1. Scott A. Anderson FHWA - Resource Center
Risk-Based Asset and Performance Management: A Geotechnical Perspective
Scott A. Anderson
FHWA - Resource Center

2. Risk-Based Asset and Performance Management
Can’t do all we would like
Need to Optimize
Can’t do it all at once
Need to Prioritize
This is the motivation for “management”
There is also a catalyst

3. Catalysts for management
Bridge – safety
Pavement – cost
Geotechnical – performance

4. MAP-21 National Performance Goals
Safety
Infrastructure Conditions: State of Good Repair
Congestion Reduction
System Reliability- improve efficiency
Freight Movement and Economic Vitality
Environmental Sustainability
Reduced Project Delivery Delays
To address this problem, FHWA started on “System Performance”, not only bridge or pavement performance with the goal to ….. See word “system”
The HQ office started to reorganize and move from “Asset Management” to “Performance Mamanegment, which is the future….

5. FAQ on MAP-21
Question 2: What requirements does MAP-21 have pertaining to asset management?
Answer 2: Each State is required to develop a risk-based asset management plan for the National Highway System (NHS) to improve or preserve the condition of the assets and the performance of the system. (23 U.S.C. 119(e)(1), MAP-21 § 1106)
The Secretary is required to issue a regulation not later than 18 months after date of enactment, after consultation with the States, which will establish the process to develop the State asset management plan for the NHS. (23 U.S.C. § 119(e)(8), MAP-21 § 1106)
Source: FHWA website

6. Question 3: What are the scope and content of a risk-based asset management plan?
Answer 3: In general, a State risk-based asset management plan includes strategies that lead to a program of projects that would make progress toward achievement of the State targets for asset condition and performance of the NHS in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 150(d) and supporting progress toward the achievement of the national goals identified in 23 U.S.C. 150(b). (23 U.S.C. 119(e)(2), MAP-21 § 1106) States must address pavements and bridges but are encouraged to include all infrastructure assets within the highway right-of-way in their risk-based asset management plan.
23 U.S.C. 119(e)(4) (MAP-21 § 1106) requires that a State asset management plan be in a form that the Secretary determines to be appropriate. It also requires that the plan include:
a summary listing of the pavement and bridge assets on the NHS in the State, including a description of the condition of those assets;
asset management objectives and measures;
performance gap identification;
lifecycle cost and risk management analysis;
a financial plan; and
investment strategies.

7. Question 4: What other infrastructure assets within the highway right-of-way can be included in a risk-based asset management plan?
Answer 4: While the MAP-21 risk-based asset management plan specifies pavements and bridges on the NHS in 23 U.S.C. § 119(e)(4), 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(3) (MAP-21 § 1106) requires the Secretary to encourage States to include all infrastructure assets within the highway right-of-way. Examples of such infrastructure assets include: pavement markings, culverts, guardrail, signs, traffic signals, lighting, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) infrastructure, rest areas, etc., in the asset management plan.
Safety
Infrastructure Conditions: State of Good Repair
Congestion Reduction
System Reliability- improve efficiency
Freight Movement and Economic Vitality
Environmental Sustainability
Reduced Project Delivery Delays
Really?

8. Geotechnical Impacts on System Performance
Though the pavement and bridges are in excellent condition, the performance here is poor.

9. The Geotechnical Role We can address many performance goals
The intent of the law may fail if we don’t manage our assets to support performance goals
The language we speak will become less relevant if we aren’t ‘managing our assets’
We are responsible for certain links in a transportation corridor
(The System)

