CSS Compliance Testing Project Presented by Chris Walker CSS 18 May 2005

CSS Compliance Testing Project

Presented by Chris Walker

CSS

18 May 2005

Introduction

• TRL national survey of reinstatement compliance monitoring and testing

• Analysis of responses

• The Scottish RAUC coring programme

• Recommendations for future action

Context

• Asset management• Improving highway asset life • Risk management• Service levels

• Best Value• Network safety, serviceability and sustainability• Gershon• “Living Streets”

• TM Act• Customer service• Quality management

TRL Survey

• Obtain a National picture of Utility reinstatement compliance testing

• Review existing advice on detailed testing (coring)

• Questionnaire sent to 184 LHA’ in England and Wales and posted on HAUC (UK) and RAUC(S) websites. Also distributed via NJUG

• 63 Responses• 52 Highway Authorities• 11 Utilities / Contractors

Works Notices

1015 137N =

UtilityAuthority

Wo

rks

No

tice

s

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0

Actual & Estimated

Actual

Estimated

Median Values Authority (Actual) = 10,248

Authority (Estimated) = 7,500

Extrapolating to English HA’s

• Approximately 10,248 works per authority, per annum

• In the region of 1.5 million works in England per annum

Definitions

• Visual• Sample inspections, in accordance with the Code of

Practice for Inspections, that include the measurement of defects that an inspector could be reasonably expected to undertake, using basic tools.

• Detailed• Any inspections involving testing over and above the basic

levels used for a sample inspection. Typical examples of detailed testing include coring and detailed profile measurement.

Compliance Testing

92% of Authorities indicated that theyundertook compliance testing

Street authorities, Yes, 48, 92%

Street authorities, No, 4, 8%

Notes:11 out of 11 (100%) undertakers indicatedthat they carried out compliance testing

Extent of detailed compliance testing by Street Authorities

28 out of 46 Authorities indicated that they undertook no detailed compliance testing in 2003/4

all visual (28/46)

less than 5% detailed (13/46)

between 5 and 10% detailed (1/46)

between 10% and 20% detailed (2/46)

between 20% and 30% detailed (1/46)

all detailed (1/46)

Compliance Rates

• Visual• Survey indicated high level of compliance (on average)

• Detailed - Limited and variable data

• Compliance rates for detailed testing are generally lower than for visual inspections

Detailed testing

• Perceived by authorities to improve performance when undertaken

• Joint and Undertaker-led testing programmes generally favoured.

• Mainly based on coring

• Coring best suited to bound materials• Is further research on compliance required for unbound

materials in a street works environment?

Q5 Detailed Physical Test Methods

No of responses (out of 63) Typical Cost range

Rolling straight edge 1 £350

Sand patch test 3 £350

Profile measurement 11 £5-£30 Average £18

Coring (layer thickness) 25

£18-£140

Average £57 Coring (voids content) 11

Penetrometer 3 £5-£140 Average £73

Clegg Impact Tester 3 £5

Falling Weight Deflectometer 0 N/A

Density measurement 1 N/A

Q9 Protocols used for detailed testing

National Regional Local/own

Authority 18/52 13/52 4/52

Utility 6/11 1/11 3/11

Notes:Large number of non repliesSome respondents used National & Regional protocols

Q11 and Q12

Willing to be approached for

further information

Prepared to take part in future

national surveys?

Yes 36 (57%) 43 (68%)

No 27 (43%) 6 (10%)

(No response) 0 (0%) 14 (22%)

Total 63 (100%) 63 (100%)

Summary

• 92% of authority respondents carried out a compliance test regime

• Currently, compliance primarily based on a visual sample inspection regime

• Sample inspections achieved, on average, high compliance

• Indication that detailed testing (coring) identifies greater levels of non-compliance

• Detailed testing perceived to raise standards when introduced (RAUC)

• Joint and Undertaker-led coring programmes generally favoured.

• General willingness to participate in a national programme

Benefits of compliance testing

• Overall reinstatement performance and trends can be monitored

• Effect of improvement plans can be assessed

• Skills training can be targeted

• Performance-related incentives can be introduced

• Reduced costs of remedial works through less intervention

• Reduced disruption to road users

• Contributes to improved asset management

Recommendations

• Develop a national reinstatement compliance monitoring programme

• Produce nationally agreed protocols for compliance testing implemented through an Advice Note and / or Codes of Practice

• Develop a Quality Management approach to reinstatements

• Further research (unbound layers)

Next steps

• CSS and HAUC to review recommendations:• HAUC Specification Working Party• HAUC Inspection Working Party

• Determine how a national compliance monitoring programme is managed

• Commission further research on test methods for unbound materials

Compliance Testing

Presented by Chris Walker

CSS