Estimating and Contracting Rock Slope Scaling Adjacent To Highways. NCHRP 555 (NAP)

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25824 SHARE

   
Estimating and Contracting Rock Slope Scaling Adjacent to

Highways (2020)
DETAILS
88 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-48146-5 | DOI 10.17226/25824
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK Darren L. Beckstrand, Aine E. Mines, Benjamin A. George, Brent A. Black,
Landslide Technology; National Cooperative Highway Research Program;
Transportation Research Board; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
FIND RELATED TITLES Medicine
SUGGESTED CITATION
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2020. Estimating and

Contracting Rock Slope Scaling Adjacent to Highways. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25824.

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientific reports

– 10% off the price of print titles
– Email or social media notifications of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Estimating and Contracting Rock Slope Scaling Adjacent to Highways
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 SYNTHESIS 555

Estimating and Contracting
Rock Slope Scaling Adjacent
to Highways
A Synthesis of Highway Practice
Darren L. Beckstrand
Aine E. Mines
Benjamin A. George
Brent A. Black
Landslide Technology
Portland, OR
Subscriber Categories
Highways • Geotechnology
Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
2020
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP SYNTHESIS 555

RESEARCH PROGRAM
Systematic, well-designed, and implementable research is the most Project 20-05, Topic 50-13
effective way to solve many problems facing state departments of ISSN 0547-5570
transportation (DOTs) administrators and engineers. Often, highway ISBN 978-0-309-48146-5
problems are of local or regional interest and can best be studied by Library of Congress Control Number 2020936894
state DOTs individually or in cooperation with their state universities
© 2020 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transporta-
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. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 ini- written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
tiated an objective national highway research program using modern published or copyrighted material used herein.
scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
FTA, GHSA, NHTSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice.
full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration
It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and
(FHWA), United States Department of Transportation, under Agree- not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or
ment No. 693JJ31950003. reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to Cover figure: Active Rock Slope Scaling above U.S. Highway 2 near Libby, Montana.
Photo courtesy of Benjamin George.
administer the research program because of TRB’s recognized objectivity
and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited
for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive com-
mittee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation NOTICE
subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to
cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, univer- procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved
sities, and industry; TRB’s relationship to the National Academies is an by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of special- The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
ists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
directly to those in a position to use them. Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; the
FHWA; or the program sponsors.
The program is developed on the basis of research needs iden-
tified by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
transportation departments, by committees of AASHTO, and by and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein
the FHWA. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
Special Committee on Research and Innovation (R&I), and each year
R&I’s recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Direc-
tors and the National Academies. Research projects to address these
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 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

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. John L. Anderson 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 provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through
trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The
Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,000 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.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP SYNTHESIS 555

Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Jo Allen Gause, Senior Program Officer
Deborah Irvin, Program Coordinator
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Natalie Barnes, Associate Director of Publications
NCHRP PROJECT 20-05 PANEL

Joyce N. Taylor, Maine DOT, Augusta, ME (Chair)
Socorro “Coco” Briseno, California DOT (retired), Sacramento, CA
Anita Bush, Nevada DOT, Carson City, NV
Joseph D. Crabtree, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
Mostafa “Moe” Jamshidi, Nebraska DOT, Lincoln, NE
Cynthia L. Jones, Ohio DOT, Columbus, OH
Jessie X. Jones, Arkansas DOT, Little Rock, AR
Brenda Moore, North Carolina DOT, Raleigh, NC
Ben Orsbon, South Dakota DOT, Pierre, SD
Randall R. “Randy” Park, Avenue Consultants, Bluffdale, UT
Brian Worrel, Iowa DOT, Ames, IA
Jack Jernigan, FHWA Liaison
Jim McDonnell, AASHTO Liaison
Stephen F. Maher, TRB Liaison
TOPIC 50-13 PANEL

Jody C. Kuhne, North Carolina DOT, Asheville, NC
Nicole R. Oester, Colorado DOT, Denver, CO
Krystle J. Pelham, New Hampshire DOT, Barnstead, NH
Daniel Pradel, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
C. Todd Reccord, Ameritech, Asheville, NC
Stephen A. Taliaferro, Ohio DOT, Columbus, OH
Thomas G. Whitman, California DOT, Walnut Creek, CA
Khalid Mohamed, FHWA Liaison
Nancy M. Whiting, TRB Liaison

ABOUT THE NCHRP SYNTHESIS PROGRAM

Highway administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which information
already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and practice. This infor-
mation may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence, full knowledge of what has
been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its solution. Costly research findings
may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked, and due consideration may not be given to
recommended practices for solving or alleviating the problem.
There is information on nearly every subject of concern to highway administrators and engineers.
Much of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their day-
to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evaluating such useful information
and to make it available to the entire highway community, the American Association of State High-
way and Transportation Officials—through the mechanism of the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program—authorized the Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing study.
This study, NCHRP Project 20-05, “Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Problems,” searches
out and synthesizes useful knowledge from all available sources and prepares concise, documented
reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor constitute an NCHRP report series, Synthesis
of Highway Practice.
This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format, without the
detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report in the series provides
a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures found to be the most successful
in resolving specific problems.
FOREWORD
By Jo Allen Gause
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
Rock slope scaling—intentionally removing loose rocks from slopes adjacent to highways—is
widely practiced for the purpose of reducing the risk of dangerous rockfall on the roadway, especially
in mountainous states. This synthesis documents current rock slope scaling practices performed by
state departments of transportation (DOTs).
Information for this study was gathered through a literature review, a survey of state DOTs, and
follow-up interviews with selected agencies. Six case examples provide additional information on
rock slope scaling practices.
Darren L. Beckstrand, Aine E. Mines, Benjamin A. George, and Brent A. Black, of Landslide Tech-
nology, collected and synthesized the information and wrote the report. This synthesis is an imme-
diately useful document that records practices that were acceptable within the limitations of the
knowledge available at the time of its preparation. As progress in research and practice continues,
new knowledge will be added to that now at hand.


CONTENTS
1 Summary
4 Chapter 1 Introduction
4 Role of Rock Slopes Within Transportation Corridors
5 Synthesis Objectives
5 Synthesis Methodology
5 Terminology
8 Report Organization
9 Chapter 2 Literature Review

11 Chapter 3 State of the Practice
11 Questionnaire Respondents
11 Administration of Scaling
13 Design Efforts for Scaling
15 Plans and Specifications for Rock Slope Scaling
24 Lessons Learned
26 Chapter 4 Case Examples

26 California Department of Transportation
27 Colorado Department of Transportation
29 Idaho Transportation Department, District 6
30 New Hampshire Department of Transportation
32 Ohio Department of Transportation
33 Tennessee Department of Transportation
35 Chapter 5 Conclusions and Research Opportunities

35 Conclusions
37 Future Research Opportunities
38 References
40 Appendix A Survey Questionnaire
58 Appendix B Questionnaire Responses
78 Appendix C Example Scaling Plan Sheets Submitted by DOTs
79 Appendix D Example Scaling Specifications and Contractor
Submittals Provided by DOTs
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.