10. Asset management
Performance management
Risk-based

11. Some Practical Definitions
Asset Management
Performance Management
Geotechnical Asset
Next slides

12. Physical assets along a corridor

13. Independent features, not elements of others

14. Comprised of earth or performance achieved through earth interaction with structure or inclusion

15. Proposed Geotechnical Asset Taxonomy – 1/8/14
Physical Asset
Corridor and/or GAM Section
ROW Feature
Independent Feature
Slope
Rock
Soil
Modified
Embankment
Subgrade
Earth Retaining Structure
Stabilized Earth
Steel or Reinforced Concrete
Element of other Structure
Bridge Element
Tunnel Element
Pavement Element
Outside-ROW Feature
Slopes
Water bodies
Structures (walls, etc.)
Non-Corridor
Material Sites
Stockpiles or other
Non-Physical Asset
Data
Knowledge
Equipment
The adjective “Geotechnical” means the asset is comprised of earth, pertains to earth, or its performance is achieved through earth interaction with a structure or inclusion.
Inclusions are any and all non-earth modifications: pipes, anchors, grids, fabrics, grouts, etc.
Predominant distinction in how feature is managed. Features with inclusions are “modified”.
Activities here:
Add examples and paragraph or so to each box.
Link to the activities that are currently going on like slope inventories, wall inventories, the flexible rockfall barrier NCHRP study, etc.
Format into paper.
Established management systems for other structures that have (or should have) geotechnical elements. Others, could be added; for example – culverts.
High slopes, shorelines, and structures typically owned by others outside the ROW that are sources of risk because they can impact performance
Investigation and test results, lab and field equipment, key personnel

16. Current Practice Implementation in States today
They are all taking steps: some big, some small
Alabama
Georgia
Florida
Kentucky
Utah
North Carolina
South Carolina
Washington D.C.
New Hampshire
South Dakota
Tennessee
Connecticut
Maine
Maryland
Oregon
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Ohio
North Dakota
Indiana
Michigan
Illinois
Missouri
Nebraska
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Arizona
Montana
California
Colorado
Kansas
Washington
Idaho
Alaska
 Vermont

17. Remember the fine print?
23 U.S.C. 119(e)(4) (MAP-21 § 1106) requires that a State asset management plan be in a form that the Secretary determines to be appropriate. It also requires that the plan include:
a summary listing of the pavement and bridge assets on the NHS in the State, including a description of the condition of those assets;
asset management objectives and measures;
performance gap identification;
lifecycle cost and risk management analysis;
a financial plan; and
investment strategies.
That’s what these states are doing, all in their own ways.
Let’s look at linking Condition, Performance and Risk Management
- and define “Condition” and “Risk Management” as we do so

18. Two diversions to show breadth of the revolution
Performance Based Practical Design (PBPD)
SHRP2 - R19B: BRIDGE FOR SERVICE LIFE BEYOND 100 YEARS: SERVICE LIMIT STATE DESIGN
…Then on to some new ideas

19. PBPD – Definition The PBPD approach:
grounded in performance management
exercise engineering judgment to build up the improvements from existing conditions to address purpose and need
uses appropriate performance-analysis tools
considers both short- and long-term project and system goals
A Performance-Based Practical Design (PBPD) approach is grounded in a performance management framework. PBPD can be articulated as modifying a traditional design approach to a “design up” approach where transportation decision makers exercise engineering judgment to build up the improvements from existing conditions to meet both project and system objectives. PBPD uses appropriate performance-analysis tools to inform our engineering judgment, considers both short and long term project and system goals while addressing project purpose and need.

20. Context Sensitive Solutions
PBPD – Overlapping
Asset Mgmt.
PBPD
Value
Engineering
Road Diets
Context Sensitive Solutions
It is true that there are overlaps from other initiatives: Context-sensitive solutions, Livability, Road Diets, VE, Asset Management
Context-sensitive solutions (CSS) and livability seek a transportation solution that addresses the needs of all road users and the functions of the facility within the context of its setting, considering land use, users, the environment, and other factors. CSS is a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that includes the viewpoints of all stakeholders in the development of a shared vision of project goals, and uses a defined decision-making process. CSS, livability, and PBPD rely on flexibility to achieve results that meet the project purpose and need. PBPD compliments CSS and livability by providing performance information that supports decision-making.
Livability

21. SHRP2 R19B – Bridges for Service Life beyond 100 Years:
Executive Summary
The objectives of SHRP 2 Project R19B were to develop design and detailing guidance and calibrated Service Limit States (SLSs) to provide 100 year life, and to develop a framework for further development of calibrated SLSs. Generally, it has been assumed that maintenance activities will be sufficient to prevent significant loss of the strength and stiffness that would result in unsatisfactory service level performance.
Consideration of SLSs requires different input data than the previously calibrated Strength Limit State I (ULSs). In ULSs, the limit state function is defined with two variables, resistance, which was considered constant in time, and loads. For SLSs, a different approach is needed:
• As exceeding service limit states does not lead to a clear, immediate, loss of functionality, defining the resistance is very subjective.
• Acceptable performance can be subjective (full life-cycle analysis is required).
• Resistance and load effects can be and often are correlated.
• Load must be considered to be a function of time, described by magnitude and frequency of occurrence.
• Resistance may be strongly affected by quality of workmanship, operation procedures and maintenance.
• Resistance is subject to changes in time, mostly but not only deterioration, with difficulty predicting initiation time and time-varying rate of deterioration (e.g. corrosion, accumulation of debris, cracking).
• Resistance can depend on geographical location (climate, exposure to industrial pollution, exposure to deicing agents or proximity to the ocean).

