This PDF is available at http://nap.nationalacademies.

org/25363

Geotechnical Asset Management for

Transportation Agencies, Volume 1:
Research Overview (2019)

DETAILS
196 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK
ISBN 978-0-309-48878-5 | DOI 10.17226/25363

CONTRIBUTORS
Mark Vessely, William Robert, Scott Richrath, Vernon R. Schaefer, Omar Smadi,
Erik Loehr, and Andrew Boeckmann; National Cooperative Highway Research
BUY THIS BOOK Program; Transportation Research Board; National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine

FIND RELATED TITLES SUGGESTED CITATION

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Geotechnical
Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25363.

Visit the National Academies Press at nap.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of publications
– 10% off the price of print publications
– Email or social media notifications of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

All downloadable National Academies titles are free to be used for personal and/or non-commercial
academic use. Users may also freely post links to our titles on this website; non-commercial academic
users are encouraged to link to the version on this website rather than distribute a downloaded PDF
to ensure that all users are accessing the latest authoritative version of the work. All other uses require
written permission. (Request Permission)

This PDF is protected by copyright and owned by the National Academy of Sciences; unless otherwise
indicated, the National Academy of Sciences retains copyright to all materials in this PDF with all rights
reserved.
Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

N AT I O N A L C O O P E R AT I V E H I G H W AY R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M

NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 903

Geotechnical Asset Management
for Transportation Agencies

Volume 1: Research Overview

Mark Vessely
Shannon & Wilson, Inc.
Denver, CO

William Robert
Scott Richrath
Spy Pond Partners, LLC
Arlington, MA

Vernon R. Schaefer
Omar Smadi
Iowa State University
Ames, IA
and

Erik Loehr
Andrew Boeckmann
University of Missouri
Columbia, MO

Subscriber Categories
Administration and Management • Bridges and Other Structures • Geotechnology

Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

2019

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 903, VOLUME 1

RESEARCH PROGRAM
Systematic, well-designed, and implementable research is the most Project 24-46
effective way to solve many problems facing state departments of ISSN 2572-3766 (Print)
transportation (DOTs) administrators and engineers. Often, highway ISSN 2572-3774 (Online)
problems are of local or regional interest and can best be studied by ISBN 978-0-309-48030-7
state DOTs individually or in cooperation with their state universities Library of Congress Control Number 2019938492
and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transporta-
© 2019 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
tion results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to high-
way authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated
program of cooperative research.
Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 ini- Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
tiated an objective national highway research program using modern written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research published or copyrighted material used herein.
Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA,
United States Department of Transportation.
or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For
administer the research program because of TRB’s recognized objectivity other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited
Photographs appearing with no source line are original to the project and were taken
for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive com- by the NCHRP 24-46 project team.
mittee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation
subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and
cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, univer-
sities, and industry; TRB’s relationship to the National Academies is an NOTICE
insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of special- The research report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication
ists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board
directly to those in a position to use them. and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
chief administrators and other staff of the highway and transportation researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the
departments, by committees of AASHTO, and by the Federal Highway
program sponsors.
Administration. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO
Special Committee on Research and Innovation (R&I), and each year The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
R&I’s recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Direc- do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein
tors and the National Academies. Research projects to address these solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified research agencies are
selected from submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of
research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Academies
and TRB.
The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make
significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems
of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however,
is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate,
other highway research programs.

Published research reports of the

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

are available from

Transportation Research Board

Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001

and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

http://www.national-academies.org
and then searching for TRB
Printed in the United States of America

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.

The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing
leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that
is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000
engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all
of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal
agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals
interested in the development of transportation.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 903, VOLUME 1

Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Camille Crichton-Sumners, Senior Program Officer
Megan A. Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Natalie Barnes, Associate Director of Publications
Sharon Lamberton, Editor

NCHRP PROJECT 24-46 PANEL

Field of Soils and Geology—Area of Mechanics and Foundations
Michael F. McDonnell, Connecticut DOT, Newington, CT (Chair)
Jennifer Tracy Catapano, Arizona DOT, Phoenix, AZ
Xin Chen, DMY Engineering Consultants, Inc., Gaithersburg, MD
Royce V. Greaves, WSP, Detroit, MI
Lawrence E. Jones, Florida DOT, Tallahassee, FL
John A. Siekmeier, Minnesota House of Representatives, St. Paul, MN
Silas Nichols, FHWA Liaison
Nancy M. Whiting, TRB Liaison

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

FOREWORD

By Camille Crichton-Sumners
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board

NCHRP Research Report 903: Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies
provides an introduction and scalable guidance for state transportation agencies on how to
implement risk-based geotechnical asset management into current asset management plans.
Volume 1, Research Overview, details the scope, process, and findings of the study. Volume 2,
Implementation Manual, assembles the research results into guidance that should be of
immediate use to practitioners who maintain geotechnical assets including walls, slopes,
embankments, and subgrades. Complementary downloadable files include planning tools,
additional examples and models, and training slides to facilitate agency use of this planning
approach.

The management of bridge and pavement assets has for many years garnered significant
attention by state transportation agencies while the management of geotechnical assets—
such as walls, slopes, embankments, and subgrades—has been elusive. Traditionally, geo-
technical assets have been treated as unpredictable hazard sites with significant potential
liability because failure of any geotechnical asset may lead to traveler delay, damage to other
assets, or impact safety. Geotechnical assets are, however, vital to the successful operation
of transportation systems and present an opportunity for system owners and operators to
realize new economic benefits through risk-based asset management.
Under NCHRP Project 24-46, “Development of an Implementation Manual for Geo-
technical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies,” the research team was tasked
with the development of a literature review, case study synthesis, and guidance for state
transportation agencies on developing and implementing geotechnical asset management
(GAM) plans. Volume 1 of NCHRP Research Report 903 provides background on the project
and discusses the benefits of proactively addressing GAM. The accompanying Volume 2
provides a GAM Implementation Manual. Downloadable files that complement the report
include a spreadsheet-based GAM Planner tool, a net present value (NPV) template, user
guides for the tool and template, a GAM plan outline, and additional examples and models.
Training slides also are provided to facilitate immediate implementation by state transpor-
tation agency practitioners. Both volumes of NCHRP Research Report 903 and all of the
downloadable files can be accessed from the report webpage by going to www.trb.org and
searching “NCHRP Research Report 903”.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

CONTENTS

1 Summary

4 Chapter 1 Background
4 1.1 Introduction
4 1.2 Research Need
5 1.3 Benefits of GAM
6 1.4 Research Objectives and Scope
7 Chapter 2 Research Approach
7 2.1 Literature Review
7 2.2 Case Studies
7 2.3 Initial Findings
8 2.4 Interim Panel Meeting
8 2.5 Development of a GAM Implementation Process
9 2.6 Data Management for GAM Implementation
9 2.7 Final Deliverables
11 Chapter 3 Findings and Applications
11 3.1 Definition of the Geotechnical Asset Category and Types
13 3.2 Purpose of GAM
14 3.3 Starting GAM
19 3.4 Incorporating GAM into TAM and Across the Agency
23 3.5 Taxonomy and Definitions for GAM
25 3.6 Data and Data Management
26 3.7 Processes for Enabling GAM Implementation Success
31 Chapter 4 Conclusions and Suggested Research
31 4.1 Conclusions
32 4.2 Suggested Research
34 References
36 Appendices (Available Online)

Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing.
The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

SUMMARY

Geotechnical Asset Management

for Transportation Agencies,
Volume 1: Research Overview
Even though bridge and pavement conditions receive much of the media attention and
legislative directives for state departments of transportation (DOTs), the value and perfor-
mance of other assets also are important to the effective operation of the transportation
system throughout its life-cycle. One such asset category is geotechnical assets, which are the
walls, slopes, embankments, and subgrades that contribute to the ability of a transportation
agency to perform its strategic mission. According to the FHWA (2018), “transportation
asset management [TAM] plans are an essential management tool which bring[s] together
all related business processes and stakeholders, internal and external, to achieve a common
understanding and commitment to improve performance.” To truly drive performance,
transportation agencies therefore need to look beyond the two legacy asset categories named
in federal authorization and better understand the impact of all assets—including geotech-
nical assets—within the system that they must manage as responsibly and cost-effectively
as they are able.
Implementing asset management practices for geotechnical assets enables an infrastruc-
ture owner to measure and manage the life-cycle investment considering performance
expectations and tolerance for risk. Although geotechnical asset management (GAM) is
not typically mandated through legislative processes, the reasons for adopting this practice
are comparable to those that justify any other business practice that is directed at making
smart investments with limited funds. Without employing GAM, organizations are accepting
unknown magnitudes of undue risk to traveler safety, mobility, and economic vitality, while
potentially making unfavorable life-cycle investment decisions.
Fortunately, for an owner of geotechnical assets, risk-based GAM implementation can
build on the practices developed by successful programs. Two such programs in the United
Kingdom have more than 15 years of implementation experience: Highways England
manages 4,400 miles of roadways with 49,000 slope and embankment earthwork assets
that are similar in age to many DOT geotechnical assets in the United States, and the
UK’s Network Rail system has more than 9,800 miles of railway with 191,000 earthwork
assets, most of which are well over 125 years old. When combined with other international
and domestic geotechnical asset and natural hazard management programs, these examples
provide valuable information on the need for and benefits of GAM regardless of asset age,
as well as implementation concepts that can enable rapid return on investment (ROI).
An early benefit of GAM implementation is the efficient use of taxpayer funds through
leveraging existing practices that minimize the need for significant investment in new pro-
grams or re-allocation of resources. Drawing from existing risk-based asset management
practices, Volume 2 of NCHRP Report 903 (the GAM Implementation Manual) incorporates
the use of a spreadsheet-based (Microsoft Excel) software tool, the GAM Planner. Together,

1  

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

2   Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

the GAM Implementation Manual and the Gam Planner tool can enable an agency to imple-
ment a risk-based asset management program quickly and without requiring significant
start-up costs or efforts. Once asset management has started, evidence from across the
asset management spectrum indicates that a program will mature through justified process
improvements that support ROI. Therefore, an implementation workflow for GAM can
start simply and with an incomplete inventory that advances with time.
The goal of any asset management system is to logically align asset design, operations,
maintenance, and upgrade decisions with agency goals and objectives. For GAM implemen-
tation to succeed across an organization, the program should relate how asset performance
affects both customers and the decisions made by executives who focus on agency goals and
objectives. For this to occur, asset performance measures should relate to high-level agency
objectives such as common safety and system performance objectives. The GAM imple-
mentation process and the accompanying GAM Planner developed through this research
center on performance objectives related to asset condition, safety impacts, mobility, and
economic consequences, which are common objectives across DOTs and offer a means for
connecting geotechnical asset performance to stakeholder goals and objectives.
In addition to alignment with stakeholder objectives, consistent use of definitions within a
GAM taxonomy that is aligned with other asset management systems can enable communi-
cation across disciplines within the organization and among different agencies. Definitions
of asset provided by both AASHTO and the International Organization for Standardization
(ISO) support the recommended geotechnical asset taxonomy consisting of walls, slopes,
embankments, and subgrades as physical assets within the right-of-way (ROW). Further,
the basis for this taxonomy is validated by several years of applied GAM for transportation
systems in the United Kingdom.
Some geotechnical assets involve ground improvements or inclusions such as steel
anchorages and reinforcement, concrete materials, culverts, and geosynthetic grids and fab-
rics. Although these improvements and inclusions have geotechnical performance charac-
teristics, their function is to enable the performance of the specific asset as a design element
or component. As a result, management of these geotechnical improvements or inclusions
is best handled within a framework, such as an emerging GAM program, that manages the
overall asset performance in terms of higher-level agency objectives and goals.
Historically, many agencies in the United States have assumed management responsibil-
ity for geotechnical or geologic hazard events that originate beyond the agency ROW or
other boundary. This practice can provide value to the agency performance objectives and
to the greater economic region. Management programs provide an opportunity to distin-
guish between geotechnical assets constructed within the ROW and geotechnical features or
sites beyond the ROW. This distinction should be discussed with executives and planning
staff to achieve consensus on inclusion in the GAM program or defer to other agency risk
management programs. For example, geotechnical features beyond the ROW boundary
could be candidates for agency-wide resilience strategies that address other external agency
hazards such as flooding, earthquake, or terror events. The topic of features beyond the
ROW has been identified as an area for future study, as the information about GAM imple-
mentation and benefits gained from long-standing GAM programs in the United Kingdom
focuses primarily on management of assets within the ROW.
Whether an agency formally implements a risk-based GAM program or defers to exist-
ing legacy approaches, asset treatments such as “do minimum,” “maintain,” “rehabilitate
(rehab),” “reconstruct (or renew),” and “restore” will be executed by the agency on each
asset. The GAM Planner provided with the GAM Implementation Manual provides initial