SUMMARY
Estimating and Contracting

Rock Slope Scaling Adjacent
to Highways
The nation’s transportation system has tens of thousands of natural and constructed rock
slopes adjacent to roadways. Over time, these rock slopes deteriorate because of weathering,
freeze/thaw, and other natural processes. These processes loosen rock that can fall onto the
roadway, posing a hazard to its users and increasing risks for transportation agencies. Roads
and highways are frequently closed by rockfall events, inhibiting the free flow of traffic and
commerce. Agencies reduce rockfall hazards and risk in a number of ways. An effective
measure is intentionally removing loose rocks from slopes, or “scaling.” This reduces future
rockfall potential and risk. Despite scaling’s effectiveness and its widely accepted applica-
tion, especially in mountainous areas, there are no standardized guidelines to assist agencies
with planning, estimating, and administering scaling projects.
The objective of this study is to document current rock slope scaling practices adjacent
to highways, as performed by state departments of transportation (DOTs). The informa-
tion was gathered through a literature review and a detailed questionnaire sent to state
DOT geotechnical leads and to the three regional offices of the Federal Lands Highway
division of the Federal Highway Administration. Responses were provided by 42 DOTs
and two Federal Lands Highway division offices; an 81% DOT response rate. Follow-up
interviews with six DOTs provided additional insight regarding scaling practice within
their departments. Not all DOTs regularly perform scaling or have many rock slopes,
therefore filter questions were formulated to permit responding without requiring a full
questionnaire response. Of the 44 respondents, 24 performed enough scaling to respond
to the more detailed questions. These 24 responding DOTs and Federal Lands Highway
division offices are termed “scaling states” in the body of this synthesis.
The survey questionnaire was subdivided into six categories, focusing on: (1) project
administration, (2) design efforts, (3) plans and specifications, (4) administering construc-
tion activities, (5) scaled slope performance, and (6) lessons learned. Each category had
several questions asked, for a total of 31 scaling-specific questions. The major findings of
the survey are categorized as follows.
Project Administration. In general, most scaling projects either are carried out as pro-
grammed construction projects or are emergency responses to rockfall events. Scaling
states reported that a minority of projects are carried out as part of routine maintenance
or as part of other preservation work. Nearly 75% of scaling projects are contracted to
scalers meeting specified minimum qualifications, contracted either directly or through a
general contractor. On-call lists are also used, particularly for emergency response. Only
a very small proportion of scaling projects are awarded to contractors solely on a low-bid
basis, a noteworthy departure from most highway construction projects.
1

2 Estimating and Contracting Rock Slope Scaling Adjacent to Highways
Design Efforts. Most designers employ combinations of, in decreasing frequency of use,
visual roadside review, maintenance activity and observations, up-close observation (via
climbing ropes and boom lifts) of slope features, and newer survey technologies such as
unmanned aerial vehicles or laser scanning. To estimate both scaling debris quantities
and the production rate of scalers, scaling states rely heavily on expert judgment. Many
combine expert judgment with other estimated measures for the unit of measure (e.g.,
volume or weight per unit area) for scaling debris. A wide range of “reasonable” produc-
tion rates were indicated, from 50 to 800 square feet per hour, though the most common
response indicated that production rates were too variable to specify.
Plans and Specifications. Most scaling states employed a unit of time (hours) as the pay
item for scaling, either for each individual or for the entire crew. Few scaling states report
use of unit volume or area as the unit of payment; none used a lump-sum basis or unit
length. When the time measurement “starts” responses indicate a mix of the scalers ascend-
ing the slope, the beginning of the shift, or when the scaler is in position and ready to scale.
About half of scaling states use separate bid items for various scaling techniques, typically
differentiated by the use of hand techniques versus efforts assisted by heavy equipment.
A number of ancillary support activities are often paid as “scaling,” including labor to sup-
port scaling operations, vegetation removal, bench cleaning, or safety spotting, among other
items. Scaling efforts performed at the request of the contractor (typically for worker safety),
rather than those required in the plans, are most frequently handled on a case-by-case basis.
Plan drawings typically use oblique photographs with scaling extents noted or plan view
drawings with scaling extents shown. Many use a combination of the above, with only a few
indicating scaling extents tabulated by station.
A minority of scaling states do not require any scaler qualifications. Most scaling states
require qualifications for all personnel, the foreman only, or the whole company. Some
include a training/journeyman provision to help with resupplying the workforce. Most
states measure experience by time spent scaling (hours or years) or by a combination of
criteria that includes time spent. Half of the scaling states do not specify completion require-
ments for scaling, while the other half indicated scaling is performed to the satisfaction of
the engineer or until specified performance criteria are met.
Most scaling states rely on contractor-designed temporary roadway protection, which
helps prevent damage to the roadway or ancillary structures that may be struck by falling
rocks. Scaling states also rely heavily on contractor-designed temporary rockfall protec-
tion, which is intended to reduce rockfall-related injury risk. However, most scaling states
provide rockfall protection by temporarily closing the road during scaling activities. Nearly
all scaling states use common concrete barriers, with the most effective protection achieved
using moveable rockfall barriers.
Administrating Scaling During Construction. Inspecting work products during construc-
tion is a common part of highway construction projects, and scaling is not an exception,
despite the typical experience qualifications of the contractor. Most scaling states use a
combination of inspecting staff at ground level without special training, specially trained
staff on-slope using slope access techniques (ropes, boom lift), and specially trained staff
inspecting from the ground surface. Personnel who verify scaling completion are typically
experienced with slope scaling projects, either with or without on-slope verification. About
a third of the scaling states have had completed scaling efforts approved by construction
engineers without scaling experience.
Nearly half of scaling states have used or plan to use new technologies such as laser
scanning, photogrammetry, and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for uses related to

Summary 3
scaling, such as measuring scaling completion and coverage, with two DOTs responding
that they are planning to use the technologies for pay-item measurement.
Scaled Slope Performance. Literature suggests a wide range of scaled slope “life spans,”
based largely on professional experience. About half of the scaling states indicated they
maintain information informally or through job experience. About a third of the scaling
states keep records through maintenance management systems, rockfall management sys-
tems, or state police callout records.
This synthesis identified knowledge gaps in current practices that could be addressed
with research that:
• Gathers key information to supplement experienced-based estimation approaches.
• Prepares decision support tools to help DOTs with selecting which slopes may be eligible
for scaling and subsequent prioritization criteria.
• Identifies methods to manage and document scaler production and performance.
• Establishes criteria for creation of a scaling database to collect data on production rates,
rock quality, slope condition, and challenges overcome.

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Tens of thousands of rock slopes are adjacent to the nation’s highway systems as part of
the transportation network. Together with many additional features, this highway network
permits commerce, facilitates mobility, and contributes to national goals, as stated in FHWA’s
mission statement, to “enable and empower the strengthening of a world-class highway system
that promotes safety, mobility, and economic growth, while enhancing the quality of life of all
Americans.” However, antiquated construction goals and methods often prioritized minimal
excavation quantity and speed of construction over long-term slope stability, leaving states
nationwide with legacies of marginally performing rock slopes. These aging slopes are more
prone to rockfall, posing a hazard to highway users, often requiring unexpected closures, and
necessitating increased efforts from maintenance personnel. Removing loose rocks by means of
scaling increases safety, improves highway resilience and functionality, and maintains highway
assets that were not designed or constructed with the tools available today.
Role of Rock Slopes Within Transportation Corridors

Well-performing rock slopes are important contributors to a functioning and reliable trans-
portation corridor. Poorly performing slopes often produce rockfalls that threaten traffic flow
and pose safety hazards to both the traveling public and the department of transportation
(DOT) personnel (Federal Highway Administration, 1989; Turner and Jayaprakash, 2012).
Recent research has indicated that economic benefits can be realized by DOTs that perform
preventive maintenance on rock slopes, rather than wait for significant failures to close the road:
the “worst-first” approach (Thompson et al., 2016; Beckstrand et al., 2017; Mines et al., 2018;
Anderson et al., 2017; Vessely et al., 2019). Like other transportation infrastructure, rock slope
failures and associated rockfall disrupt highway corridor functionality and increase life-cycle
costs when not properly addressed.
While detailed national data do not exist for rockfall occurrences inhibiting traffic flow,
a review of one DOT maintenance database suggests much higher disruption and maintenance
response frequency, with one 12-mile highway corridor in Alaska (Seward Highway, mile post
104 to mile post 116) recording 248 maintenance call-outs for rockfall between December 2005
and March 2019, a rate of nearly 19 rockfall events annually over the 12-mile segment (Alaska
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, n.d.). This suggests that the contribution
of rock slope performance to corridor functionality and maintenance is significant. By com-
parison, bridge failures have been estimated to occur approximately 128 times annually on a
national basis, disrupting traffic flow and requiring maintenance response (Cook et al., 2015).
Maintaining rock slopes is an important aspect of maintaining corridor functionality, and as
with bridges and pavements, their performance is critical.