22. Pavement Deterioration Curve PCI = Condition
Deterioration is relatively well understood for pavement
Galehouse et al., 2006

23. Deterioration models
How are these levels related to Performance Goals?

24. Linking Condition and Performance
Example: With four Performance Goals and four Asset Classes, these are the components of Level of Service (LOS). A description of condition with respect to different goals
Asset Class
Performance Goals
Performance Goals
Safety
Infrastructure
Congestion
Environmental
Asset Classes
Retaining Walls
LOSRW,S
LOSRW,I
LOSRW,C
LOSRW,E
Slopes
LOSSL,S
LOSSL,I
LOSSL,C
LOSSL,E
Embankments
LOSEM,S
LOSEM,I
LOSEM,C
LOSEM,E
Subgrade
LOSSB,S
LOSSB,I
LOSSB,C
LOSSB,E
Activity here:
Explain this using examples of technical and non-technical measures, the units of measure, and how an LOS Threshold can be set between each LOS (Good, Fair, Poor) in such a way that they can be aggregated, summed or averaged.
Tie back to Verhoeven presentation.
Explain that LOS is today and Risk is the future using a deterioration curve and using random events. (Scott to lead)
Level of Service (LOS) describes condition with respect to Goals

25. Risk Management Risk(E) = Probability(E) x Consequence(E)
(Vulnerability included here with Consequence)
“Risk management is an important part of asset management …” (AASHTO TAM Guide and ES)
MAP 21 reads as follows:
“IN GENERAL—A State shall develop a risk-based asset
management plan for the National Highway System to
improve or preserve the condition of the assets and the
performance of the system.”

26. Challenge
Risk is treated as though it is an additional Performance Measure or Goal (TAMG 5.1.3)
as though it were additional to Safety, Congestion, Reliability, etc.
This leaves open a question (See TAMG 5.4): “Risk of what; what event is failure?”
This contributes to an imprecise use of the word, and confusion…

27. Proposed Solution
Explicitly do not consider risk as an additional Performance Measure or Goal
Treat risk as related to each and every Performance Goal, and whether or not it will be met (= “failure”)
Safety, Congestion, Reliability, etc.
Define “Level of Service” (LOS) as also related to the same Performance Goals

28. Key Point
LOS is static at a point in time, whereas Risk is related to the potential rate of change of LOS
LOS is “today”, what condition and service is the asset providing through today; it is not uncertain
Risk is “tomorrow”; all else is the same, but of course it is uncertain
Risk is related to a prediction, a forecast of LOS change through action or inaction

29. Risk Sources – sources of the event (E)
Natural Hazards
e.g. extreme/rare events
External Agency Impacts
e.g. poor materials or construction
Physical Failure
e.g. deterioration
Operational Risk
e.g. poor design, operation, or business decision
All risks can be identified in a 3-D matrix:
Risk Sources x Assets x Performance Goals
TAM Guide (Section 5.4.1)
Activities here:
Expand on what these mean from the AASHTO Guide.
Compare and contrast with other means of identifying risk sources. Hopefully end up here (I like the way things fall out with this).
Add in discussion of vulnerability and resilience, and how risk can be expressed in dollars.
Propose simplifications (like vulnerability be considered as part of consequence, or other similar things) Need to avoid getting too complicated.