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

Summary  3  

recommendations for asset treatment as the inventory is developed, enabling an agency to

develop long-term financial plans for the geotechnical asset category. As with existing asset
management programs for pavements and bridges, the estimated program-level investment
needs for geotechnical assets across an agency will likely exceed the available funds. Using a
GAM program can improve the likelihood for successful implementation by incorporating
additional risk management, risk prioritization, and life-cycle cost-investment prioritization
approaches. These varying prioritization approaches can enable an agency to satisfy the
most pressing investment needs in a framework that also is flexible to the objectives of
executive and planning staff.
Through GAM processes, a geotechnical asset manager can collaborate with stakeholders
across an agency to develop a “shelf,” or candidate list, of beneficial geotechnical asset treat-
ment projects that can be selected depending on investment level and risk tolerance.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

CHAPTER 1

Background

1.1 Introduction
This volume of NCHRP Research Report 903 presents the contractor’s final research report
for NCHRP Project 24-46, “Development of an Implementation Manual for Geotechnical
Asset Management for Transportation Agencies.” The purpose of this study was to deliver an
implementation manual for transportation executives, TAM staff, and geotechnical practi-
tioners to initiate GAM in their agencies. The final deliverables under this study included the
following:
• This research overview;
• Volume 2 of NCHRP Research Report 903 (the GAM Implementation Manual);
• A technical memorandum on implementation of the research findings;
• A spreadsheet-based GAM Planner;
• A spreadsheet-based NPV template;
• Appendix material that supplements the GAM Implementation Manual, including user guides
for the GAM Planner and NPV template, and additional models and examples; and
• A slide (PowerPoint) presentation that can be used for training.

The GAM Planner, NPV template, appendix material, and slide presentation are available for
download from the NCHRP Research Report 903 webpage at www.trb.org. PDF versions of both
volumes of the report also are available for download from the site. The technical memoran-
dum on implementing the research findings of this study can be obtained from a link on the
NCHRP 24-46 project page.

1.2 Research Need

Geotechnical assets are the walls, slopes, embankments, and subgrades that contribute to the
ability of a transportation agency to perform its strategic mission. Historically, geotechnical
assets have been treated as hazard sites that create unpredictable financial liabilities to opera-
tions and/or have been ignored until failure forces unplanned action. The literature contains
numerous examples of direct and indirect economic consequences that have resulted from the
adverse performance of a geotechnical asset. As a result, it can be shown that these assets—
when they perform correctly—contribute measurable value to the transportation network.
Walls, slopes, embankments, and subgrades are, indeed, assets, and they should be managed
to realize the measurable life-cycle cost, risk-reduction, and performance benefits that are
possible for owners and users. This conclusion is supported by examples from sustainable,
successful risk-based GAM programs like those associated with passenger rail and highway
networks in the United Kingdom.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

Background  5  

Extrapolating the consequences from adverse performance and potential benefits from
investment in GAM to all U.S. state transportation departments, federal land management
agencies, and local jurisdictions, the purpose and need for GAM is measurable and substantial.
Further, federal authorizations, such as MAP-21 in 2012 and the FAST Act in 2015, specify risk-
and performance-based asset management for bridges and pavements while encouraging state
transportation agencies to develop and implement transportation asset management (TAM)
strategies for all assets within the ROW.
Advancement has been made in the overall practice of TAM to allow transportation agencies
to focus strategically on the long-term management of government-owned assets. A few states
have started GAM programs in conjunction with TAM, but the early efforts have focused mostly
on the inventory and condition measurement steps. Among states that have yet to start GAM,
many indicate a need and desire but also indicate several barriers to implementation. As a result,
the benefits of asset management have not been fully realized for geotechnical assets in most U.S.
transportation agencies.
The stated need of this research is for a GAM implementation process and manual that will
provide specific direction on the following:

• Guidelines for managing geotechnical assets consistent with AASHTO’s TAM practices;
• Examples of successful GAM strategies;
• Definitions for and a taxonomy of geotechnical assets to support communication and compara-
bility among state DOTs;
• Performance-based goals and targets, and a means of measurement for geotechnical assets;
and
• Ways to incorporate risk analysis principles and processes for geotechnical assets.

1.3 Benefits of GAM

Based on outcomes from established GAM programs and TAM practices in general, perform-
ing GAM yields the following benefits:
• Financial savings across the geotechnical life-cycle, with values reported to be greater than
30 percent by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE 2013) and 60 percent to 80 percent
per unit length of embankment in the United Kingdom (Perry et al. 2003);
• A process to measure and manage involuntary safety risk exposure across the entire asset class;
• Lessened traveler delay and closure times, resulting in improved network operational
performance;
• Reduced adverse economic impacts to users, private enterprise, and communities;
• Fewer impacts and damages to other transportation assets;
• Demonstrated stewardship, including protection of environmental resources, which enhances
agency reputation and improves sustainability;
• Incorporation of data and processes into informed decisions that support agency and stake-
holder objectives;
• An understanding of current risk exposure levels and distribution, and the ability to manage
those risks;
• Data and processes for prioritizing operations and maintenance (O&M) decisions;
• The ability to start very simply and adapt the GAM process over time as the economic benefits
are realized; and
• An implementation process that does not involve compliance or reporting requirements,
and for which the initial data collection stages can be directed at enabling O&M decisions.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

6   Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

1.4 Research Objectives and Scope

The objective of this research was to produce a manual for implementing GAM that provides
tools for a consistent management program that also is flexible for adaptations by differing
agencies as they integrate their geotechnical assets into the TAM program. Given that (1) GAM
is not a federally required process (beyond what is required in bridge asset management at this
time), and (2) funds and staff resources are anticipated to be limited at the start of a program,
the research team recognized that the implementation process must be simple and practical to
enable broad adoption across agencies.
The scope of work activities performed for this research included:
• Task 1: Kick-off Meeting and Work Plan Formulation. A teleconference between the research
team and NCHRP was completed to present the amplified Work Plan. Input from the panel
members was incorporated into Tasks 2 and 3.
• Task 2: Literature Review. The literature review encompassed gathering and reviewing infor-
mation from national and international literature based on sub-topics that included best
practices; the integration of inventory, condition, risk, and performance in assessment; risk
and risk-based management; and life-cycle costs and investment.
• Task 3: Case Study Synthesis. This task involved documenting and synthesizing a range of
case studies of agency practices that represented differing geologic terrains, agency structures,
levels of maturity of the asset management process, performance perspectives, risk tolerances,
and investment capabilities. An outcome from the synthesis was identification of geotechnical,
planning, and executive actions to enable implementation.
• Task 4: Deliver Interim Report. The Interim Report presented the findings of the case studies
and the literature review with a synthesis of practices for enabling GAM.
• Task 5: Host Interim Meeting. A panel meeting was held to review the findings that were
presented in the Interim Report and to present the Phase II Work Plan.
• Task 6: Develop GAM Implementation Plan. A GAM implementation process was developed
that follows asset management steps for objectives and measures, inventory and condition,
performance gap identification, life-cycle cost, risk management analysis, financial planning,
and investment strategies.
• Task 7: Data Management for GAM Implementation. A spreadsheet-based (Microsoft Excel)
worksheet template (the GAM Planner) was developed to enable an agency to implement GAM
following the process described in Task 6.
• Task 8: Deliver Final Deliverables. The final deliverables included a draft implementation
manual (now Volume 2 of NCHRP Research Report 903), a final research report (now this
volume of the report), a technical memorandum on the implementation of the research
findings (available from the NCHRP 24-46 project page), a slide-based (PowerPoint) training
presentation, and additional training materials.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

CHAPTER 2

Research Approach

The initial work for this project involved conducting literature reviews and case study inter-
views with agencies to synthesize the practices that can enable GAM. The outcome from the
synthesis was used to develop the GAM implementation process and an accompanying manual
to be provided as a separate research deliverable. The research team’s approach to each task is
summarized in the following discussion.

2.1 Literature Review

The literature review involved collecting and synthesizing information from national and
international sources on topics related to best practices, assessment, risk and risk-based
management, life-cycle costs and investment, and cross-asset interaction and decision support.
The research team categorized and summarized information based on its potential practical
application toward GAM implementation. Selected references were included in the GAM Imple-
mentation Manual. A brief summary of the literature review is available online as an appendix
to this volume and can be downloaded from the NCHRP Research Report 903 web page at www.
trb.org.

2.2 Case Studies

The case study task involved the collection and synthesis of a range of case studies of agency
practices that represented differing geologic terrains, agency structures and asset management
maturities, performance perspectives, risk tolerances, and investment capabilities. The case study
questions were formulated to capture geotechnical, TAM, and executive perspectives that can
influence implementation and can either facilitate or create barriers to implementation success.
Case study responses were received from state DOTs in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut,
Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Vermont. Case study inter-
views also were completed with representatives from Network Rail in the United Kingdom and
the Alyeska Pipeline in Alaska. The outline used to guide the case study interviews also is available
as an appendix to this volume and can be downloaded from the Research Report 903 web page.

2.3 Initial Findings

The team reviewed the findings from the literature review and case studies to synthesize the
practices found; to identify effective implementation models, performance measures, risk and
risk management processes, and steps to enable asset management; and to identify examples of
demonstrated ROI. The synthesis, provided in the Interim Report, evaluated the role of people,

7  

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

8   Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

processes, and systems and data in these findings. The Interim Report can be made available
upon request to TRB.
The findings included international examples of successful GAM programs that exhibit a
complete implementation process from setting objectives and measures through life-cycle cost
and risk management analysis, financial planning, and investment decisions. These existing
GAM programs are now increasing their asset management maturity level based on the real-
ization of benefits made evident by the tracking of asset performance after implementation.
A finding from the case studies of agencies yet to start GAM was a need for tools and guidance
that can enable starting GAM, particularly given the anticipated near-term federal and state
legislative environment, which will not require or fund GAM. In this environment, proposed
expenditures of time and resources to implement GAM must be justifiable under a social or
economic need rather than a regulatory requirement.

2.4 Interim Panel Meeting

An interim panel meeting was held to review the synthesis findings presented in the Interim
Report, obtain concurrence on the Work Plan for the remaining tasks, and obtain approval of
the annotated outline for the GAM Implementation Manual.