Introduction 5
Synthesis Objectives
Frequently, scaling of loose rock from the rock cuts is one of the first activities in both pre-
ventive maintenance programs and rockfall hazard mitigation projects (Andrew and Pierson,
2012; Pierson and Vierling, 2012). Descriptions and applications of rockfall mitigation measures
beyond rock slope scaling can be found in recent comprehensive publications (Wyllie and Mah,
2004; Turner and Schuster, 2012; Wyllie, 2017).
Currently, there are no published design guides, surveys of standard practices, or best
management practices (BMPs) specific to rock slope scaling. This synthesis project is intended
to establish the current state of the practice for slope scaling in use by U.S. departments of
transportation.
This synthesis’s scope was to collect scaling information regarding
• Methods for estimating scaling type and quantity for a project;
• Methods for estimating scaling production rates (e.g., project duration and cost estimation);
• Typical scaling contract plans for contractor bidding;
• Scaling specifications (e.g., contractor qualification requirements, methods used for measure-
ment and payment, and incidentals);
• Typical DOT scaling administration methods (e.g., on-call, design-bid-build, and emergency);
• Typical methods for measuring work projects (e.g., man-hours, volume, and slope face area);
• Approaches to temporary roadway protection and traffic control during scaling activity;
• Methods for determining project completion; and
• Documented methods for assessing scaled slope performance.
Synthesis Methodology
This synthesis used various methodologies to identify how DOTs administer and contract
rock slope scaling projects. These included (1) a literature review of available rock slope design
books, manuals, journal articles, and conference proceedings; (2) an online questionnaire for
geotechnical leads of each state, containing 31 questions specific to scaling practice; and (3) six
case examples from DOTs that feature unique perspectives or programs.
Terminology
As with any specialized field, rock slope scaling employs specific terminology. This section
provides definitions for the common terms that will be used throughout the report. Photographs
of various items were also added to illustrate certain tools or methods.
Scaling. Removing loose rock from a slope using hand tools and/or mechanical equipment.
This is frequently subdivided into hand scaling or heavy scaling, as described below.
Hand or General Scaling. Scaling work performed by scalers on ropes using scaling bars
(Figure 1). In some cases, hand scaling may also be performed from a crane or lift basket,
depending on site conditions. Scaling bars are steel, or aluminum with steel tips for weight
considerations.
Heavy or Intensive Scaling. Concentrated scaling work and/or effort to remove or nearly
remove a specific rock mass or a concentration of loose rocks. Typically, it combines hand
scaling with additional tools, additional time, mechanical scaling, and/or blasting. Some of the
most common pieces of heavy scaling equipment are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 1. Hand scaling via rope access and with

scaling bars. Photograph courtesy of B. Black.
Figure 2. Select equipment used in heavy scaling. Clockwise from top left:
air pillows, hydraulic bottle jack (circled), and “boulder busters.” Photographs
courtesy of B. Black.

Introduction 7
Mechanical Scaling. Scaling performed using heavy equipment such as mobile walking exca-
vators (commonly referred to as “spider excavators”), traditional excavators, or high-reach
excavators (Figure 3). This can also include clearing of benches that have been filled by loose
rock because of deferred maintenance.
Trim Blasting. Small-scale blasting used to remove overhanging or protruding blocks from a
slope. This method is typically followed by scaling efforts to remove any remaining loose rock.
Hydraulic Scaling. A historic scaling method involving the use of pressurized water to remove
loose rock from a slope. This method is typically less effective than scaling performed by a quali-
fied scaling crew, and its use has potential environmental concerns.
Cat-Track Dragging. A historic scaling method involving knocking loose rock from a slope
by dragging cat tracks across a slope face using heavy equipment. This method is typically less
effective than scaling performed by a qualified scaling crew.
Moveable Rockfall Barrier. A temporary barrier used to contain rockfall generated by scaling
activities. In its most common form, such a barrier consists of rockfall mesh stretched between
steel beams mounted on steel plates.
Figure 3. Select equipment used in mechanical scaling. Clockwise from top left: excavator, “spider” excavator,
high-reach excavator. Photographs courtesy of B. Black and C. Hammond.

Safety Scaling. Scaling requested by the scaling contractor that lies outside the contract plans
and specifications.
Temporary Rockfall Protection. Temporary rockfall control measures intended for worker or
public safety, typically intended to prevent uncontrolled runout of scaled debris.
Temporary Roadway Protection. Temporary rockfall control measures intended to protect
against damage to pavement, bridge abutments, or other constructed or sensitive features.
Report Organization
This synthesis of the current state of the practice for rock slope scaling is organized as follows:
Literature Review. The literature review summarizes the currently available recommendations
for scaling project life span, methods, and project components, including any considerations for
project scoping and construction practices.
State of the Practice Questionnaire. The results of the broad 31-question survey sent to leading
geotechnical personnel in various DOTs and federal agencies is presented in this section. Responses
to each question are discussed. The section concludes with a review of the lessons learned by
respondents regarding scaling work in their jurisdictions.
Case Examples. On the basis of their responses to the state of the practice questionnaire,
six departments of transportation were interviewed to provide detailed responses. Geotech
nical specialists from the DOTs for California, Colorado, Idaho, New Hampshire, Ohio, and
Tennessee gave additional insight on their departments’ scaling practices, project manage-
ment, post-project slope assessment, and tracking of project performance over time.
Conclusions and Research Opportunities. Following a review of the information obtained
though the literature review, questionnaire, and case histories, this section provides an overview
of the current state of the practice for rock slope scaling. It describes research opportunities to
address knowledge gaps identified by the synthesis and highlights possible next steps for research
to improve on the current state of the practice.
Appendices. This synthesis contains four appendices. Appendix A contains the survey as
presented to each respondent, while Appendix B contains their anonymized responses. Each
respondent had the opportunity to upload example scaling plan sheets and specifications, and
these are contained in Appendix C and Appendix D, respectively. Example contractor submit-
tals, redacted to remove identifying information, are provided in Appendix D for select states.

CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
This synthesis project included a review of the limited published literature on rock slope
scaling. Identified sources included textbooks, workshop manuals, and conference presenta-
tions. Scaling was not a major topic in most of these sources. However, the review nevertheless
identified relevant information on the following topics:
• Typical scaling methods and associated tools.
• Typical life span of a scaling project.
• Interaction between rock slope scaling and other methods of rock slope stabilization/rockfall
control.
• Recommendations for developing scaling specifications.
The broadly accepted definition of rock slope scaling is the removal of loose or potentially
unstable material and rock from a slope (Pierson and Vierling, 2012). Implicit in this statement
is that scaling work only removes those rocks that are already ready to fall. Vegetation removal
(i.e., tree removal) is typically a component of any scaling operation, particularly in highly
vegetated slopes where root-jacking is a concern (Wyllie and Mah, 2004). Multiple methods are
available for completing scaling work, ranging from hand scaling performed by crew members
using pry bars, to mechanical scaling, to trim blasting of selected rock features (Andrew et al.,
2011; Brawner, 1994; Pierson and Vierling, 2012; Wyllie and Mah, 2004). Frequently, multiple
methods are employed at a given site.
Hand scaling may be done alone or in combination with blasting. Mechanical scaling may
augment hand scaling by covering large areas in a shorter amount of time through the use of
long-reach excavators or walking “spider” excavators (Andrew et al., 2011; Brawner, 1994;
George et al., 2016). Within the mechanical scaling category, there are certain methods, such as
hydraulic scaling or cat-track dragging, that have become less common and would still require
hand scaling (Andrew and Pierson, 2012). Small-scale, or trim, blasting is frequently used to
remove a particular rock feature within a larger project area, with post-blast rock removal via
hand scaling (Andrew and Pierson, 2012).
In the reviewed literature, there was broad agreement on the recommendations for worker
safety and safety of the traveling public. For worker safety, scaling is conducted starting from
the crest of the slope to its base. If no additional barriers or forms of protection are in place, then
areas below active scaling areas should be temporarily closed to the public (Andrew and Pierson,
2012; Brawner, 1994; Wyllie and Mah, 2004). In emphasizing the importance of selecting the
appropriate rock removal method, one source noted that once scaling of any large feature has
begun, it should be considered unstable, and the area below should not be reopened until the
feature is removed or otherwise deemed stable (Andrew et al., 2011).
For safety of the traveling public, traffic control is a crucial project component. Complete road
closure below the slope is optimal but is not always achievable. Temporary barriers are also
9