30. Definition of the Event (E) = “failure”
Slipping below a condition state – a target LOS for a Performance Goal

31. Risk Cube

32. GEOTECHNICAL RISK Asset Class Risk Source Performance Goals
Infrastructure
Environmental
Congestion
Safety
RRW,E,OR
Operational Risk
Physical Failure
RRW,C,PF
External Agency Impacts
RRW,I,EAI
Natural Hazards
RRW,S,NH
Σ of ALL Risk Sources on GEOTECHNICAL Assets with respect to ALL Performance Goals
Can be done for GAM Section, Corridor or entire inventory
Retaining Walls
RRW,S,NH
Asset Class
Slopes
RSL,I,NH
Activities here:
Give specific examples of how risk can be calculated for a variety of cell types of the Physical Failure and Natural Hazard types. Use expert based event trees and methods based on statistics of data at hand.
Show how these can be classified as High, Medium and Low, and compare this with what was done for LOS.
Embankments
REM,C,NH
Risk Source
Subgrade
RSB,E,NH
Performance Goals

33. Simplification 64 cells (this example) is too many.
MAP-21 has 7 Goals … 112 cells
Eliminate or categorize secondary contributors
Address Operational Risk and External Agency Impacts differently through
Established business practices
Implementation of QC/QA
Plans
The national performance goals for the Federal highway programs as established in MAP-21 are as follows:
Federal-Aid Program
[23USC §150(b)]
Safety - To achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.
Infrastructure Condition - To maintain the highway infrastructure asset system in a state of good repair
Congestion Reduction - To achieve a significant reduction in congestion on the National Highway System
System Reliability - To improve the efficiency of the surface transportation system
Freight Movement and Economic Vitality - To improve the national freight network, strengthen the ability of rural communities to access national and international trade markets, and support regional economic development.
Environmental Sustainability - To enhance the performance of the transportation system while protecting and enhancing the natural environment.
Reduced Project Delivery Delays - To reduce project costs, promote jobs and the economy, and expedite the movement of people and goods by accelerating project completion through eliminating delays in the project development and delivery process, including reducing regulatory burdens and improving agencies' work practices

34. 2 Sources are managed separate from GAM
Infrastructure
Environmental
Congestion
Safety
Operational Risk
Physical Failure
RRW,C,PF
External Agency Impacts
Natural Hazards
RRW,S,NH
Retaining Walls
RRW,S,NH
Asset Class
Slopes
RSL,I,NH
Put this in writing with some examples of how these risks are managed separately
Embankments
REM,C,NH
Risk Source
Subgrade
RSB,E,NH
Performance Goals

35. GAM Risks Asset Class Risk Source Performance Goals Environmental
Infrastructure
Environmental
Congestion
Safety
Physical Failure
RRW,C,PF
Natural Hazards
RRW,S,NH
Retaining Walls
RRW,S,NH
Asset Class
Slopes
RSL,I,NH
Embankments
REM,C,NH
Subgrade
Risk Source
RSB,E,NH
Performance Goals

36. Physical Failure Risk Source
Infrastructure
Environmental
Congestion
Safety
Physical Failure
RRW,C,PF
Retaining Walls
Slopes
Embankments
Develop a deterioration curve with an error band so that it can be shown that the ‘likelihood’ of falling below a certain LOS Threshold is greater at greater “time” and less early on or after some preservation intervention. Write this up (Scott to lead).
Subgrade
Performance Goals

37. Natural Hazard Risk Source
Infrastructure
Environmental
Congestion
Safety
RRW,S,NH
Natural Hazards
Retaining Walls
RRW,S,NH
Slopes
RSL,I,NH
Embankments
REM,C,NH
Typically, the extreme events here will be earthquake or precipitation/melt, though it could also include fire and extreme (climate) temperature.
A Delphi approach is probably adequate.
Subgrade
RSB,E,NH
Performance Goals

38. GAM Section, Corridor or Inventory
Retaining Walls
Risk
LOS
Slopes
Embankments
Subgrade
Performance Goals
Performance Goals
Describe how, if each of these cells is filled with G, F, P and H, M, L (for risk), or some kind of an index number, that various ways of summing and interpreting can lead to management decisions. Among other things, need to bring in cost-benefit analysis...
TAM Guide Maturity
Achieve minimum LOS before looking at Risk of falling below it
(might already be there)

39. US 2, Crookston, MN
4 months of monitoring
Could more have been done?

40. Risk-Based Asset and Performance Management
Can’t do all we would like
Need to Optimize
Can’t do it all at once
Need to Prioritize
What do you think?

41. Conclusions There is an evolution in practice It is multidisciplinary
Decisions are based on performance and risk
These are not new ideas for geotechs but there is lots of opportunity

42. Questions