2.5 Development of a GAM Implementation Process

The GAM implementation process was developed using a cross-disciplinary combination
of executive, asset management, and geotechnical practice perspectives. The implementation
process followed the AASHTO TAM steps of: objectives and measures, inventory and condi-
tion, performance gap identification, life-cycle cost and risk management analysis, financial
planning, and investment strategies. The implementation process has been documented in the
GAM Implementation Manual.
Throughout the development of the implementation process, the research team emphasized
formulating an approach that was directed at:
• Enabling a quick start to inventory and assessment without requiring a new program, spe-
cialized software, investment in inventory data collection, or significant staff or contractor
support;
• Developing a risk-based GAM process directed at performance objectives for asset condition,
safety impacts, and mobility and economic consequences;
• Enabling implementation by individuals other than geo-professionals, including TAM and
other planning staff, bridge/structure inspection teams, and general engineering staff;
• Constructing flexible frameworks for prioritizing asset treatment decisions based on risk
and/or investment considerations;
• Emphasizing connection with agency executives through business and investment cases
for GAM;
• Promoting a consistent inventory and assessment process across geotechnical asset types;
• Starting GAM following a simple workflow that can be modified as justified through process
improvement steps; and
• Developing recommendations for incorporating GAM at both the program and project levels
and in both the operations and design life-cycle phases.
The proposed implementation process consists of a simplified workflow for:
• Identifying and locating assets;
• Selecting from a five-level category for the operation and maintenance condition of an asset;

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

Research Approach   9  

• Assessing the asset performance consequences;

• Reviewing the recommended treatment recommendations;
• Analyzing differing investment levels; and
• Communication of initial results.
The GAM Implementation Manual recommends starting the GAM process with a small quan-
tity of known assets as a means to quickly implement the complete asset management process
before expanding the inventory or considering process improvements. Once started, suggested
next steps include:
• Expanding the inventory of assets through various means and methods;
• Calibrating the default asset models;
• Developing new asset models, if needed;
• Including other agency staff in inventory development;
• Developing data management practices with agency staff to enable visual communication of
asset characteristics and performance;
• Authoring a GAM plan document; and
• Adding objectives and measures based on stakeholder feedback.

2.6 Data Management for GAM Implementation

A supporting task to the GAM implementation process involved development of a non-
proprietary spreadsheet-based (Microsoft Excel) tool to accompany the GAM Implemen-
tation Manual. This tool, referred to as the GAM Planner, provides a means to begin a
consistent geotechnical asset inventory and assessment process that includes geo-spatial asset
data and enables decision-making processes based on investment returns and a risk perfor-
mance measure. The GAM Planner will enable GAM across staff levels to follow a workflow
for inventory development and assessment using default asset model templates. The GAM
Implementation Manual also provides guidance for developing agency-specific asset models
if desired.
The GAM Planner was formulated for adoption by a state transportation agency starting
GAM at a simple asset management maturity level. An agency that already has some form of
initial geotechnical asset inventory could adapt the existing data in the GAM Planner if desired.
In addition to the spreadsheet tool, and as a GAM program matures, implementation staff may
wish to consider using more robust agency-supported enterprise software that might offer addi-
tional analysis capabilities, and may be more compatible with other TAM databases used within
the agency.
The implementation process also provides guidance on data and data management prac-
tices. Because data management practices are emerging topics with agencies and more specific
to the systems and processes of each agency, the data management framework provided for the
GAM implementation process is directed toward enabling integration into DOT enterprise
systems.

2.7 Final Deliverables

The final deliverables developed for this project consist of the GAM Implementation Manual;
this research overview documenting the conduct of the research; a technical memorandum
on the implementation of the research findings; the GAM Planner; a complementary,
spreadsheet-based template for calculating the net present value (NPV) of assets; and training
aids for agency-based training for GAM program implementation.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

10   Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

• Chapter 1
• Introduction
• Manual Overview
Part A - • Why Implement GAM
Introduction and the
"Why" for GAM

• Chapter 2
• Implementing GAM
• Workflow for Implementation
• GAM Planner Steps
Part B -
Starting a Plan

• Chapter 3: Purpose and Need for GAM

• Chapter 4: Linking to TAM
• Chapter 5: Adaptable TAM Practices for GAM
• Chapter 6: Asset Assessment and Performance Measures
Part C - • Chapter 7: Risk
Understanding the • Chapter 8: Practical Implementation of GAM in the Agency
Asset Management
Process

Figure 2.1.   GAM Implementation manual, final organization.

Although the annotated outline content remained the same from the material presented in the
interim report and interim meeting, some content was reorganized during development of the
GAM Implementation Manual. The reorganization was intended to improve the readability of
the document in a logical framework considering the implementation workflow and AASHTO
TAM steps. Figure 2.1 provides an overview of the organization of the GAM Implementation
Manual.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

CHAPTER 3

Findings and Applications

3.1 Definition of the Geotechnical Asset Category

and Types
The glossary in the AASHTO Transportation Asset Management Guide: A Focus on Implemen-
tation (2011) defines an asset as follows:
An asset is the physical transportation infrastructure (e.g., travel way, structures, other features and appur-
tenances, operations systems, and major elements thereof); more generally, can include the full range of
resources capable of producing value-added for an agency: e.g., human resources, financial capacity, real
estate, corporate information, equipment and materials, etc.; an individual, separately-managed component
of the infrastructure, e.g., bridge deck, road section, streetlight.

Issued in 2014, the ISO 55000 series of standards are used in asset management practices
internationally and across infrastructure systems. The ISO 55000 standards define an asset as an
“item, thing or entity that has potential or actual value to an organization; value can be tangible
or intangible, financial or non-financial, and includes consideration of risks and liabilities.”
In both definitions, an asset can be shown to be a physical object or component that contrib-
utes value to an organization, such as a public transportation agency. Bridges and pavements are
examples of physical asset categories that are required to have asset management plans per federal
authorization. However, bridges and pavements are not the only physical assets that contribute
value to an organization tasked with providing public transportation infrastructure. The intended
function of a bridge or pavement asset and ultimately the entire system can only be fully realized
when the connecting and/or supporting assets also function. Geotechnical assets therefore can be
identified as an additional asset category that provides value to an agency while also enabling the
desired value from existing legacy asset management programs for bridges and pavements.
When reviewing the successful GAM programs for Highways England and Network Rail,
geotechnical assets are defined as cut slopes (cuttings) and embankment assets within the agency
boundary (Network Rail 2017, Power et al. 2012). Domestically, Thompson (2017) identifies
rock and soil slopes, embankments, retaining walls, and material sites as geotechnical assets
in the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (Alaska DOT&PF) GAM
plan; while Anderson et al. (2017), presents a summary of Colorado DOT GAM programs that
consider retaining walls a separate unique asset, and, slopes, embankments and subgrade as a
combined geohazards category.
The definition of geotechnical assets from Anderson et al. (2016) was adopted for the proj-
ect GAM Implementation Manual where the geotechnical asset types are embankment, slope,
retaining wall, or constructed subgrade within the ROW that contributes to the continuous
operation of a transportation network. This definition was selected for the implementation pro-
cess based on a connection across GAM efforts in multiple agencies across countries and fol-
lowing a taxonomic methodology for physical assets within the transportation corridors ROW

11  

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

12   Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

(see “Taxonomy of Geotechnical Assets” in Chapter 5 of the GAM Implementation Manual). Per
ISO 55000, these geotechnical assets can easily be shown to have value to an organization and are
known to contribute risk to several organization objectives and measures.
A discussion of the different geotechnical asset types as presented in the GAM Implementation
Manual is provided below. Additional discussion, schematics, and photographic examples are pre-
sented in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Implementation Manual and are not reproduced here for brevity.

3.1.1 Embankments
An embankment asset is constructed earth fill composed of rock and soil that enables a road-
way to maintain a required design elevation above lower-lying ground. In general, an embank-
ment is an asset that supports the roadway and some portion of the downslope or outboard
ROW. As defined for the GAM Implementation Manual, the recommended threshold height for
an embankment is a minimum of 10 feet (3 meters) above the adjacent grade. This threshold is
based on similar criteria from Network Rail in the United Kingdom. For embankments below
these values, an agency could define the embankment asset as a minor earthwork. Alternatively,
an agency could establish its own criteria for defining an embankment.

3.1.2 Slopes
Slope geotechnical assets may involve either of the following slope features:
• A permanently excavated slope (a cut slope) that is incorporated into the roadway template
and within the ROW, easement, or other property boundary; and
• A beyond-the-ROW natural geologic slope hazard feature (e.g., a natural hazard site) that can
threaten other transportation assets or the operation of the transportation network. This type
of feature would include natural rockfalls from geologic outcrops, landslides that originate
beyond the ROW or in natural ground, or natural debris flows that enter into the ROW and
disrupt operations.
Even though events or adverse performance from cut slopes and beyond-the-ROW geologic
hazards may have similar operational consequences to an agency, in the GAM inventory it is
encouraged to differentiate between constructed slope assets and natural hazard sites. Through
this differentiation in the inventory, differing treatment planning and investment strategies can
be developed depending on input from agency executives.
Slopes can consist of soil, rock, and mixtures of soil and rock. Cut slopes differ from embank-
ments in that cut slopes are excavated into the terrain rather than created as a constructed fill
feature. Similar to embankment assets, a 10-foot cut-slope height threshold is recommended in
GAM implementation, unless the asset is judged to create an unacceptable hazard to the safety
of users and maintenance personnel.

3.1.3 Retaining Walls

Retaining walls are a common type of geotechnical asset, usually consisting of constructed
structures that hold back natural soil or rock or engineered materials to prevent sliding of
material onto a roadway or other structure, or to support a roadway. Retaining walls also are
referred to as earth retaining structures in some organizations.
Current design guidance for many wall types indicates that retaining walls will have vertical or
near vertical face inclinations of 70 degrees or steeper. For consistency with wall design practices,
a structure with a vertical face inclination of less than 70 degrees can be classified as an embank-
ment or slope that likely relies on reinforcement improvements for stability. The recommended

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

Findings and Applications   13  

wall height for inclusion into a GAM plan is 4 feet of exposed face height, which is based on what
commonly defines an engineered retaining wall.
In many cases, a retaining wall is associated with a bridge structure or approach to a bridge.
As indicated in the GAM Implementation Manual, if a wall also functions as a bridge abutment
that is integral with the bridge structure, the wall should be considered to be part of the depart-
ment’s bridge inspection and asset management program and should not be inventoried and
assessed as an independent asset. All other walls associated with bridge approaches are encour-
aged to be incorporated into the GAM plan if they are not already managed in an existing asset
management program.

3.1.4 Subgrades
Subgrade assets are made up of improved or unimproved earth material that lies below the
engineered pavement section, which creates a life-cycle management need. Examples of sub-
grade assets include constructed earthworks and ground improvements to address swelling,
compressible, or collapsible soil or bedrock, or to address threats from karst (sinkholes) and
underground mining. A subgrade asset also can consist of an unimproved or natural hazard
subgrade that generates a performance risk to the roadway.

3.2 Purpose of GAM

GAM enables an agency to measure and manage the life-cycle investment of assets such as
slopes, embankments, walls, and unstable subgrades based on performance expectations and
risk tolerance. In the absence of GAM, an agency accepts unknown magnitudes of risk to traveler
safety, mobility, and economic vitality, while also potentially making less than optimal life-cycle
investment decisions.
To provide evidence of the business case and potential investment and risk-reduction
benefits, examples of successful GAM or related similar programs are provided here and in the
GAM Implementation Manual. A key component of these examples is that risk-based GAM is
providing benefits through processes that have existed for approximately 15 to 20 years, depending
on the program.
• Network Rail manages approximately 19,200 miles of the rail network in Great Britain, much
of which extends through gentle topography. The network includes many cut slopes and
embankments that were developed between 1830 and 1880. Network Rail has established a
GAM system that consists of risk-based inventory, assessment, and intervention processes
that have resulted in documented improvements in safety and delay risk for their system since
implementation 15 years ago (Network Rail 2017). The Network Rail system has matured
with regard to several processes, with recent changes made to the risk assessment process
based on asset performance data that enables informed model calibrations. Further, studies of
the proactive management of embankment assets supporting railroad lines and motorways in
the United Kingdom demonstrated realized life-cycle cost savings of 60 percent to 80 percent
per unit length of embankment (Perry et al. 2003).
• The UK Highways Agency (now called Highways England) is responsible for approximately
4,400 miles of roadway throughout the United Kingdom, including about 45,000 geotechnical
assets. In 2003, Highways England initiated GAM with the first strategy document. Geotechni-
cal assets in the Highways England program consist of embankments and cut slopes, with the
majority constructed from the late 1950s to 1990s. As presented by Power et al. (2012), Highways
England operates from the perspective that roadway infrastructure construction is mostly
complete, and the agency centers its efforts on system improvements, optimization, and