necessary to protect adjacent structures or sensitive areas from rocks that fall during the scaling
operation (Andrew et al., 2011). Design and selection of appropriate rockfall mitigation measures,
such as rock bolts, draped mesh, and rockfall barriers, were discussed in a variety of sources
(Brawner, 1994; Turner and Schuster, 2012; Wyllie, 2017; Wyllie and Mah, 2004).
Throughout the reviewed documents, scaling was identified as a temporary rockfall reduction
measure that must be performed again after some period of time. The range of scaling effective-
ness, in the absence of additional mitigation methods, varied from as low as 3 to 5 years (Wyllie
and Mah, 2004) to 2 to 10 years (Andrew et al., 2011; Andrew and Pierson, 2012; Pierson and
Vierling, 2012), and up to 8 to 15 years (Brawner, 1994). In all of these examples, the durations
were apparently based on author experience as opposed to analysis of consistent data sets, and
the range of effective project life spans may reflect the variation in geology and climate (e.g.,
freeze-thaw cycles, frequency and intensity of storms) between the authors’ regions of expertise.
Although scaling alone is not a permanent solution to a rockfall problem, it is recognized as
a valuable component of routine maintenance or may be used to remove a particular unstable
feature (Pierson and Vierling, 2012). It is also routinely used as the first component of other
rockfall mitigation efforts because it improves site safety (Andrew et al., 2011).
Specific recommendations for developing scaling project specifications were not typically
included in the published literature. One exception, a publication by the National Highway
Institute (Brawner, 1994), the training and education arm of the FHWA, made the following
recommendations for scaling specifications in the Rockfall Hazard Mitigation Methods course:
• Require that the scaling crew has performed similar work satisfactorily.
• Require 2 years’ experience for scalers, and 5 years for the crew foreman.
• Specify construction sequence, crew size, equipment, waste removal plan, and traffic control
plan in construction documents.
• Measure work on a crew-hour basis.
• Require inspection of the face by an engineer after each scaling pass to determine if work
has been completed satisfactorily.
These FHWA recommendations, made in 1994, did not touch on many other scaling-related
contracting issues, such as use of prequalified contractors or methods for measuring scaling
volumes and performance (Brawner, 1994). In addition, results from a questionnaire completed
as part of a workshop convened in 2018 at the 97th TRB Annual Meeting, Managing Highway
Rock Slope Scaling: Design and Construction State of the Practice, indicated that significant
variation in scaling project development and delivery methods persisted (Arndt, 2020). Work-
shop discussions indicated that departments typically continued to approach scaling projects
on a case-by-case basis and were dissatisfied with the continued absence of a broad overview
of the current state of the practice beyond their individual departments.
In the review of books, articles, and manuals conducted for this synthesis, the following senti-
ment appeared to apply: scaling is a well-recognized mitigation technique, but it was treated as
an initial or interim mitigation method and typically received only modest attention before the
writer’s focus moved on to other, more complex rockfall mitigation methods. However, as the
2018 TRB workshop highlighted, quality completion of scaling work lays the foundation for a
successful project and, therefore, warrants the same care given to scoping other rockfall mitiga-
tion techniques.

CHAPTER 3
State of the Practice
The state of the practice detailed in this synthesis was gauged with a questionnaire designed
for completion in about 30 minutes. The questionnaire was administered with an Internet-
based survey tool and disseminated to lead geotechnical personnel in all 50 states; Puerto Rico;
Washington, D.C.; and the Western, Central, and Eastern divisions of the Office of Federal
Lands Highway. Requests for questionnaire responses were made through e-mail, follow-up
e-mails, and telephone calls.
The questionnaire was subdivided into six categories focusing on (1) administering scaling
projects, (2) design efforts, (3) plans and specifications, (4) administering construction activi-
ties, (5) scaled slope performance, and (6) lessons learned. Each category included several ques-
tions, for a total of 31 scaling-specific questions. The state of the practice for each category is
described in the following sections. Appendix A contains the questionnaire, and Appendix B
contains response data.
Questionnaire Respondents
Responses were provided by 42 DOTs and two Federal Lands Highway division offices—
an 80% DOT response rate. Because not all areas possess the topography and geology to benefit
from slope scaling, the survey incorporated two questions that permitted responses while not
requiring excessive time. Of the 44 total respondents, 24 of those performed enough scaling to
respond to the more detailed questions. These 24 responding DOTs and Federal Lands High-
way division offices are termed “scaling states” in the body of this synthesis. Figure 4 presents a
map of these respondents.
Administration of Scaling
Scaling projects are often selected using a variety of methods—some planned and some
unplanned. Requesting the approximate proportions of project selection methods, the survey
indicated that states used two primary project selection approaches for identifying eligible sites
and following through with the scaling work. Responding departments indicated that scaling
projects were selected either through a programmed project selection process, at 37% (e.g.,
a Statewide Transportation Improvement Program [STIP], through a Highway Safety Improve-
ment Program [HSIP]), or through being performed as part of an emergency response following
rockfall events, at 34%. Figure 5 plots survey responses. Notably, all but one responding depart-
ment indicated that they did have some proportion of scaling work that was administered on
an emergency basis.
11

Figure 4. Map of survey respondents.
Two other noteworthy departures from this approach are two states that, either statewide or
regionally, treated scaling mainly as a maintenance activity; those two jurisdictions (California
and Idaho’s District 6) are highlighted in the case examples section.
For contractor qualifications, responding state DOTs and federal land management agencies
required qualifications for more than 75% of their scaling projects, and 20% were contracted
without qualifications. Nearly half of respondents indicated that the scaling contractor that met
the qualification requirements was hired by a general contractor (Figure 6). The qualifications
that the contractor needed to meet were defined in the specifications.
Selection based solely on low bid without qualifications was practiced in only one state, while
three other states split their proportion of scaling contracts without qualifications between an
on-call contractor for emergency response and a scaling subcontractor hired by a general con-
tractor without qualification requirements. Of the 24 scaling states, four states contracted all
scaling work without any qualification requirements. Of the remaining 20, four additional states
contracted between 5% and 40% of their scaling work without qualification requirements.
100 1. Programmed as part of an STIP, HSIP, or other

statewide or regional project candidate
80 2. Performed on an emergency basis following rockfall
events
3. Performed as part of other highway preservation
PERCENTAGE
60 work (paving, minor realignments, major ditch

rehabilitation, guardrail replacements, etc.)
36.5 34.1
40 4. Performed as a routine maintenance exercise
and/or part of a maintenance program
19.0 5. Other
20 8.8
1.7
Number of respondents n = 24
0
1 2 3 4 5
Figure 5. Survey responses for project selection methods.

State of the Practice 13
100 1. Hired by general contractor with qualification

requirements
80 2. Low bid, qualifications of scalers and/or contractor
required
3. Prequalified scaler and/or contractor, on-call list for
PERCENTAGE
60 emergency response
45.1 4. Non-prequalified, on-call list for emergency
40 response
5. Hired by general contractor without qualification
19.0 requirements
20 11.5 10.4
5.6 4.2 4.2 6. Low bid
7. Other
0 Qualification-based selections
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Non-qualification-based selection n = 24
Figure 6. Survey responses for use of contractor qualifications, their contracting,

and selection.
Design Efforts for Scaling

Current publications regarding scaling did not have design criteria outlining how to estimate
scaling efforts, debris quantities, or the types of efforts recommended for designing scaling
plans and specifications (Andrew et al., 2011; Andrew and Pierson, 2012; Pierson and Vierling,
2012). Other recent publications focused on one geographic area with a unique practice and did
not contain data sufficient to build a nationwide data set for scaling metrics (Duffy, 2018).
The questionnaire focused on gauging approaches to determining level of effort for scaling
design, cost estimation efforts, units of measure, and production rates considered “reasonable”
by DOTs.
Nearly all scaling state DOTs appeared to begin design efforts by using roadside visual review
(Figure 7). Maintenance input, providing day-to-day information on location and frequency
of rockfall activity and efforts for ditch maintenance, was used by nearly 60% of scaling states.
It is important to note that some state maintenance management systems and similar systems
may be a data source that is infrequently tapped by geotechnical personnel, but often contains
data on rockfall occurrence (Beckstrand and Mines, 2017). Relatively new techniques involv-
ing photogrammetry or terrestrial lidar scanning were used for nearly 42% of scaling states
(Figure 7). Notes and interviews indicated that the use of this technology was increasing, with
at least one state (Tennessee) indicating that surveys obtained before and after scaling would be
used to measure pay quantities.
100 95.8 1. Roadside visual review by department or consultant

geotechnical design personnel
2. Maintenance activity and observations
80
3. Up-close slope inspection by personnel in boom
PERCENTAGE
58.3 lifts, in crane baskets, or on ropes

60 54.2
4. Advanced laser scanning and/or photogrammetric
41.7 techniques
40 5. Other
20.8
20 n = 24
0
1 2 3 4 5
Figure 7. Design efforts for scaling.

