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
100,000
Median Values
Authority (Actual) = 10,248
Authority (Estimated) = 7,500
80,000
60,000
40,000
Actual & Estimated
20,000
Actual
Estimated
0
N=
37
15
Authority
1
10
Utility
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
Street
authorities,
Yes, 48,
92%
Street
authorities,
No, 4, 8%
Notes:
11 out of 11 (100%) undertakers indicated
that they carried out compliance testing
92% of Authorities indicated that they
undertook compliance testing
Extent of detailed compliance testing
by Street Authorities
Type of Inspection
less than 5%
detailed (13/46)
all visual (28/46)
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)
28 out of 46 Authorities indicated that they undertook no
detailed compliance testing in 2003/4
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
Coring (voids content)
11
Average £57
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 replies
Some 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%)
0 (0%)
14 (22%)
63 (100%)
63 (100%)
(No response)
Total
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