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

14   Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

maintenance. The Highways England geotechnical program has matured in stages, starting from a
program directed at producing specific outputs (e.g., inventory for geotechnical assets) to obtain-
ing business outcomes, with a primary focus on providing assets that perform at the required ser-
vice level for the user. The Highways England program is risk-based, with recommended actions
based on five risk-level categories. Additionally, the asset inventory is re-inspected every 5 years.
• Switzerland formed the National Platform for Natural Hazards (PLANAT) in 1997. This
national effort to address the country’s considerable natural hazards risk is notable for the scope
of its collaboration, which includes the federal government, the financial and insurance indus-
try, and public agencies across various infrastructure sectors. The PLANAT mandate includes
improving public awareness and efforts to share financial investment in mitigation according to
risk-reduction benefits; (for example, multiple stakeholders may fund a project based on ben-
efits received (Bründl et al. 2009). The program also has an online tool for evaluating risk reduc-
tion, the use of which is required for all projects costing more than approximately $1 million.
• The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Dam Safety Program is an aspirational exam-
ple of GAM that uses risk to evaluate, prioritize, and justify safety decisions for more than
700 dams, more than 50 percent of which have exceeded the 50-year service life (USACE
2014). The program was initiated following federal authorization in 1996. Using risk-based
analysis, USACE indicates that every $1 invested yields $8 of flood damage reduction. Fur-
ther, the USACE asset management process for water infrastructure facilities subject to natu-
ral hazards (water/hydropower, navigation, and flood-related assets) successfully combines
inventory, assessment, and risk-based multi-criteria decision analysis and financial planning,
all of which are completed by staff using conventional spreadsheet programs (Connelly 2016).
These sustained GAM practices are similar to bridge and pavement asset management pro-
grams in the United States. Although these program examples started in response to regulation,
after several years of implementation each program has evolved into a more complex program
that demonstrates sustained and measurable benefits.
Thus, the purpose of GAM is to enable an agency to obtain real, measurable benefits that are cur-
rently being recognized by other infrastructure organizations. Based on outcomes from successful
programs around the world, the benefits of performing GAM can be summarized as:
• Financial savings across the geotechnical life-cycle, with as much as 30 percent in some cases;
• A process to measure and manage involuntary safety risk exposure across the entire asset class;
• Lessened traveler delay and closure times, resulting in improved network operational
performance;
• Reductions in broader economic impacts due to injury, loss of life, or property damage to
citizens, businesses, and other governmental agencies;
• Fewer impacts and damages related to other transportation assets;
• Demonstrated stewardship, protection of environmental resources, enhanced agency reputa-
tion, and improved sustainability;
• Data and processes for making informed decisions that support agency and stakeholder
objectives;
• Data and processes for prioritizing O&M decisions; and
• An understanding of current risk exposure levels and distribution, and the ability to manage
those risks.

3.3 Starting GAM

3.3.1 Successful Models to Emulate
Looking internationally, the previously discussed GAM programs for rail and highway sys-
tems in the United Kingdom exhibited a sustained success across the asset management spec-
trum with well over a decade of implementation and process improvements that have provided

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

Findings and Applications   15  

valuable concepts to emulate. Domestically, the literature review and case study findings showed
that several transportation agencies and infrastructure owners in the United States are working
toward GAM implementation, with progress most evident in processes related to inventory,
condition measurement, and risk analysis. However, no domestic example of a public-sector
transportation agency with a functioning GAM program comparable to the UK programs in
duration or program size was apparent.
The implementation experiences of other agencies were considered throughout the develop-
ment of the GAM Implementation Manual and processes. Table 3.1 summarizes the successful
implementation strategies identified through this research.
For a U.S. DOT able to fund a complex GAM program at the start of implementation, custom
plans could be adapted from those developed by agencies like those noted in Table 3.1, which
have or are progressing to a high level of maturity. The research team determined that the greater
need was to develop a template for a GAM plan at a simple level of maturity, which considers
constraints on development and investment resources, and permits an agency to efficiently find
favorable returns on the initial investment in GAM such that funding for implementation and
future plan advancement will be supported across the organization.

Table 3.1.   Examples of successful GAM strategies.

Agency Examples People Processes Systems and Data

Started in 2003; mature

Functioning GAM plan at
GAM program; geo-
Dedicated staff positions complex level of maturity and
referenced asset locations;
and organization based on safety risk
Highways England evaluating cross-asset
structures that consider management; long-duration
performance with
the role of GAM inventory construction and use
drainage assets; 2.5-meter
of process improvements
height definition

Mature GAM program;

Functioning GAM plan at geo-referenced asset
Dedicated staff positions complex level of maturity and locations; segment
and organization based on safety risk definition for assets;
Network Rail
structures that consider management; long-duration developing deterioration
the role of GAM inventory construction and use models for >100-year-old
of process improvements assets; 3-meter height
definition

Infrastructure Guidance on Guidance on geo-

Maintenance organizational staff Risk-based asset management referenced data
Management structures for functioning plans for other assets that are management systems at
Manual (multiple asset management adaptable to GAM levels of maturity from
examples) programs simple to complex

Transitioned from
Risk-based asset management proprietary software to
USACE Water
practices for infrastructure spreadsheet-based
Infrastructure
systems that include (Microsoft Excel) tools
Programs
geotechnical or similar assets due to user familiarity and
availability
Creating a culture
change for GAM; Developing inventory and
Alaska, Vermont, Experimentation with early
implementation condition data for GAM
and Colorado DOTs implementation approaches
experience within a in a TAM framework
domestic DOT
Oversight panel with Risk-based, cost-benefit Geo-referenced risk-based
cross-agency, cross- decision process for natural inventory mapping tools
Switzerland’s
disciplinary, and private- hazard risk mitigation; and cost-benefit analysis
PLANAT Program
and public-sector investment shared among risk software to standardize
representatives stakeholders analysis

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

16   Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

3.3.2 Development of a GAM Implementation

Framework and Workflow
In the literature, discussions about asset management and GAM generally have covered
strategic-level concepts or the agency-specific processes, systems, or data within an asset
management program. The case study interviews performed for this project provided an
opportunity to understand the perspectives of agency staff who may implement a new asset
management program and how the cultures and relationships at differing levels of an agency
can influence implementation.
For many successful GAM program examples (e.g., those in the United Kingdom, the USACE
Water Infrastructure program, and the Swiss PLANAT program), a key trigger for implementa-
tion was some form of governmental requirement. This also has been true for the implementation
success of bridge and pavement asset management in the United States. Once started, how-
ever, these GAM programs have yielded benefits and process improvements that demonstrate
their business and risk-reduction utility independently from continuous governmental require-
ments. Among the state DOTs that have started early efforts toward GAM, implementation has
occurred because of the motivation of a few key individuals who were willing to advocate for a
program in the absence of regulatory requirements.
Many of the case study discussions suggested that federal requirements for GAM would be
a means to start GAM. However, a few DOTs also reported that current federal authorization
could be a barrier to GAM implementation because of the concern that a program could be
penalized for not obtaining self-imposed performance goals in the absence of a mandate from
the FHWA. Thus, given the anticipated legislative environment, the GAM implementation
framework for this project was developed to satisfy economic and performance needs in the
absence of directed regulatory requirements. Another conclusion, drawn from the case study
discussions together with feedback from the project review panel, was that a GAM program that
is simple to implement also would have the greatest likelihood for adoption.
As a result, the following implementation framework characteristics were identified as being
most likely to enable GAM in state DOTs:
• Relatively simple to implement,
• Does not require legislative authorization, and
• Has low financial and other agency resource needs at initiation.

To evaluate implementation solutions under these constraints, a behavior model for persua-
sive design (Fogg 2009) was reviewed to guide workflow actions that could enable use of a GAM
framework. The behavior model provided a systematic approach to understanding factors that
can result in behavior change in professionals across industries. Fogg (2009) suggests that, for
a target behavior to occur (in this case implementation of GAM), the relationships between
motivation and ability (which often relate to simplicity) must be recognized and addressed for
the individuals involved in the process. In general, the greater the level of individual motivation,
the greater is the likelihood of the individual taking on difficult tasks to accomplish a call to
action. Conversely, the lower the level of individual motivation, the more important it becomes
to change the difficulty level (by making the work simpler). For example, the early DOT GAM
implementation efforts shown in Table 3.1 are the result of highly interested (i.e., motivated)
individuals and agencies that were willing to undertake a new and challenging task that required
a high level of ability. Legislation and regulations are obviously highly motivating factors, but
they are anticipated to have little value in the GAM implementation process at this time.
Fogg (2009) conceptualizes the relationship between motivation and “ability” (which is
related to task difficulty or simplicity) using a graph, with motivation shown on the vertical
axis, simplicity on the horizontal axis, and the activation threshold as a curved line plotted by the

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

Findings and Applications   17  

intersecting points at which an action (e.g., GAM implementation) transitions between being
less likely to occur and more likely to occur in response to environmental prompts or triggers.
Subcomponents of the Fogg Behavior Model can be used to guide formulation of a framework
that considers both motivations and abilities. The application of this work to the development
of the GAM implementation framework is presented in Table 3.2.
The research team’s synthesis of literature and case studies indicated the need for a simple
workflow that minimizes agency resources for starting GAM planning as a means of increasing

Table 3.2.   Motivation and ability considerations for development of GAM

implementation framework.

Application in Development of the

Factor* Subcomponent GAM Implementation Framework
Work to simplify processes and tools such that individuals do not view the
implementation as being discomforting. Use familiar spreadsheet software (i.e.,
Pleasure/Pain
Microsoft Excel) to avoid frustrations that may occur with new or less familiar
software systems.
Adapt from and emphasize examples of implementation success to characterize
favorable outcomes that will result, such as cost savings, fewer disruptions, and
managed risk. The long-term success of GAM for UK transportation networks is an
Hope/Fear aspirational good outcome that can motivate others. Identify potential favorable
Motivation
outcomes at all levels of an agency, including motivating executives to better reach
objectives, engaging planners, and enabling confidence in GAM through good
outcomes for geo-professionals and maintenance staff.
Make implementation inclusive of all geotechnical asset types, geographies, and
agency structures to enable a broad acceptance rate. Within an agency, emphasize
Acceptance/
the need for processes and measures of GAM performance to connect with
Rejection
stakeholders across the organization, especially those most capable of supporting
implementation (executives, TAM managers, public stakeholders).
Minimize the additional demands on staff time that come with implementation by
allowing for the ability to start and stop inventory or work during short, available
Time
periods; using anecdotal information; and enabling staff to get started without first
finding time for formal training or reading a manual.
Assume that agencies have limited to no financial resources to start GAM. Thus,
GAM processes should start using existing systems and without requiring new tools,
Money
staff, or budgets. As a spreadsheet-based (Microsoft Excel) worksheet, the GAM
Planner can be used readily.
Enable inventory data collection to begin at the desktop level without requiring
mobilization to the field for new inspection or condition data. Although such
Physical Effort inventory data are valuable, suggest beginning inventory development in the GAM
Planner using existing department records, anecdotal information, and readily
available online tools.
Ability/ Develop initial implementation processes that minimize the need to think deeply or
Elements of in unfamiliar ways. Develop a “quick start” chapter of the GAM Implementation
Simplicity Manual that allows implementation to begin before the manual delves into less
familiar details about geotechnical assets, risk, and TAM concepts. Structure
Mental Effort
workflow so that knowledge of supporting TAM concepts is optional or not required
to start implementation. The GAM Planner inputs have been developed to enable
use of this tool without the need to learn about GAM and TAM in depth. Use the
process of starting GAM as a means to teach GAM and supporting steps.
Provide examples of existing GAM programs and other asset management programs
to indicate that asset management is a desired process in public agencies and across
Deviance from
countries. With time, not performing GAM could be considered a deviation from
Rules
practice (a strong motivating factor in the absence of “rules” such as legislative or
regulatory requirements).
Structure the implementation process to be simple and repeatable. To encourage
Routine/
routine use, the GAM Planner has been structured to require minimal data entry
Non-Routine
time for each asset and to involve minimal input steps.
*
Fogg (2009) suggests that the subcomponents of ability are linked and work together, whereas the subcomponents of motivation
can be independent. For example, a process that satisfies all but the money subcomponent of ability will likely not occur if an
impractical investment amount is required. Conversely, a flu shot is representative of the trade-off between pain and hope of good
health in the motivation factor.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