100 1. Expert judgment for rock type and rock quality

2. Volume and area relationships (e.g., ½ yd3 per 100
ft2 of slope to be scaled)
80 3. Other
66.7
4. Unit (vol./weight) production per scaler hour (e.g., ½
PERCENTAGE
60 yd3 per scaler hour)
5. Weight and area relationships (e.g., 1 ton per 100
37.5 ft2 of slope to be scaled)
40
20.8
16.7
20 n = 24
4.2
0
1 2 3 4 5
Figure 8. Methods for estimating scaling debris.
For estimation of scaling debris such as loose rock, soil, and vegetation, there were no published
guidelines or data to help DOTs estimate the volume of debris, or the data set was too narrow
to apply nationally (Andrew et al., 2011; Andrew and Pierson, 2012; Duffy, 2018; Pierson and
Vierling, 2012).
Scaling states relied heavily on expert judgment for estimating scaling debris according to
rock type and quality, with two-thirds of the responses indicating as much (Figure 8). Others
used either volume and area relationships (37%) or relationships between volume or weight and
scaler production rates. Seven states (30% of scaling states) used expert judgment to develop
volume and area relationships, while two states used expert judgment to develop debris removal
estimates based on scaler production rate. One state used weight and area relationships.
The most common method to measure and pay for scaling was through hours (68%, dis-
cussed later). To develop an estimate, the engineer is required project the number of scaling
hours. A scaler’s production rate will depend on the slope’s characteristics, access methods, and
experience levels and will require estimation by the engineer.
Again, scaling states relied heavily on expert judgment to estimate the production rate, with
all but two states using expert judgment for individual slopes or for various levels of effort (Fig-
ure 9). The two scaling states that did not use expert judgment either (1) paid a lump sum or
according to time and materials, or (2) paid according to surface area covered (e.g., square yard).
Two states incorporated an analytical approach using rock quality index systems.
100 1. Expert judgment for individual slopes

2. Expert judgment for various scaling levels of effort
75.0 3. Other
80 4. Standard quantity for all slopes
5. Analytical approach using rock quality indicators
PERCENTAGE
60 54.2 (RMR, RQD, GSI, etc.)
40 29.2 n = 24
20 8.3 8.3
0
1 2 3 4 5
Notes: RMR = rock mass rating; RQD = rock quality designation; GSI = geological strength index.
Figure 9. Methods for estimating scaler production rates.

100 1. Too variable to answer

2. 50–200 square feet per individual scaler hour
3. 200–400 square feet per individual scaler hour
80 4. 400–800 square feet per individual scaler hour
PERCENTAGE
5. 800+ square feet per individual scaler hour

60 47.8
40 n = 23
26.1
20 13.0 13.0
0.0
0
1 2 3 4 5
Note: Traffic control start/stops ignored.
Figure 10. Production rates considered “reasonable” for general scaling by scaling states.
The questionnaire requested production rates that were considered “reasonable” by expe-
rienced design personnel. For consistency between geologic materials and project purposes,
the respondents were asked to presume a non-presplit rock slope; a rock quality designation
(RQD) of 60%; and scaling work that was part of a larger rockfall mitigation project within
a two-lane, rural, mountainous highway corridor, with scaling performed using rope access
methods. Traffic control and its start/stops were ignored but play a significant role in actual
daily production rates.
Nearly half responded that production rates were too variable to provide an answer (Fig-
ure 10). Of those that did respond with rates, half responded that 50 to 200 square feet per
scaler hour (not crew hour) was considered reasonable, while the remaining respondents
were evenly split between 200 to 400 square feet per hour and 400 to 800 square feet per hour.
None responded with greater than 800 square feet per hour, and no comments were received
indicating that less than 50 square feet per hour was reasonable.
Plans and Specifications for Rock Slope Scaling

The plan sheets and specifications may vary significantly among states and among projects.
The questionnaire requested information for units of measure (Figure 11), separation of
scaling efforts/types into different bid items, methods for illustrating required scaling areas,
performance criteria, scaler qualifications, and other details. Samples of plans and specifica-
tion packages, some accompanied by redacted contractor submittals, voluntarily submitted
by DOTs, are contained in Appendices C and D, respectively.
Pay Items
Of scaling states, 67% used hours, either crew hours at 50% (crew sizes are typically defined
in the specifications) or individual scaler hours. Volume of scaled material was used in three
scaling states.
Fifty percent of scaling states used separate bid items for different scaling techniques.
The number of separate bid items and the details required during construction administration
were not examined in detail. Comments and follow-up interviews indicated that the typical
separation occurred when heavy equipment (e.g., excavators or cranes) was used.
When paying hourly, clarifying when scaling “starts” in the specifications will help reduce
potential confusion or disputes. Individual scalers are frequently capable of performing other

100 1. Hours (crew hours)

2. Hours (individual scaler hours)
3. Unit volume
80
4. Other
PERCENTAGE
5. Unit area
60 50.0 6. Unit length
7. Lump sum
40
n = 24
16.7
20 12.5 12.5
8.3
0.0 0.0
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Figure 11. Units of measure for scaling activities.
rockfall mitigation duties, and as such may change roles midday. Questionnaire results indi-
cated a wide range of common practices when paying hourly (Figure 12), but most responses
indicated that hourly scaling started when the individual or crew began ascending the slope, or
starting at the beginning of the shift. Other states waited until the scalers were in position and
ready to scale (e.g., suspended on ropes on the rock face).
Tasks that were considered payable as scaling hours included the non-scaling foreman, tree/
vegetation removal, labor to support scaling, bench cleaning, and safety spotters (Figure 13).
These tasks often require similar levels of training and safety consciousness as those required
for slope scaling itself.
Typically, scaling extents are shown in the contract plans. However, once scaling commences,
a scaling contractor may request payment for scaling outside the specified boundaries. Worker
safety was often cited as the primary rationale. The most common practice (42% of scaling
state respondents) was to respond on a case-by-case basis, typically responding to requests with
additional investigation and evaluation by geotechnical personnel (Figure 14). Payment at the
contract rate was used with nearly the same frequency. Other agencies either considered safety
scaling incidental or paid at a new negotiated rate. Comments indicated the sensitivity of the
subject. In general, the consensus was that if it appeared to be for the contractor’s convenience,
it was incidental, but if it was an agreed safety concern, it was a paid effort.
Payment for removal and hauling of scaling debris was handled mainly by unit volume
removed, typically measured by truck counts (Figure 15).
100 1. When ascending (e.g., via hiking, boom lift,

helicopter, etc.) to the top of the slope
2. Beginning of the shift
80
3. When in position and actively scaling using the
allowed scaling methods
PERCENTAGE
60 4. Other
5. When ascending the slope while harnessed up
40 27.8 27.8
22.2 n = 24
16.7
20
5.6
0
1 2 3 4 5
Figure 12. When hourly scaling starts, if paying hourly. (“Not applicable” answers excluded.)

