somerville, 2014: Ch. 2: Our Changing Climate. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National
Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 19-67. doi:10.7930/J0KW5CXT.
4. FHWA (2012). "Bridge Inspector's Reference Manual." F. H. Administration, ed., US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
5. Tenbusch, A., Dorwart, B., and Tenbusch, A. F. (2009). "Failing Culverts - The Geotechnical Perspective." Tenbusch and Associates, Lewisville, TX.
6. FHWA (2013). National Bridge Inventory. United States Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
7. Data provided by MnDOT (2013)
8. Data provided by NYSDOT (2013)
9. Pealer, S. (2012). "Lessons from Irene: Building Resiliency As We Rebuild." Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Waterbury, VT
10. Delaware County Engineer. Centerburg Road Bridge Replacement DEL-CR48-5.53 (Porter Township. 2013. [cited 2013 April 17]; Available from:
http://www.co.delaware.oh.us/engineer/projects/centerburgbridge.htm
11. Atlanta Journal-Constitution, (2009) “Atlanta flood 2009: Most Captivating Photos,” http://projects.ajc.com/gallery/view/metro/atlanta/best-flood-2009/
12. Wall, T. A., and Meyer, M. D. (2013). "Risk-Based Adaptation Frameworks for Climate Change Planning in the Transportation Sector: A Synthesis of Practice."
Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, National Academies, Washington, DC.
13. Grossi, P., and Kunreuther, H. (2005). "Catastrophe Modeling: A New Approach to Managing Risk." Springer, New York, NY.
14. Kunreuther, H. C., and Michel-Kerjan, E. O. (2007). "Climate Change, Insurability of Large-scale Disasters and the Emerging Liability Challenge." NBER Working Paper The
National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
15. Moss, R., Scarlett, P. L., Kennyey, M. A., Kunreuther, H., Lempert, R., Manning, J., Williams, B. K., Boyd, J. W., Kaatz, L., and Patton, L. (2013). "26. Decision Support:
Supporting Policy, Planning, and Resource Management Decisions in a Climate Change Context." NCADAC Draft Climate Assessment Report, J. M. Melillo, T. Richmond,
and G. Yohe, eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, D.C.
16. Botzen, W. J. W., and Van Den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2009). "Managing natural disaster risks in a changing climate." Climate change as environmental and economic hazard, B.
Porfiriev, ed., Earthscan, London, 209-225.
17. Department of Homeland Security (2013). "NIPP 2013: Partnering for Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience." National Infrastructure Protection Plan, Department
of Homeland Security, Washington D.C.
18. MacArthur, J., et al., Climate Change Impact Assessment for Surface Transportation in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, 2012, Oregon Transportation Research and
Education Consortium & Washington State DOT: Olympia, WA.

13
 References (con’t)
19. Stuhff, D. (2007). "Aging Culverts - Problems and Repairs." Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake City, UT.
20. Thompson, P. L., and Kilgore, R. T. (2006). "Hydraulic Design of Energy Dissipators for Culverts and Channels, Hydraulic Engineering Circular 14, 3rd
Edition." Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
21. Van Kampen, P. "Culvert Design, Analysis - Talk 2." Proc., Seventeenth Statewide Conference on Local Bridges, New York State Department of
Transportation.
22. WisDOT (2004). "Culverts - Proper Use and Installation." Wisconsin Transportation Bulletin, No. 15, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Madison,
WI.
23. Schall, J. D., Thompson, P. L., Zerges, S. M., Kilgore, R. T., and Morris, J. L. (2012). "Hydraulic Design of Highway Culverts." Hydraulic Design Series
Number 5, Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
24. Bradley, J. B., Richards, D. L., and Bahner, C. D. (2005). "Debris Structures - Evaluation and Countermeasures, Hydraulic Engineering Circular 9, 3rd
Edition." Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
25. Flanagan, S. (2004). "How Culverts Fail." California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, Monitoring Study Group, Sacramento, CA.
26. Arnoult, D. (1986). "Culvert Inspection Manual." Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
27. FHWA (2007). "Culvert Management Systems - Alabama, Maryland, Minnesota, and Shelby County." Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
28. Najafi, M., Salem, S., Bhattachar, D., Salman, B., and Patil, R. (2008). "An Asset Management Approach for Drainage Infrastructure and Culverts."
Midwest Regional University Transportation Center, Madison, WI.
29. Wyant, D. C., Beakley, J., Dash, U., Goddard, J. B., Hill, J. J., Katona, M. G., Maher, S. F., McLemore, S. A., O'Fallon, J. D., Roberts, B. C., Thompson, P. L.,
and Zandt, M. V. (2002). "NCHRP Synthesis 303 - Assessment and Rehabilitation of Existing Culverts: A Synthesis of Practice." Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC.
30. FHWA. (2014) “Culvert Management Case Studies: Vermont, Oregon, Ohio and Los Angeles County.” United States Department of Transportation,
Washington DC.
31. Department of Defense (DoD) Strategic Environmental Research and Development (SERDP) Grant Number 15 RC02-035

14
 Climate Impact Exposure

• When attribute or functional performance

data is not available, vulnerability could be
assessed as function of exposure only

• Precipitation  streamflow
– Intensity duration frequency (IDF) curves
that account for future climate changes to
project streamflow
– Analysis conducted at watershed-level

• Argonne and Washington State University

are developing “Next Generation”
precipitation and runoff IDF curves for
Strategic Environmental Research and
Development Program (SERDP) at DoD[31]

15