18   Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

implementation success. A more complex program or a higher GAM maturity level is best
viewed as an outcome of a successful implementation that enables justified process improve-
ments with time, a conclusion that is supported by the successful programs listed in Table 3.1.
For the development of the GAM Implementation Manual and GAM Planner, the team worked
to create processes and tools that would support starting simply. The behavior change model
from Fogg (2009) provided guidance on specific factors to consider that are beneficial toward
enabling individuals to change a behavior, which in this case was choosing to implement GAM.
The following list summarizes the workflow and implementation processes that were selected
for increasing the likelihood of success:
• Structure the layout of the manual so the user can quickly understand the purpose and value
of GAM.
–– Part A, Chapter 1 of the GAM Implementation Manual briefly introduces GAM, addresses
the organization of the manual, and includes a discussion of the reasons to perform
GAM. Part A concludes with a discussion about “Starting Simply,” which is intended
to inform the reader that GAM does not need to be a complex and intensive process to
start.
–– Part A purposely does not expand the discussion into TAM or other concepts potentially
unfamiliar to geo-professionals.
–– Part A is only a few pages long, which allows for a quick read and minimizes time
requirements.
• Enable a user of the manual to start GAM implementation quickly, without having to first
learn supporting concepts for asset management, geotechnical engineering, performance
measures, risk, and investment.
–– Part B, Chapter 2 of the GAM Implementation Manual provides a step-by-step guide to
starting implementation using the spreadsheet-based (Microsoft Excel) GAM Planner tool
that accompanies the manual.
–– The user is encouraged to select a few known assets and start GAM inventory and assess-
ment using the GAM Planner.
–– The user can draw on existing records or anecdotal information to start GAM without
having to mobilize the field to collect asset condition data. The inventory and assessment
process in the GAM Planner minimizes the number of technical measures for each asset,
thus reducing both time requirements and the need for specialized experience.
–– Part B presents a simplified GAM workflow without including optional process improve-
ment steps or technical terms that could suggest a complicated new process.
–– Part B emphasizes a preference for starting at a simple level versus a complex level, and for
avoiding trying to build a complete inventory before moving through the GAM spectrum.
• Enable a consistent management program that is flexible for adaptations.
–– The GAM inventory and assessment process is structured around the performance objec-
tives of asset condition, safety impacts, and mobility and economic consequences, which
are common objectives across agencies and are identified in federal authorization for asset
management.
–– For the initial inventory and assessment process, geotechnical assets are evaluated as a
single category under one framework rather than using separate frameworks for each geo-
technical asset type. Should an agency not want to include a certain asset type, those assets
can be omitted from the inventory.
• Provide a software tool that enables starting GAM implementation without formal training
or the purchase of new software systems.
–– The GAM Planner is a Microsoft Excel file that can be used across an agency.
–– The GAM Planner has minimal input fields to reduce the time requirements for entry of
asset data.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

Findings and Applications   19  

• Enable the user to learn supporting aspects of GAM once implementation has started, thus
eliminating the barrier of having to learn new concepts before starting.
–– Part C of the GAM Implementation Manual follows the implementation steps in Part B
and contains chapters that provide background on TAM, performance measures, risk, and
practical considerations for implementation of GAM in an agency. Part C contains valuable
material for progressing through the TAM spectrum, but this material can be read at the
convenience of the reader.

3.4 Incorporating GAM into TAM and Across the Agency

As indicated in the project background and research objective, GAM implementation should
occur such that the geotechnical assets can be incorporated into an overall, agency-wide TAM
program. To enable this to occur, the research team has structured the GAM implementation
process to align with established AASHTO TAM practices that prescribe the following elements
for an asset management plan:
• Objectives and measures,
• Inventory and condition,
• Performance gap identification,
• Life-cycle cost and risk management analysis,
• A financial plan, and
• Investment strategies.
Chapter 4 of the GAM Implementation Manual is structured to incorporate these elements by
introducing the background for each concept and developing the connections for geotechnical
assets. The application of risk in asset management is introduced in Chapter 4 and expanded in
Chapter 7, which provides a detailed background on risk and risk management, and in Chapter 8
as a means for prioritizing asset treatments.

3.4.1 Objectives and Measures

To align with TAM, the measurement of geotechnical asset performance should relate to TAM
objectives in a way that is similar to the performance measurement of any other transportation
asset. The process described in the GAM Implementation Manual is formulated around perfor-
mance objectives for asset condition, safety impacts, and mobility and economic consequences,
which connect with objectives contained in federal authorization for asset management plans.
Lessons learned from successful GAM programs and case study input from agency execu-
tives indicates that performance measures should relate to how the asset performance affects
customers or executive decision-making. As presented in Chapter 4 of the GAM Implementation
Manual, Network Rail geotechnical asset performance is assessed with respect to the following
measures (Network Rail 2017):
• Train derailments,
• Train delay minutes,
• Temporary train speed reductions, and
• Earthwork failures.
Keeping the Network Rail experience in mind, the performance measures presented in the
GAM Implementation Manual focus on (1) outward (or public-facing) measures that tend to be
results-oriented lag measures that connect with agency executives and the public, and (2) inward
and engineering-based lead measures that are used by the asset managers and technical staff to
predict estimated future conditions.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

20   Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

The GAM Implementation Manual introduces an outward-facing, executive-level measure called

“level of risk (LOR).” The LOR is a grade-based categorical measure for asset performance com-
munication to executives. This measure provides a means to succinctly communicate the mag-
nitude of current performance risk from the asset across multiple TAM objectives, such as asset
condition, mobility, and safety impacts. The LOR is intended to be similar to the level of service
(LOS) standards used in many TAM and maintenance planning programs. The concept of LOR is
based on early GAM implementation experience at the Colorado DOT, which sought to improve
communication about the “service” that geotechnical assets provide. Additionally, agency execu-
tives have indicated there can be difficulty with understanding technical condition scores specific
to each asset type (e.g., understanding what are “good,” “fair,” or “poor” conditions for slopes,
walls, embankments, and subgrades) and how these scores translate to the agencies’ performance.
LOR also is being incorporated as a performance measure for the Alaska DOT&PF GAM program.
The LOR measurement is intended to indicate a relative magnitude estimate of the risk expo-
sure for an agency with geotechnical assets. The GAM Planner and GAM Implementation Manual
present default LOR categories following a linear distribution of risk scores. Within the GAM
Planner, the category values can be adapted based on an agency’s tolerance for different risk
consequence levels. For example, an agency could decide to increase the LOR category thresholds
based on higher tolerance for risk from geotechnical assets. To facilitate developing an under-
standing of LOR categories, Appendix D to the GAM Implementation Manual (available online)
presents a photographic matrix for different GAM sites that illustrates the range in performance.
For outward-facing customer-focused measures, the GAM Implementation Manual recom-
mends that GAM programs consider measurement of total annual delays and road closures
resulting from disruptions associated with geotechnical asset performance. These measures may
be aspirational measures and difficult to capture in some agencies, but such measures will com-
municate an easily understandable performance aspect to the public and how that performance
can be influenced by investment levels. At agencies for which this level of measurement is not
currently feasible, it is suggested that the potential for instituting these measures be continually
reevaluated, particularly as continuous traffic volume measurement accuracy increases through
technology advancements.
The GAM Implementation Manual and the spreadsheet-based GAM Planner identify some
simple inward-facing technical measures that (1) likely are already used in some form at many
agencies and (2) can be used by agencies as they begin GAM implementation. Three such measures
are termed the “O&M Condition Level,” the “Safety Risk Consequence Level,” and the “Mobility
and Economic Consequence Level.” For example, using the GAM Planner, an agency can identify:
• Percent of segments in each O&M Condition Level,
• Percent of segments in each Safety Risk Consequence Level, and
• Percent of segments in each Mobility and Economic Consequence Level.

The GAM Implementation Manual also indicates technical measures that should be consid-
ered as secondary measures for use by geo-professionals and/or asset managers. This collection
of detailed technical measures is not essential for beginning implementation of the GAM process
as described in the manual. Rather, increasing the use and complexity of technical measures is
recommended as a process improvement that can be adopted within each agency as the rel-
evance to performance measurement and management becomes evident.

3.4.2 Inventory and Condition

Information from the case study interviews indicated that collection of data for an asset
management inventory could be a barrier to implementation because of the cost and time
requirements, particularly if new data need to be collected through labor-intensive processes.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

Findings and Applications   21  

The International Infrastructure Management Manual (IIMM) presents a staged approach as a

practical process for data collection that considers the investment constraints (IPWEA 2015).
As stated in the IIMM, “a rule of thumb is often 80 percent of the data can be collected for half
the cost of 100 percent. Seeking 100 percent coverage and accuracy may not be justified, except
for the most critical assets.”
Per the practices in the IIMM, the concept of staged data collection begins with identification
of minimum data for compliance and reporting requirements, next moves to data for priori-
tizing O&M decisions, and concludes with optimizing life-cycle decisions (IPWEA 2015). As
discussed in Power et al. (2012), a similar progression of data collection occurred with GAM
implementation for the UK Highways Agency. GAM implementation does not have compliance
or reporting requirements, which suggests that initial data collection stages can be directed at
O&M decisions. Within a staged data workflow, all assets do not necessarily go to the final level
of data collection; reaching the most-detailed state occurs only in situations for which the collec-
tion effort is justified. Thus, the investment in data collection and management should be com-
pared against the level of detail required for decision support or to achieve any other benefits.
The GAM Implementation Manual introduces an approach that relies on differing levels of
detail and a variety of collection tools for inventory and condition data. This allows a DOT to
collect only the data required for the desired level and complexity of decision-making, versus an
approach that requires significant investment and quantity of data that may or may not be used
in the future. The GAM Planner enables an agency to start inventory and condition measure-
ment in a simple spreadsheet register that also can be used for assessment models.
The data needed to start an inventory in the GAM Planner can come from both within and
outside an agency. Data from within the organization may include corporate information
systems, active and archived project records, enterprise accounting systems, operational
technology systems (such as traffic data), or anecdotal staff sources. External data can come
in various forms, from sources ranging from proprietary, vendor provided systems, outside
stakeholder sources, and web-based freeware programs such as Google Earth. The GAM
Implementation Manual encourages use of existing data as the first step in order to minimize
a potential barrier to GAM.

3.4.3 Performance Gaps

For an agency starting GAM at a simple level of maturity, the GAM Implementation Manual
recognizes that performance gaps will become evident once knowledge is gained about the cur-
rent levels of asset performance. The manual recommends communicating a straightforward
initial performance gap, such as the percent of inventory complete relative to estimated total
asset inventory, and providing approaches to address this gap.

3.4.4 Life-Cycle Planning

In recently adopted asset management requirements, the FHWA defines life-cycle cost as “the
cost of managing an asset class or asset sub-group for its whole life, from initial construction to
its replacement” (23 CFR 515). Thus, the GAM Implementation Manual introduces the TAM
principles for considering the life-cycle of geotechnical assets through the phases of design,
construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning (if applicable). The TAM pro-
cesses that include evaluation of the asset life-cycle include:

• Total cost of the asset over the life, or life-cycle cost;

• Risk management across the life-cycle; and
• Financial plans and investment strategies for a program of assets over a life-cycle.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

22   Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

In the GAM Implementation Manual, content and figures in Chapter 4 are included to provide
an introduction to the concepts of asset life-cycles and their application to geotechnical assets.
The manual then expands the life-cycle discussion to introduce the TAM concepts for what
treatments can be performed on an asset following construction. These treatments are incorpo-
rated into the GAM Planner and discussed throughout the manual using the following terms:
• Do Minimum,
• Maintain,
• Rehabilitate (Rehab),
• Reconstruct (or Renew), and
• Restore.
The treatment discussion in Chapter 4 of the manual reviews these concepts in detail and
provides specific example treatments for geotechnical assets in each category.