100 1. Labor to support scaling/equipment moving (air

hoses, ropes, etc.) while not harnessed up
80 2. Non-scaling foreman
65.2 65.2 3. Tree/vegetation removal at the slope crest and/or
60.9 on the slope
PERCENTAGE
60 47.8 4. Bench cleaning

43.5 5. Safety spotters
40 6. Other
17.4 n = 23
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 13. Tasks that are measured and paid as scaling.
100 1. Case by case

2. Pay it at the contract rate
3. It is considered incidental
80 4. Other
5. Pay at a new, negotiated rate
PERCENTAGE
60
41.7 n = 24
37.5
40
20 12.5
8.3
4.2
0
1 2 3 4 5
Figure 14. Payment for “safety scaling”; scaling requested by the contractor outside the
specified plan limits.
100 1. Unit volume removed

2. Other
3. Incidental to scaling
80 4. Lump sum
PERCENTAGE
5. Time and materials

60 6. Unit weight removed
41.7
40
n = 24
20.8
16.7
20 8.3 8.3
4.2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 15. Units of measure and payment for removal of scaled debris.

A few DOTs indicated that unit volume was measured by lidar scanner or photogrammetry
by UAVs. Five DOTs indicated that they typically used a combination of measures depending
on availability of survey equipment, truck scales, or urgent work necessitating the use of
time and materials for measurement and payment. Overall, the most common state of the
practice was to measure and pay according to those measures rather than requesting lump-
sum bid items or making debris removal and haul incidental to scaling.
Plan Drawings
Communicating the work to be performed is the primary purpose of any construction plan
set. For scaling, traditional plans containing line work or isometric drawings may less effectively
communicate required scaling work. To overcome the limits of traditional plan sets and to
exhibit slope features unique to slope scaling, the questionnaire requested information on the
preferred method of exhibiting scaling extents in the plan set.
Nearly half of scaling states used oblique photographs with scaling extents shown, while addi-
tional states indicated that a combination of plan drawings and photographs was used (Fig-
ure 16). Other states used either plan view drawings with scaling extents described by station,
or only a tabulated listing of scaling extents shown.
Qualifications and Performance Criteria

Scaling is an inherently high-risk activity, and hiring qualified, experienced contractors will help
mitigate the risk. Without experienced personnel, scaling may be performed inefficiently, unsatis
factorily, or unsafely. Personnel have been fatally injured on highway rockfall mitigation projects
(Caltrans, 2014b; “Man Killed in Fall During Rockfall Mitigation Work in Clear Creek Canyon,”
2018; Preston, 2017). The questionnaire asked whether qualifications were required, and if they
were, to whom they applied. Four DOTs indicated that they did not have qualification require-
ments; 19 of the remaining scaling states indicated that they required qualifications (Figure 17).
The qualifications that the scaling contractor was required to have were experienced based,
when applicable (Figure 18). One-third of the respondents indicated “Other,” with most indi-
cating that more than one of the possible selections, such as number of projects per company or
years of scaling work for each scaler, were required. One department adjusted the requirements
and included references according to the complexity of the work to be performed.
Assessing satisfactory completion of scaling by construction engineering personnel may be
challenging for those without a geotechnical background. Specifications that define performance
criteria provide contractual tools that can facilitate the outcome intended by the design engineer.
100 1. Oblique photographs with scaling extents drawn

2. Plan view drawings with scaling station extents
80 shown
3. Other
PERCENTAGE
4. Scaling extents by station in a table

60
45.8
40 n = 24
20.8 20.8
20 12.5
0
1 2 3 4
Figure 16. Preferred method of displaying scaling extents in plan drawings.

100 1. All scaling personnel

2. All scaling personnel, but with a training/journeyman
provision
80
3. Not applicable
PERCENTAGE
4. Foremen only
60 54.2
5. For the company as a whole rather than on a
person-by-person basis
40 6. Other
20.8
16.7
20 n = 24
4.2 4.2 4.2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 17. Scaling qualifications and whom they apply to.
Half of scaling states did not specify performance criteria, while the other half either indicated
that they did have performance criteria or that scaling was performed to the satisfaction of the
engineer or through site inspection.
Specifying Temporary Protection

Scaling dislodges large rocks that fall largely uncontrolled to the ground below. The impact
forces not only can severely injure anyone struck, but also can damage the roadway and other
ancillary infrastructure. Temporary roadway protection protects infrastructure (pavements,
guardrails, bridges, etc.), while temporary rockfall protection is intended to protect the public
or workers during scaling. Protecting the infrastructure from damage can be advantageous;
and in some circumstances (low height, divided highways with traffic control, etc.), scaling
can be performed while passing traffic. DOTs were queried on their specification of protection
measures, either through performance specifications or through specification of protection
measures to be installed. If not properly specified, potentially inadequate protection measures
may be installed (Figure 19).
More than half of the scaling state respondents used contractor-designed rockfall mitigation
for temporary roadway protection (Figure 20). Others used a mix of owner- or contractor-
designed mitigation measures, typically depending on the nature of the work, with emergency
work depending on contractor designs and programmed work depending on owner designs.
One department did not require temporary roadway protection. Similar patterns were evident
100 1. Hours of experience per qualified scaler

2. Other
3. Not applicable
80 4. Number of projects for scaling work (per company)
PERCENTAGE
5. Number of years of scaling work (per company)

60 6. Number of projects completed per scaler
7. References from past clients (per company)
40 33.3 33.3
16.7 n = 24
20 12.5
4.2
0.0 0.0
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Figure 18. Personnel or corporate experience requirements.

Figure 19. Plywood and fence stake

rockfall protection for an FAA weather
station. Photo courtesy of B. Black.
for temporary rockfall protection (Figure 21), with a greater number of DOTs responding that
the road was always completely closed, eliminating the need for protection.
The questionnaire requested information on the types of temporary protection measures
that had proved successful in respondents’ departments, ranging from a cleaned catchment
ditch to a moveable rockfall barrier. Choosing from a variety of commonly used temporary
protection features, departments indicated whether they had used such measures, whether such
measures had failed when used on a standalone basis, or whether those measures were a minor
or major component of system success (Table 1). The most common measures were common
concrete barriers, but those had failed when used alone. The most successful component was
a moveable rockfall barrier, which frequently consists of an engineered, purpose-built rockfall
fence system installed on sliding steel plates.
100 1. Contractor designed

2. Designed by owner or their representative
80 3. Other
4. We do not require temporary roadway protection
PERCENTAGE
60 54.2
n = 24
40
20.8 20.8
20
4.2
0
1 2 3 4
Figure 20. Designer for temporary roadway protection.

100 1. Contractor designed

2. Designed by owner or their representative
3. Other
80
4. We always completely close the road, so rockfall
PERCENTAGE
protection for the public is not needed

60
41.7 n = 24
40
20.8 20.8
16.7
20
0
1 2 3 4
Figure 21. Designer for temporary rockfall protection.
Administering Scaling Activities During Construction

Administering scaling during construction can require full-time technical specialists to direct
scaling efforts, either from the ground or via rope access. This scaling-specific approach is often
out of the ordinary compared with other highway construction activities, where construction
inspectors or engineers supervise construction with occasional input from technical specialists.
Departments responded that they typically used a mix of approaches, with the two most common
responses indicating that an inspector was frequently augmented by geotechnical staff, either
from the ground or on the slope (Figure 22). Four of the 24 scaling states responded that scaling
was inspected only from the ground as a part of other inspection duties; all others indicated
they had either full-time or part-time geotechnical assistance during construction.
Similarly, departments were questioned regarding the personnel who verify that the scaling
has been completed satisfactorily (Figure 23). Half of scaling states indicated that an experienced
designer verified completion via an on-slope inspection. Other DOTs indicated that the DOT
geologist inspected the slope. Four of the 24 scaling states indicated that personnel without
scaling experience approve the final work product.
The emergence of terrestrial laser scanning and structure from motion photogrammetry
techniques has facilitated a wider range of rock slope analyses and evaluation than previously
possible (Abellán et al., 2010; Dunham et al., 2017; Lan et al., 2010; Santana et al., 2012).
Recognizing this developing method of rock slope examination, the survey requested informa-
tion regarding DOTs’ use of these technologies applied to scaling. Nearly half of scaling states
Table 1. Temporary protection measures used, and their contribution to a successful system.
Note: Number of survey respondents = 22.

