NH SADES

New Hampshire Statewide Asset Data Exchange System

  • Home

  • About

  • Training

  • Links

  • Stream Crossings

  • Contact

  • More

    Links
    Training
    About Us
    Support
    1. Stream Crossing Support
    2. Assessment Questions
    3. Suggestion: mismatched structure materials
    Search
    Henry Underwood (SWRPC)
    Jan 31, 2018

    Suggestion: mismatched structure materials

    5 comments

    When reviewing drainage structures in particular, I am seeing a significant number of structure with different materials on the inlet and outlet.

     

    Since there is only one field, I recommend adding guidance in the assessment to determine with side of the crossing. That way there is some rationale when only one material is chosen.

     

    Another option would be to create a new category: mixed, mismatched, etc.

    0
    thomas.p.taggart
    Jan 31, 2018

    Henry,

     

    I will talk to the Stream Crossing Steering team and let you know what guidance we come up with. I'll post it here.

     

    Thanks,

    Tom

    0
    Rockingham Planning
    Jun 6, 2018

    The RPC team would also be interested in this once resolved.

     

    Beyond different materials observed at inlet vs. outlet, we have also observed different inlet/outlet types (i.e. inlet with no wingwalls, but wingwalls at outlet, etc.) We have been mentioning this in the comments, but please let us know the best way to note if different. Thank you!

    0
    thomas.p.taggart
    Jun 6, 2018

    Currently the protocol is to focus on the inlet side for the structure material and type and mention the outlet materials, if different, in the comments. We can consider add outlet specific materials (and possibly structure type) parameters for next year, but the database and protocol for this situation is mostly set for this year.

    0
    Henry Underwood (SWRPC)
    Jun 6, 2018

    I may have been responding to language in an older assessment guide when making the suggestion. Earlier versions did not explain to use the inlet condition at a mismatched crossing. From my perspective, this is resolved. This is an atypical situation and I don't feel we encounter it enough to treat it with an additional field or fields.

    1
    cheryl.bondi
    Jun 6, 2018

    Yes, the protocols from 2017 and 2018 state to use the dominant inlet condition to describe the material and shape of the structure, and add in the comments that the outlet is different.

    0
    New Posts
    • Rockingham Planning
      May 22

      Community Notification Letter

      Hello Everyone. At the training yesterday some people had expressed interest in seeing the text of our community notification letter. We keep a stack of these in our field vehicle and hand them out to members of the public when they inquire with our field crews. We found this beneficial to (1) provide them additional information and (2) avoid some of those long conversations we can get trapped in. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Memo To: RPC Commission Community Members and Municipal Officials and Staff From: Christian Matthews, Transportation/GIS Analyst, Rockingham Planning Commission Date: May 22, 2019 Subject: RPC Regional Stream Crossing Assessment Notification This summer and fall, Rockingham Planning Commission (RPC) is continuing a regional project aimed at identifying stream crossings (culverts and bridges) that may pose a hazard to our communities. This multi-year assessment of stream crossings in the region is intended to assist municipalities in identifying critical and hazardous culverts and bridges, particularly those susceptible to failure due to flooding or those that cut off critical evacuation routes. Using state stream crossing assessment protocol, RPC will have staff members out collecting data on state and local roads. The assessments will involve staff accessing crossings from public right of ways. The RPC shares all information collected with our member communities and works with those communities during the summer to help identify areas know to be problematic. Municipalities can use this information as a guide to prioritize those stream crossings most in need of retrofit or replacement. Along with prioritizing infrastructure modifications, results of these assessments can also be incorporated into municipal and regional hazard mitigation plans and vulnerability assessments. For more information about this project and to view this public data, please go to: http://www.rpc-nh.org/maps-and-data/data/transportation-asset-inventory-data For any questions or comments please contact Christian Matthews at (603) 658-0523 or cmatthews@rpc-nh.gov .
      0 comments
      0
    • Henry Underwood (SWRPC)
      Aug 9, 2018

      How do I calculate crossing slope?

      I can see that our original elevation measurements have been scaled in some way and would like to confirm the calculation to create the slope % (Field 59). Currently, we have scored assessments with these scaled elevations, but "0.00" for the slope. Is the following formula correct? Structure Slope (%) = [ Inlet Invert Elevation (ft) - Outlet Invert Elevation (ft) ] / Structure Length (ft) or Field 59 = [ Field 52 - Field 55 ] / Field 58 Is it standard practice to provide these values as a negative number or a positive number?
      1 comment
      0
    • Rockingham Planning
      Jun 12, 2018

      Headwall Type

      On page 29 it looks like the picture for "None" represents a structure that is just covered with soil/fill/dirt on top of it. We had a similar scenario in the picture below. Only earthen material is used to keep the below culverts in place. So this would be "None" not "Other"?
      1 comment
      0