3.4.5 Financial Plans and Investment Strategies

Chapter 4 of the GAM Implementation Manual also includes an introduction to the TAM
steps of financial plans and investment strategies. As presented in the manual, a financial plan
is a multi-year projection of actual and desired funding, whereas investment strategies consider
the allocation of resources within a plan, such as where funding will be directed following the
treatment options for assets. The manual also emphasizes the importance of financial planning
in the GAM spectrum because of the importance to executive decision-makers and illustrates
which assets are treated and when within the planning cycle.
Based on the research team’s review of existing GAM programs and information from the
project case study discussions, it is suggested that agencies anticipate that the resources available
will be less than those required to support a full geotechnical asset life-cycle plan. Therefore, the
GAM Implementation Manual indicates the need for a financial plan to present what investments
will be made and what will be deferred.
Although agencies likely will need to defer investments for existing assets, the manual dis-
cusses the importance of also considering life-cycle cost in the design phase of new assets. In
manufacturing industries, it is a well-documented conclusion that up to 80 percent of the life-
cycle cost is “locked in” by design decisions (Hurst 1999). A similar condition is acknowledged
in the life-cycle management of wastewater facilities (WERF 2018). With respect to geotechni-
cal assets, a similar trend is expected, and the manual recommends that agencies evaluate the
whole-life cost over the desired performance life-cycle to determine preferred alternatives based
on economic criteria. Chapter 8 of the GAM Implementation Manual expands on approaches to
life-cycle cost analysis, and Appendix E presents a Microsoft Excel template that can be used to
evaluate life-cycle costs.
In addition to life-cycle cost considerations for financial planning and investment, the GAM
Implementation Manual addresses a need to evaluate the ROI in a GAM program. Determin-
ing the return on GAM investment requires calculation of benefits over time in comparison to
up-front and ongoing costs. The manual introduces breakeven analysis as a means for provid-
ing the justification needed to validate investment in GAM. Chapter 4 of the manual references
the outcomes from NCHRP Research Report 866: Return on Investment in Transportation Asset
Management Systems and Practices to offer detailed guidance on demonstrating ROI in TAM.
NCHRP Research Report 866 is accompanied by a spreadsheet-based tool for calculating the ROI
of an asset management system or process investment that can be adopted by an agency wanting
to evaluate the program-level investments toward GAM. (Additional information about this
report and a link to download the accompanying spreadsheet tool are available from the NCHRP
Research Report 866 webpage at www.trb.org.)

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

Findings and Applications   23  

The existing research on TAM implementation discusses agency benefits in terms of changes
in O&M cost or changes in data collection, processing cost, and analysis cost. The GAM Imple-
mentation Manual provides guidance for using these categories when making comparisons
between an incorporation of GAM into the TAM program.

3.5 Taxonomy and Definitions for GAM

3.5.1 Taxonomy Introduction
The research objective for this project indicated the need to provide a definition and tax-
onomy of geotechnical assets that will support communication and comparability among
DOTs. Chapter 5 of the GAM Implementation Manual discusses the recommended taxonomy
for GAM in detail. The taxonomy is based on guidance presented by Anderson et al. (2016), who
researched and presented a geotechnical taxonomy for transportation infrastructure assets with
the goal to facilitate communication and advancement in the management of both geotechnical
and transportation assets. The taxonomy also considers definitions that align with current state
of practice with TAM and the requirements of MAP-21. This includes terminology such as ele-
ments used in the FHWA Specification for the National Bridge Inventory (2014b). The proposed
GAM taxonomy also is similar in structure to the general taxonomy used for geotechnical assets
managed by Highways England and Network Rail. This commonality in taxonomy can enable
communication and comparability both among domestic DOTs and with the existing interna-
tional practice. As noted by Anderson et al. (2016), the purpose of the proposed taxonomy was
to clarify language and ideas so that geotechnical engineers, practitioners of other disciplines,
and asset managers can communicate effectively within an organization and between different
organizations.
Figure 3.1 presents the development of GAM taxonomy presented in Chapter 5 of the GAM
Implementation Manual. Detailed discussion on the distinctions within the taxonomy are pro-
vided in the manual and are not reproduced here for brevity.

3.5.2 Role of Agency Boundary in GAM Taxonomy

Based on information from the DOT case studies, most agencies treat geotechnical assets in a
reactive manner once there is a known threat or consequence to safety or operations. Addition-
ally, asset boundary or ROW considerations often are secondary, as the primary actions relate to
specific performance impacts. For example, agencies will treat a rockfall originating from natural
slopes beyond the ROW similarly to an event that occurs within the ROW. Likewise, some assets
that are adjacent to the ROW but owned by others (e.g., private retaining walls) can significantly
impact the operations of an asset.
The need to consider ROW or agency asset boundaries can be a distinguishing condition for
geotechnical assets, as most bridge and pavement assets under existing asset management plans
are easily recognized as being within the ROW or easement boundaries of the agency. For these
types of assets within the ROW boundary, the agency has control over how they are built, main-
tained, and managed, in addition to full access rights. Clear expectations for both ownership
and O&M responsibility also exist for assets that are clearly identified as being within the ROW.
As a result, the GAM Implementation Manual recommends consideration of geotechnical asset
location relative to the ROW as a distinction in the GAM taxonomy in addition to investment and
risk management prioritization steps. Geotechnical features beyond the ROW are likely related
to natural hazard sites (in contrast to designed and constructed transportation assets), so the
deterioration and event details of these features can differ from those of the constructed assets
inside the ROW. Access and ownership constraints also may limit the ability of an agency to

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

24   Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

Figure 3.1.   Recommended taxonomy for GAM.

manage these sites using the same design, maintenance, rehabilitation, or replacement treat-
ment concepts that are applied to geotechnical assets in the ROW. Given these considerations,
an agency generally has limited control over the factors that contribute to asset deterioration or
events precipitated by beyond-the-ROW features, but must address the consequences once an
event occurs that affects operations and assets within the ROW.
The management approaches used for beyond-the-ROW features can mature as an agency’s
GAM implementation evolves. In the United Kingdom, for example, agencies have primarily
focused GAM on assets within the ROW. Following several years of established GAM experi-
ence for these assets, in 2017 Network Rail identified management approaches to beyond-the-
ROW features as an area for future process improvements. The taxonomy used in the GAM
Implementation Manual and the GAM Planner has been constructed to build in the distinction
by designating geotechnical assets that occur “within the ROW” or geotechnical features that
occur “beyond the ROW.” For purposes of GAM planning, it is helpful to think of assets as being
within-the-ROW things (assets built and owned by the agency), whereas beyond-the-ROW
features are something else (i.e., natural features or assets owned by someone else).

3.5.3 Defining a Geotechnical Asset Segment

Due to the variable geographic extents of geotechnical assets, the GAM Implementation Manual
recommends the use of the term “segment” as a means for standardizing asset location practices.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

Findings and Applications   25  

This use of the term is not unique to geotechnical assets, and the location references for all assets
can have differing levels of complexity depending on agency data resources, capabilities, tech-
nology, and the precision needed for decision-making. In general, three methods of location
referencing can be used simultaneously, depending on data management functions, including:
• One-dimensional (1-D) location referencing in relation to a known location such as a mile
point or offset point from stationing;
• Two-dimensional (2-D) shape referencing using X and Y lateral dimensions, similar to a
polygon outline on a plan view; and
• Three-dimensional (3-D) referencing, which extends 2-D referencing by incorporating an
elevation (Z-dimension).
Although location precision is valuable in certain applications, an agency starting GAM
implementation can use an existing agency location referencing system (e.g., mile point, mile
marker, or reference point system). This approach also is supported in established TAM prac-
tices for other assets.
In 2014, the FHWA issued guidance for all states to develop an All Roads Network of Linear
Referenced Data (ARNOLD). Within this guidance, two approaches are discussed for creating
1-D linear location references: route-based networks and segment-based networks (FHWA 2014a).
A route-based network includes the route and milepost information and is considered the more
traditional form of linear referencing. A segment-based (or segmented) reference system is more
commonly used with GIS-based referencing systems and involves designating segments that can
be either fixed in length or defined by lengths between roadway system features such as inter­
sections and interchanges.
Within the practice of pavement management (which involves continuous linear assets), data
collection intervals often are standardized at intervals or segments of 1/10 mile. The pavement
management system then aggregates data into management sections and performs analysis
at this level. Segment-based referencing also has been used in establishing GAM programs in
Alaska, Montana, and Colorado, and is used internationally within the Network Rail and High-
ways England GAM programs.
As discussed in Chapter 2 of the GAM Implementation Manual and applied in the GAM Plan-
ner, a default segment length of 500 feet (approximately 0.1 mile) is recommended. The GAM
Planner user function allows the asset manager to change this value if desired. Shorter segment
lengths will result in more assets and complexity, whereas greater lengths can result in a more
granular inventory. For geotechnical assets that are longer than one segment, additional seg-
ments can be added (e.g., two segments = 1,000 feet of asset length); users can assess the total
asset length along the roadway by combining segments if needed. Chapter 2 of the manual dis-
cusses this process and provides supporting figures to explain the concept in detail.

3.6 Data and Data Management

For an agency starting GAM, data will be available that have been collected as an outcome
of activities such as inventory, measurement and reporting, and financial planning. Because
each agency will have different practices for data and data management, the GAM Implementa-
tion Manual does not contain a recommended best practice. Rather, Chapter 6 of the manual
introduces the data and data management concepts that can support GAM implementation,
such as data types and function, sources of data, methods of collection, level of detail, and geo-
referencing concepts. Chapter 6 also presents summaries of information from international and
NCHRP reports that represent the range in available frameworks and guidance for data and
data management.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

26   Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

Based on the research team’s synthesis of case study interviews, data and data management
aspects of GAM were identified as potential barriers to implementation success because of their
perceived complexity, the need for training in new concepts, and the variability of existing
agency systems and practices. To overcome these potential barriers, the GAM implementation
framework and GAM Planner were developed to minimize the complexity of initial data man-
agement, thus allowing agencies starting GAM to focus on implementation without having to
expend time, energy, or training resources learning new or difficult data management concepts
or software programs.
To make it easier for agencies to start GAM as soon as possible, the research team also opted
to formulate the GAM Planner and GAM implementation framework by adapting existing TAM
practices. This approach does not require up-front investments to enhance or change an agency-
specific data management system prior to starting GAM. It is suggested that implementation of
GAM begin at a simple level of maturity using the GAM Planner in conjunction with a simple
level of data collection processes. Once GAM has started, the data from the GAM Planner can
be integrated into the agency’s enterprise data systems if justified by ROI.

3.7 Processes for Enabling GAM Implementation Success

The GAM Implementation Manual provides for the user to further develop knowledge of the
supporting concepts at a separate pace after starting a basic implementation. Even with a partial
inventory, once the GAM process has started, an asset manager and agency have the flexibility
to further develop the GAM program and outcomes based on justified investments and execu-
tive support.
To enable these process improvements to occur, Chapter 7 of the manual presents a detailed
introduction to risk and risk management concepts and includes background on their connec-
tions to GAM. The synthesis of case studies suggested that training on the topic of risk would be
beneficial for enabling risk-based GAM, as formal risk and risk management practices are not
routine across agencies and disciplines.
In Chapter 8, the GAM Implementation Manual develops the concepts for risk management
and TAM investment practices into a flexible guidance framework an agency can use to realize
the benefits of GAM under different levels of engagement and investment. The implementation
guidance in Chapter 8 has been presented purposely as a flexible process that is adaptable to the
people, processes, and data in each agency. In order to improve the potential for successful GAM
implementation, Chapter 8 provides guidance for agencies to:
• Consider differing organizational structures,
• Prioritize treatments based on risk and investment criteria,
• Incorporate GAM in design, and
• Implement training and/or develop an agency-specific GAM plan document.