100 1. Inspector reviews from the ground as part of other

inspection duties
80 75.0 2. Inspector with rock slope experience (in-house or
66.7 consultant) reviews performance by accessing the
PERCENTAGE
slope via ropes or other slope access technique
60 (i.e., boom lift, crane basket, etc.)
45.8 3. Inspector with rock slope experience (in-house or
consultant) inspects performance from the ground,
40
25.0 full time
4. Other
20
n = 24
0
1 2 3 4
Figure 22. Personnel inspecting and supervising scaling activities on departments’ behalf.
either planned to use these techniques or used them at the time of the survey. One-quarter of
scaling states were uncertain of the techniques’ use or reliability, and therefore, had not used
them. One-third of scaling states had no plans to use such techniques, either because of payment
unit of measure (hours) or lack of need (Figure 24).
When asked which technique the DOT used for monitoring slope performance following
scaling projects, two of 24 scaling states indicated they used newer technology, while another
four indicated they were beginning to investigate use of newer technologies. One DOT used
UAV-based technology, and one other used terrestrial scanners. The four that were beginning
to use technology for performance monitoring reported using both terrestrial scanners and
UAV-based photogrammetry.
Scaled Slope Performance

Traditionally, scaling has been referred to as a temporary measure that may be required again
in 2 to 10 years in the absence of additional mitigation measures (Andrew and Pierson, 2012;
Pierson and Vierling, 2012). Earlier literature indicated durations ranging from 8 to 15 years for
slopes with numerous freeze-thaw cycles to 12 to 15 years for slopes in dry climates (Brawner,
1994). Other references provided a range of 3 to 5 years for minor scaling projects on rock
100 1. Experienced designer with on-slope verification

2. Construction engineer with scaling experience
3. Construction engineer without scaling experience
80
4. Other
PERCENTAGE
5. Scaling is done when the budget is exhausted

60 50.0
45.8
n = 24
37.5
40
20.8
20
4.2
0
1 2 3 4 5
Figure 23. Personnel who verify that the scaling has been performed to satisfaction.

100 1. Yes, we plan to use advanced techniques to

measure scaling completion and area coverage
2. No plans or current use
80
3. We’ve considered it, but not sure of its use,
PERCENTAGE
reliability, or defensibility
60 4. Other
5. Yes, we currently use advanced techniques to
37.5
40 33.3 measure scaling completion and area coverage
25.0
n = 24
20 12.5
8.3
0
1 2 3 4 5
Figure 24. Use of advanced techniques (laser scanner, photogrammetry, UAV, etc.) for uses
related to scaling.
slopes susceptible to weathering (Wyllie and Mah, 2004). However, these guidelines were
based on judgment rather than on analysis of consistent data sets. Actual durations would
depend on rock slope characteristics, deterioration rates, rock quality, and performance expec-
tations of the rock slopes. To develop durations based on data, robust, spatially distributed
record-keeping would be required.
The questionnaire requested information regarding whether departments had kept records
of rockfall events following scaling. Many departments responded that they kept the informa-
tion informally through job experience (Figure 25). A third responded “Other,” and indicated
that records were kept through maintenance management systems, state police call-outs, or
rockfall management systems. Informal record-keeping has been analyzed for research proj-
ects. This suggests that the informal nature of the records may not be a significant hindrance
for determining the effective life of scaling (Beckstrand et al., 2017; Mines et al., 2018). Overall,
about 10 scaling states appeared to have had data sufficient for analysis.
Similarly, just over half of scaling states kept records of slope condition pre- and post-scaling,
though some commented that the duration between ratings efforts was longer than they would
have liked it to be. Others indicated that the inventory and conditions assessments were on a
regional or district basis rather than on a statewide basis.
100 1. Yes, but kept informally or through job experience

2. Other
3. No, we do not keep records of rockfall following
80
scaling
PERCENTAGE
4. Yes, and we have documentation we can share

60
n = 24
37.5
40 33.3
20.8
20 8.3
0
1 2 3 4
Figure 25. Tracking and documenting rockfall events following scaling projects.

Lessons Learned
At the end of the questionnaire, 18 of 24 scaling states provided input on the lessons learned
regarding scaling over the previous 10 to 20 years. The responses covered a wide range of
topics, many of which were touched upon in the survey questionnaire and complemented by
open-ended responses. Further research, as noted in the final section of this report, would help
with resolving some issues, such as project estimation with data-driven guidance. Other items
may be resolved through implementing more detailed plans with annotated photography, and
through preparing specifications that foresee potential issues and provide solutions. In general,
lessons learned are best communicated by those who learned them firsthand; therefore, the
responses in the following section are paraphrased from open-ended comments, with only
minor clarifications added (indicated with brackets). Note that identifying language, such as
state names, has been removed. Overall, the lessons learned fall into five categories, summarized
in the following.
Qualifications and Experience

It is invaluable to have an individual with extensive rock slope experience directing the scaling
efforts at a site and determining when scaling is complete.
We place a high value on the use of experienced engineering geologists to guide scaling work
to reduce the potential for damaging the slope and also for focusing work in targeted areas.
Experience submittals often vary in how scaling hours are presented and counted, requiring
iterative clarification in order to align with our specification.
Scaling operations should be closely monitored and inspected for compliance. Experience is key!
Relying on general contractors to perform challenging scaling work has become more dif-
ficult, and we are moving toward using specialty contractors.
Use qualification-based requirements for all scaling personnel; provide a safe way to train
scalers in your specifications to allow for replenishment of industry workers.
Best results occur when Geotech (design expert) is on site to use judgment on scaling locations
and quantities.
Design Estimation
The more time and experience you spend prior to scaling to assess the degree of effort for
scaling needed, the better the project outcome will be.
Build in risk to project (extra contingency) due to unpredictable, variable quantities.
We have typically experienced difficulties in the accurate estimation of debris removal quanti-
ties despite employing a variety of methods. Although some of the observed variability can be
attributed to difficulties in quantifying how rock scales based on its condition, some is likely
the result of variation in practice from scaler to scaler. This issue is especially acute on very high
slopes.
Quantities for scaling can almost never be overestimated.
Estimating scaling hours and material quantity is very difficult and varies significantly on
every job.
Accurate surveying of the existing slope topography is important.
Correct catchment design is strived for if space is available on a given project.

[Problems have occurred when] extensive vegetation has obscured some areas of the rock
cut, making it difficult to predict actual rock slope conditions, leading to change in design once
the vegetation is cleared [or] the rock [ . . . ] is much more weathered/unstable than anticipated,
leading to extra scaling time.
Plans and Specifications

Photo plans are a tremendous aid for bidding and contract administration.
Lack of [local] scalers can create $/hr irregularities. Prime contractors are motivated to use
earthwork equipment instead of [a scaling subcontractor].
Prescriptive approaches have been effective in managing contract costs.
In cases where roadway or feature protection is provided by the contractor, they often are
not prepared to provide a level of protection that we, as the owner, feel is adequate.
We have chosen crew time as opposed to volume production, mostly because it’s easier for
an inspector to record.
Require air pillows as mandatory equipment for slope scaling (for general and intensive
areas); include safety scaling as incidental to your scaling item.
Pay by the scaling hour per scaler, not by the crew hour or by area on the slope.
Prefer to separate debris removal, including haul, from the slope scaling bid item because it
makes it difficult to follow trends in scaling unit bid prices when the debris removal is part of
the equation and may heavily influence the unit prices.
Issues During Construction

We have [ . . . ] run into the issue of scaling thoroughness, meaning that there have been
disagreements between us and the scalers as to deciding on when an area has been scaled to
satisfaction.
We see quite a bit of variation from project office to project office in how scaling hours are
counted; do the hours include accessing the slope? How are traffic control delays accounted
for? Is a standby rate applied?
[We have had issues] with temporary catchment [and] productivity rates.
Long-Term Performance
We have found the Maintenance scaling of slopes to be extremely important in improving
public safety, [realization of] reduced Maintenance expenses, accelerating emergency openings
of highways after storm events, and improved protection to State facilities.
Some additional rockfall can be expected and planned for after scaling as the slope re-stabilizes.
Ensure that Maintenance knows that it is very important to keep the catchment ditch cleaned
out to original design criteria.
Scaling is cost-effective rock slope mitigation and can be incorporated in larger projects to
take advantage of traffic control.