3.7.1 Considering Organizational Structures for GAM

The research team’s review of the organizational structures of successful TAM and GAM
programs indicated that the individuals responsible for these programs have full-time or nearly
full-time assignments to asset management and are not assigned to overlapping design or con-
struction duties. Asset management staff focus almost entirely on asset management and have
organizational connections to executives, financial directors, and/or maintenance managers
within the agency. Based on the structures of the existing and mature asset management pro-
grams examined, the research team recommends this type of organizational structure as an
aspirational structure for a new GAM program.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

Findings and Applications   27  

The staff organization structure for existing TAM programs varies by DOT, but typically
involves some form of a senior-level enterprise asset manager working in parallel with or within
other functional disciplines, such as design, construction, O&M, financial, and administration.
For development of the GAM Implementation Manual, it was anticipated that most DOTs would
not be able to formally establish a high-functioning GAM implementation team at the start of
GAM implementation. In these situations, the manual indicates that a GAM implementation
team can be as simple as a single individual who starts the inventory and assessment process
using the accompanying GAM Planner. At this level, this could be a duty added to the existing
TAM function of staff within the engineering or geotechnical design divisions, incorporated
into bridge or pavement management groups, or even within the maintenance and operations
function.
The GAM Implementation Manual emphasizes the cross-disciplinary nature of asset man-
agement, which is supported through the review of existing TAM programs and information
contained in IIMM (IPWEA 2015). As presented in the manual, the staff dedicated to a GAM
program should expect to interact with other disciplines within an agency, including:
• O&M staff, to understand work performed or needed for geotechnical assets;
• Budget and financial planning staff, for development of short- and long-term financial plans;
• Traffic and safety staff, to understand what opportunities exist for measuring the traffic dis-
ruption or potential safety incidents that result from adverse geotechnical asset performance;
• Enterprise IT or other agency staff responsible for tracking expenses associated with
geotechnical assets (this may also be a function of O&M staff);
• TAM and other planning staff charged with asset management and strategic performance
planning;
• Engineering and project delivery staff who are involved in design or influential decisions for
geotechnical assets;
• Data management and/or GIS staff, for developing compatibility with established data
systems and improving communication of results through mapping or geo-referenced
data systems used by the organization;
• Other asset groups, such as bridge and pavement, that can support cross-asset management
options; and
• Executive management, for agreement on performance objectives, building consensus, and
program support.
To assist with building consensus and communication, the GAM Implementation Manual
suggests a geotechnical asset manager form a cross-disciplinary GAM working group or steering
group that enables the cross-disciplinary relationships necessary to support GAM. The purposes
for such a working group include:
• Developing a wider base of support in the agency,
• Sharing of information, and
• Coordination with other activities that influence asset management, and developing the
business cases for GAM across several disciplines.

3.7.2 Prioritizing Treatments Based on Risk and Investment Criteria

The case study synthesis indicates that only a few DOTs currently fund some form of GAM
program, and for those that do, the investment amounts do not achieve desired needs. For
the remaining DOTs, funding for GAM occurs as a course of standard reactive maintenance
activities or unplanned encumbrances from existing budgets. Information from the successful
and long-standing GAM programs in the United Kingdom indicates that investment needs
exceed available funds, even for a mature program. As a result, prioritization approaches
are beneficial within a GAM program to ensure that the program satisfies the most pressing

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

28   Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

investment needs. Simply stating a program-level investment need that shows a favorable ROI
does not guarantee enabling program funding, given that every asset group is likely in a similar
investment need condition. Additionally, bridge and pavement asset management programs
will have federally authorized requirements that must be followed and a new program, such
as GAM, will need to demonstrate the benefits that will result from a reallocation of limited
funds within an agency.
To overcome the challenge of limited funds for GAM implementation, the GAM Implemen-
tation Manual presents risk and investment prioritization steps directed at the asset or project
level to identify specific candidate projects. The goal of this prioritization process is to develop
shelf-ready treatment projects that could be delivered based on some level of partial GAM pro-
gram funding. This process is conceptualized in Figure 3.2 (which also appears in Chapter 8 of
the GAM Implementation Manual). Like the general implementation approach of Chapter 8, this
project-level prioritization process should not be viewed as a rigid series of steps; rather, it offers
flexible options to consider that may enable GAM acceptance—and, ultimately, investment
support—from executives. The treatment projects can involve efforts to maintain, rehabilitate,
or reconstruct geotechnical assets, and they can be structured at different levels of investment.
The details of the prioritization process developed in Chapter 8 are:
• Inventory and Assessment: Select candidate assets for project-level treatment planning based
on recommendations from the GAM Planner. The GAM Implementation Manual emphasizes
that treatment planning can occur at any time once inventory has started, and it should not be
delayed by a separate goal of inventory completion. To realize the benefits of GAM, agencies
will need to move quickly through the entire TAM process as quickly as possible, and evidence
from existing programs indicates that this can occur with only a partial inventory.
• Risk Management: It is suggested that agencies first evaluate the potential feasibility for man-
agement of risk considering concepts such as treatment, transfer, termination, or acceptance.
This approach, first developed under NCHRP Project 08-93, “Managing Risk Across the
Enterprise” (Proctor et al. 2016), has been published in the first edition of the AASHTO Guide
for Enterprise Risk Management (AASHTO 2016). Based on the assumption that most agen-
cies will follow a practice of risk treatment, the GAM Implementation Manual was developed
to provide guidance for considering a range of asset-specific actions and the resulting risk
and investment considerations for each treatment subcategory (e.g., maintain, rehabilitate,
reconstruct).

Risk Investment
• Investment Needs Management • Concentration Prioritization • Maintain,
• Initial Treatment of Risk Rehabilitate, and
• Treatment • Life-Cycle Cost
Recommendation • Target Risk Levels Reconstruct
Optimization Analysis
• Source of Risk • Benefit-Cost Analysis
• Other Management
Approaches
Inventory and Risk Candidate
Assessment Prioritization Treatments

Note: Restore does not appear as a “candidate treatment” because restoration is triggered only if the asset has failed.

Figure 3.2.   Proposed project-level GAM treatment prioritization process.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

Findings and Applications   29  

• Risk Prioritization: The GAM Implementation Manual presents a discussion of differing pri-
oritization concepts that can be considered when communicating needs with executive stake-
holders who can enable program funding. These risk prioritization areas include selecting
treatment candidates based on concentration of risk, acceptable risk exposure levels, sources
of risk, type of risk, cross-asset risks, critical routes or high-value assets, or risks to outside
compliance needs.
• Investment Prioritization: Candidate projects can be evaluated based on the anticipated
ROI when considering the life-cycle costs and benefits. The GAM Implementation Manual
discusses the processes for life-cycle cost analysis using NPV and cost-benefit analysis to
identify those treatment projects with the greatest ROI. Within this process, the manual also
suggests evaluating opportunities for cross-asset collaboration as a means to realize benefits
from shared investments across asset groups.
• Candidate Treatments: The success of GAM implementation will depend on having the
flexibility to adjust to differing levels of investment capacity, agency risk tolerance, and per-
formance. Using the prioritization process described in the manual, the asset manager can
identify and develop candidate projects with differing investment needs that are data driven,
that consider differing levels of risk and performance benefits, and that can adapt to agency
TAM culture.

3.7.3 Incorporating GAM in Design

Most established and long-standing design methods for geotechnical assets have been devel-
oped based on safety margin and reliability concepts. Because these methods were established
before the development of asset management practices, the focus of the safety and reliability
framework is generally directed at complete asset failure or total loss of service life. Conse-
quently, the incorporation of asset management considerations during the design process of new
geotechnical assets is an important step in a GAM implementation. The GAM Implementation
Manual presents a series of questions and guidance to enable geo-professionals to incorporate
asset management considerations into the design practice.

3.7.4 Training Considerations for GAM Implementation

Both the case study and literature synthesis indicated that training in asset management con-
cepts would be beneficial for those starting GAM programs. Suggested training topics include:
• Introduction to TAM;
• Introduction to GAM and the GAM Implementation Manual, including:
–– Purpose and need for GAM;
–– Implementing GAM (including discussion of the list of steps and model in Chapter 2 of
the manual);
–– Linking TAM to GAM;
–– Examples of GAM practices;
–– Getting started; and
–– Overview of the GAM Planner, with examples;
• Risk and risk management; and
• Life-cycle cost analysis.

3.7.5 Developing a GAM Plan Document

The GAM Implementation Manual differentiates between GAM implementation, which con-
sists of the processes that enable asset management, and a GAM Plan, which is simply the docu-
ment or other means of communication used to summarize the processes of the program. Given

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

30   Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

this distinction, an agency does not need to develop a GAM plan prior to GAM implementation.
Evidence from the long-standing GAM programs for highway and rail agencies in the United
Kingdom indicates that asset management plans are regularly updated documents that sum-
marize performance and present process improvements over prior plans. For example, “The
Earthworks Policy for Network Rail” was issued first in 2011, well after GAM implementation
had started. The current plan document is the seventh issue, which was released in March 2017.
For an agency starting GAM, the GAM Implementation Manual recommends that the initial
GAM plan be a brief document that can function as a communication tool directed at maintain-
ing the connection with executive and TAM representatives while emphasizing the benefits of
GAM across the spectrum of all transportation assets.
The manual presents a framework for a GAM plan that is directed toward gaining executive
and TAM stakeholder support through communication of risk acceptance levels and identifying
“quick wins” that create investment benefits and value to the agency. Appendix F to the GAM
Implementation Manual (available online) provides an example annotated outline for a simple
GAM plan document. The framework and outline follow the TAM steps of plan objectives and
measures, inventory and condition, gap analysis, life-cycle cost and risk management analysis,
and financial planning and investment. The framework also includes example objectives and
measures that could be adopted for an agency starting GAM using the GAM Implementation
Manual and accompanying GAM Planner.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

CHAPTER 4

Conclusions and
Suggested Research

4.1 Conclusions
As a general conclusion, applying TAM concepts to geotechnical assets is a beneficial process
for managing life-cycle risk, performance, and investment for assets such as embankments,
slopes, retaining walls, and subgrades. Fortunately, information from the few long-term
and sustainable GAM programs in other countries and from existing infrastructure systems
indicates that state transportation agencies can be confident of the benefits without hav-
ing to undertake new research or implement untested processes and systems. It is certainly
possible for agencies to start implementing GAM now regardless of investment capacity
and expertise.
For an agency to begin recognizing the benefits of incorporating geotechnical assets into
TAM, it is suggested that the primary goal should be starting GAM implementation and pro-
gressing inventoried assets through the TAM steps without delay. Evidence from currently
successful GAM programs indicates that benefits are possible without having to first complete
the asset inventory or finalize all the processes and data systems that support implementation.
Rather, agencies can benefit from starting with a simple asset management strategy and relying
on justified process improvements with time. This approach is both preferred and supported by
evidence from successful programs. In the United Kingdom, Network Rail’s inventory comple-
tion took more than 11 years, and the first GAM policy document was not released until almost
6 years after the start of the program.
The implementation framework developed for this project is structured to encourage agencies
to begin GAM implementation. The approach is intended to trigger engagement for performing
GAM without requiring a high level of motivation or technical ability. Cross-industry research
indicates the importance of considering the components that underpin motivation and the
ability to succeed at a new task. Considering these factors is essential to increasing the likelihood
that the necessary behaviors will be adopted. This is not a reflection on the individuals who may
undertake GAM, but rather a recognition of the challenges of implementing new processes and
efforts in complex organizations consisting of individuals who already have high demands on
their time and resources.
Once GAM implementation has started and initial treatment recommendations have been
developed, geotechnical assets will still need to compete for investment among the other asset
groups and programs of the DOT. Thus, treatment planning is necessary to identify project-level
options that incorporate the range of risk and investment priorities that are of interest to agency
executives. The recently published NCHRP Research Report 885: Guide to Creating and Sustain-
ing a Culture of Innovation for Departments of Transportation provides many helpful suggestions
(Lorenz et al. 2018).

31  

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

32   Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

4.2 Suggested Research

The objective of this research was to produce an implementation manual for developing a
GAM program. Once empirical data obtained through the actual execution of GAM imple-
mentation across the United States are made available, there likely will be several future research
directives that can support process improvement in GAM programs. As a result, maintaining an
emphasis on starting implementation is a strongly recommended outcome from this project as
implementation results are necessary for guiding future research.
To support the initiation of implementation across DOTs and across varying geologic
terrains, suggested future research could focus on actions that can increase motivation and ability
for GAM. Suggested topics for research and the connection to motivation and ability are:

4.2.1 Motivation
• Developing acceptance for GAM through existing federal and state programs: A federal
mandate or other authorization that would create a strong motivation for GAM is not antici-
pated in the near future. Opportunities may exist, however, to increase agency motivation to
begin GAM through process improvements to existing programs. Research into approaches
to adapt existing programs to motivate or incentivize GAM may facilitate a more rapid adop-
tion of GAM across the nation.
• Developing a national database for sharing of geotechnical asset performance: Like the
National Bridge Inventory, a national inventory of geotechnical assets could be researched
and developed to enable information sharing among agencies. This process would increase
motivation for agencies to participate in GAM based on a need to stay current with trends in
national practice.
• Incorporation of federally supported guidelines for ROW considerations in GAM: For
many agencies, treatment of features beyond the ROW has been approximately equivalent
to treatment of assets within the ROW. This legacy approach is a worthy action that likely
contributes favorably to the reputation of an agency; however, a direct cost trade-off exists
for agencies that voluntarily undertake 100 percent of the financial liability for management
of features beyond the agency boundary. Additionally, even though the operational conse-
quences can be equivalent, the treatments and risk management approaches chosen to address
features beyond the ROW may be different. Thus, agencies can benefit from standard guid-
ance for managing geologic hazards and natural slopes beyond the ROW. This topic also has
been identified as a performance improvement topic for the established GAM programs in
the United Kingdom. It is anticipated that research into this topic may provide motivation
for GAM at the executive levels of agencies by identifying opportunities for additional risk-
sharing or funding options.
• Treatment of natural hazard risk sources: For many agencies, recovery from natural hazard
events such as flood-induced ground movements or landslides following extreme weather
events has been considered equivalent to adverse events for geotechnical assets within the
ROW. However, natural hazard risk is not unique to geotechnical assets, as all agency assets
can be impacted by natural hazards. DOTs would benefit from research that establishes guid-
ance for management of risk that originates from natural hazard sources, whether rockfall
from natural features beyond the ROW or regional events such earthquakes and floods. Simi-
lar to ROW considerations in GAM, this topic is anticipated to generate motivation among
executives who are interested in identifying opportunities to improve cost recovery and
reduce risk.
• Developing practical guidance for risk management of geotechnical assets: By default and
through legacy practices, agencies typically manage the risks related to geotechnical assets
through acceptance or treatment. However, other management options (e.g., “transfer,”

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

Conclusions and Suggested Research    33  

“terminate,” or “take advantage of”) could be considered. A synthesis of case histories and
recommendations advancing risk management approaches that offer alternatives to the legacy
approaches could benefit GAM implementation. This research might increase motivation
among executives by providing actionable guidance for new risk management approaches on
geotechnical assets.

4.2.2 Ability/Simplicity
• Model development to support use of the GAM Planner and deterioration estimates: The
GAM Planner that accompanies the GAM Implementation Manual contains default models
for common asset types in a DOT GAM program. The manual also enables agencies to develop
additional GAM Planner models based on agency-specific subject matter expertise and judg-
ment. Research toward deterioration rates for geotechnical assets would be beneficial in
improving GAM Planner modeling accuracy and treatment recommendations. This research
would increase the simplicity of GAM by providing geotechnical asset managers increased
confidence in model outcomes without having to undertake separate research programs.
• Incorporation of UK geotechnical asset performance results: The GAM programs for high-
way and rail networks in the United Kingdom present an opportunity to accelerate model
reliability for embankment and slope assets in domestic GAM programs. These international
programs have several years of geotechnical asset performance data that are enabling process
improvements in the Markov Models for UK geotechnical assets. The value and applicability
of these data should be evaluated to enable the GAM maturity advancements to occur
rapidly for similar U.S. geotechnical assets. This research could save money for domestic
agencies through the incorporation of useful data for similar assets while simplifying model
development.
• Measuring performance for geotechnical assets using automated or other simple collec-
tion methods: The rapid pace of technological advancement is enabling DOTs to measure
system performance through automated means. For example, many DOTs can precisely mea-
sure traffic volume and disruptions using enterprise-level software systems. The resulting data
can be valuable for measuring distributions that are attributed to geotechnical asset perfor-
mance and can be obtained with less effort than manual techniques. Alternatively, remote
sensing and emerging photogrammetric and satellite technology is enabling historical mea-
surement of ground movements. Research into these topics may enable simplicity in GAM
through the availability of low-cost regional data coverage that saves time in the asset manage-
ment process.
• Life-cycle cost analysis for geotechnical assets: Research toward approaches that improve
reliability in NPV and benefit-cost models would be valuable for supporting the financial
planning and investment steps described in a GAM plan document. As life-cycle cost analysis
is not a common practice among geo-professionals, research that enables this process to occur
at a low ability level would be beneficial.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

References

AASHTO. 2011. AASHTO Transportation Asset Management Guide: A Focus on Implementation. American Asso-
ciation of Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
AASHTO. 2016. AASHTO Guide for Enterprise Risk Management. American Association of Highway and Trans-
portation Officials, Washington, D.C.
Anderson, S. A., M. J. Vessely, and T. Ortiz. 2017. “Communication and Management of Geotechnical Risks to
Transportation Performance Objectives.” In: Geo-Risk 2017: Reliability-Based Design and Code Developments.
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, pp. 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784480724.026.
Anderson, S. A., V. R. Schaefer, and S. C. Nichols. 2016. “Taxonomy for Geotechnical Assets, Elements, and
Features.” In: Transportation Research Board 95th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers. Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 16 pp.
Bründl, M., H. E. Romang, N. Bischof, and C. M. Rheinberger, 2009. “The Risk Concept and Its Application
in Natural Hazard Risk Management in Switzerland.” Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, Vol. 9,
No. 801. European Geosciences Union: Copernicus Publications, Göttingen, Germany.
Connelly, E. B., H. Thorisson, L. J. Valverde, Jr., and J. H. Lambert. 2016. “Asset Risk Management and Resilience
for Flood Control, Hydropower, and Waterways.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A:
Civil Engineering. Committee on Technical Advancement, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2014a. All Public Road Geospatial Representation Study All Road
Network of Linear Referenced Data (ARNOLD) Reference Manual. U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, D.C. Online: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/documents/arnold_
reference_manual_2014.pdf (accessed April 26, 2018).
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2014b. Specification for the National Bridge Inventory, Bridge Elements.
FHWA website: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/131216_a1.pdf.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2018. Transportation Asset Management Plans. FHWA website:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/plans.cfm (accessed January 15, 2018).
Fogg, B. J. 2009. “A Behavior Model for Persuasive Design.” In: Persuasive ’09: Proceedings of the 4th Interna-
tional Conference on Persuasive Technology (April 26–29, 2009, Claremont, CA). ACM, New York, NY.
Doi: 10.1145/1541948.1541999.
Hurst, K. S. 1999. Engineering Design Principles, 1st ed. Butterworth-Heinemann (Elsevier): London, UK, 168 pp.
Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia (IPWEA). 2015. International Infrastructure Management
Manual, 5th ed. National Asset Management Steering (NAMS) Group, Wellington, NZ.
International Standards Organization (ISO). 2018. ISO 55000:2014(en). Asset Management—Overview,
Principles, and Terminology. ISO website https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:55000:ed-1:v2:en:term:3.2.1
(accessed January 15, 2018).
Lorenz, J., et al. 2018. NCHRP Research Report 885: Guide to Creating and Sustaining a Culture of Innovation
for Departments of Transportation. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of Science,
Engineering, and Medicine, Washington, D.C.
Network Rail. 2017. Earthworks Asset Policy (March 2017). Network Rail Infrastructure Limited.
Perry, J. G., M. Pedley, and K. Brady. 2003. Infrastructure Cuttings: Condition Appraisal and Remedial Treatment.
Publication C591. Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London, UK.
Perry, J. G., M. Pedley, and M. Reid. 2003. Infrastructure Embankments—Condition Appraisal and Remedial
Treatment, 2nd ed. Publication C592. Construction Industry Research and Information Association,
London, UK.
Power, C., D. Patterson, D. Rudrum, D. Wright. 2012. “Geotechnical Asset Management for the UK Highways
Agency,” In: T. A. Radford (ed.), Earthworks in Europe. Geological Society of London, London, UK. Doi:
10.1144/EGSP26.

34

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

References  35  

Proctor, G., S. Varma, and J. Roorda. 2016. Managing Risk Across the Enterprise: A Guidebook for State
Departments of Transportation. Contractor’s Final Report, NCHRP Project 08-93. Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.
Spy Pond Partners, LLC, HDR, Inc., and H. Cohen. 2018. NCHRP Research Report 866: Return on Investment
in Transportation Asset Management Systems and Practices. Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, Washington, DC.
Thompson, P. D. 2017. Geotechnical Asset Management Plan, Technical Report. Report STP000S(802)(B).
Prepared for the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Juneau, AK.
UK Roads Liaison Group. 2013. Highway Infrastructure Asset Management Guidance Document. London,
UK. Department for Transport. Online:http://www.ukroadsliaisongroup.org/download.cfm/docid/
5C49F48E-1CE0-477F-933ACBFA169AF8CB (accessed April 27, 2018).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2013. Best Practices in Asset Management. Report 2013-R-08. Institute
for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alexandria, VA.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2014. Safety of Dams – Policies and Procedures. Regulation No. 1110-2-1156.
Online: http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerRegulations/
ER_1110-2-1156.pdf.
Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF). 2018. Life Cycle Costing Tool. Online: http://simple.werf.org/
simple/media/LCCT/index.html (accessed April 27, 2018).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

Appendices (Available Online)

Two appendix documents accompany this research overview. Together with the appendix
documents and tools that accompany Volume 2 (the GAM Implementation Manual), they are
available for download from the NCHRP Research Report 903 web page at www.trb.org. The
complete list of documents and tools is:
• NR903_V1_Appendices.pdf
This file contains the two appendix files that accompany Volume 1. Appendix A summarizes
the literature review prepared during the research, and Appendix B presents the outline used
for the case study interviews.
• NR903_V2_Appendices.pdf
This file contains the seven appendix files that accompany Volume 2:
–– Appendix A: Using the GAM Planner,
–– Appendix B: GAM Inventory Start Example,
–– Appendix C: GAM Model Formulation,
–– Appendix D: Geotechnical Asset Condition and Level-of-Risk Examples,
–– Appendix E: GAM Asset-Level Net Present Value Framework Worksheet,
–– Appendix F: GAM Plan Outline, and
–– Appendix G: GAM Implementation Barrier Mitigation Strategy Matrix.
• NR903_GAM_Planner.xlsm
This file contains the spreadsheet-based (Microsoft Excel) tool. User information for the GAM
Planner is provided in Volume 2, Appendix A.
• NR903_NPV_Template.xlsx
This file contains a spreadsheet-based (Microsoft Excel) worksheet template for a life-cycle
cost investment analysis tool. The template supports the process of selecting project-level
treatment alternatives in GAM and can be used for investment-based treatment alternative
analysis that considers asset or project life-cycle costs including design, O&M, and any poten-
tial rehabilitation or reconstruction treatments. User information for the NPV Template
appears in Volume 2, Appendix E.
• NR903_GAM_Training_Slides.pptx
This file contains a slide-based presentation (created in Microsoft PowerPoint) that can be
used during training for GAM.
A technical memorandum on the implementation of the research findings also is available and
can be accessed separately using a link on the NCHRP Project 24-46 webpage: http://apps.trb.org/
cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4065.

36

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TDC Transit Development Corporation
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

Washington, DC 20001
500 Fifth Street, NW
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.