CHAPTER 4
Case Examples
Geotechnical specialists from six state transportation departments were interviewed following
completion of the broad state-of-the-practice survey. The states were generally selected based on
• Unique practice or perspective on scaling practice;
• Regular involvement with rock slope scaling projects along highway corridors;
• Depth of experience with generating cost estimates, plan sets, and construction specifications
for a variety of rock slope scaling projects;
• Depth of experience with developing methods to determine job completion and defining
successful performance of a scaled rock slope; and
• Ongoing efforts to maintain records of past scaling projects and to track project performance
over time.
The selected states and their practices are described in the following sections.
California Department of Transportation

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) employs a nationally unique scaling
program wherein approximately 90% of all scaling performed in the state is accomplished by
about 200 specially trained Caltrans maintenance personnel. The personnel who sign up for
the scaling program do so voluntarily. The other 10% of the scaling is typically contracted to
specialty rock slope contractors who meet stringent qualification criteria. This scaling program
is “owned” by Caltrans’s maintenance division, and Caltrans’s geotechnical personnel serve the
division as if it were an internal client. Between 2014 and 2018, approximately 180 to 200 indi-
vidual scaling projects were carried out under this program.
When scaling is performed as part of a capital or programmed improvement project, it
is typically associated with structure construction, corridor improvement projects, or other
large-scale projects that may have adjacent rock slopes that would benefit from scaling or other
rockfall mitigation measures.
The nature of the scaling program is split approximately fifty-fifty between routine slope
maintenance and emergency response. Caltrans does few HSIP/STIP projects that focus on rock-
fall mitigation or rock slope stability; however, this trend may be changing as the department
shifts from a primarily reactive program to a more proactive approach by informally incorpo-
rating geotechnical assets into its Transportation Asset Management program.
Scalers are qualified through Caltrans’s own training program and supplemented through
certifications by the Professional Climbing Instructors Association (Caltrans, 2014a). This
26

Case Examples 27
extensive training includes multiple forms to assist scalers in evaluating slope characteristics,
site safety, and anchoring conditions, among other items. Slope assessment forms are reviewed
by Caltrans’s geotechnical personnel before scaling activities begin.
Plans and Specifications for Scaling

Caltrans’s maintenance-driven program calculates time and expenses either on a crew-hour
basis or through a volumetric measure of removed debris. Typically, scaling performed by spe-
cialty contractors is to supplement Caltrans’s own maintenance forces in emergency response
situations.
On programmed, capital expense projects, scaling plan sheets show exclusion zones, where
scaling is not permitted, on oblique photos. Topographic information is provided on these plan
sheets when possible. The exclusionary zones display where scaling is not permitted, and may
include overhangs that are deemed unsafe to scale beneath or areas that are outside the project
limits. Geotechnical experts are on slope during scaling activities.
For removal of scaling debris, Caltrans generally pays on a lump-sum basis. Like other states,
Caltrans generally relies on expert judgment for estimating the debris quantities according
to slope area and characteristics, such as rock quality and joint spacing. Actual volumes are
normally within ±20% of the estimate.
Safety scaling—scaling requested by the contractor that is not within the permitted scaling
area—either is refused because it is within the exclusion zone, or is paid at the contract rate
if further review and documentation by Caltrans personnel leads to the enlargement of the
permitted scaling area. The addition of the requested area follows a documentation process
and is not added “on the fly” during construction activities. This process has avoided excessive
additional scaling efforts and excessive expenditures.
Colorado Department of Transportation

The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has been developing and using a
robust geohazards program since 1992, starting with the Colorado Rockfall Accidents on
State Highways (CRASH) program and employing a modified Rockfall Hazard Rating System
(RHRS), originally created by the Oregon Department of Transportation (Pierson, 1991; Pierson
and Van Vickle, 1993; Stover, 1992). Initially focusing on rockfall concerns, CDOT has since
2013 incorporated additional geohazards into its Geohazard Asset Management Program,
including rockfall, rockslides, landslides, sinkholes, embankments, debris flows, and erosion
issues caused by flooding or severe storm events. Through this program, CDOT has pro-
grammed approximately 50% of its scaling activities through STIP or HSIP programs, typi-
cally complementing other rockfall mitigation measures. Within this management program,
rockfall sites “compete” for mitigation measures with other geohazard sites according to the
risk posed to the department and to highway users. Risk factors include safety (including
crashes/injuries), mobility, and maintenance costs (e.g., rock downsizing following an event,
catchment ditch cleaning, and repair of highway damage caused by rockfall). Geohazards are
first graded on an individual site or segment basis, then grouped into corridors graded with
“A” through “F” letter grades according to dollar-based risk exposure. Performance targets have
been adopted to achieve a grade “B” at 85% of sites statewide. This effectively sets corridors
below “B” as eligible for further study and action.

The remaining scaling work is subdivided into emergency response (30%) or routine mainte-
nance (15%), or is performed as part of other highway preservation work (5%).
To perform scaling work, specialty contractors must pass two qualification hurdles. The first
is to become an eligible bidder by exhibiting documentation of bonding and insurance. The
second step is achieved with the submittal of the bid packages with documentation of required
experience, including 6 months of experience for each scaler, a minimum of 3 years of expe-
rience for the scaling supervisor, and corporate experience consisting of completion of three
similar projects in the last 3 years. (Note that scalers are permitted to attend a training course
conducted by a scaling supervisor in lieu of the 6-month training requirement.)

CDOT uses “individual scaler hour” as a pay item. This requires the designers to estimate
the number of hours it should take for a skilled specialty contractor to scale the slope to an
uncertain standard and “as directed by the Engineer.” CDOT’s experience is that a slope’s
geologic characteristics (rock quality, joint spacing, lithology, etc.) prevents adherence to a set
range of production rates. Potential disputes have been avoided by use of experienced design
engineers and geologists and by being able to screen out unqualified, inexperienced contrac-
tors through the prequalification process. Where excessively slow production has occurred, it
has been attributable to the use of scaling personnel with little experience, working slowly and
possibly nervously while suspended from ropes. Despite having no set production rate, CDOT
estimates that 10 work days is a reasonable scaling duration for a slope 100 feet high and 500 to
700 feet long for a crew of three qualified scalers.
Scaling Plans and Specifications

In CDOT’s experience, having geotechnical personnel on site to direct and oversee scaling
operations and utilization of the prequalification process has prevented other potential issues
when the scaling specifications handle uncertainty with “as directed by the engineer” language.
They have rarely encountered disputes regarding estimated hours, and when the engineer’s
estimate is surpassed, it is frequently due to the site conditions being worse than what was visible
on the slope surface. In these circumstances, actual durations exceed estimates generally no
more than 25%.
For safety scaling, CDOT considers this incidental to the required scaling. This has normally
not been problematic, as the scaling is most often specified on a cut face rather than on the natural
slopes above. When natural slopes have posed risks, CDOT design personnel have included
targeted scaling on these slopes as part of the contract efforts. Safety spotters have also been a
solution to provide an early warning should rockfall occur.
Payment for removal of scaling debris is measured using one of two options, either unit
volume removed or time and materials used. CDOT’s selection of which method will be applied
is determined by the ultimate destination of the debris; if CDOT specifies disposal location for
eventual reuse of select materials, such as setting aside large boulders for stream bank armoring,
time and materials used is the preferred payment method. In other cases, it is measured by unit
volume, as determined by truck counts or volumetric survey. Estimation of design quantities is
performed using expert judgment.
When required, CDOT typically specifies contractor-designed roadway or rockfall protec-
tion measures. The contractor’s design is required to meet performance criteria contained in
the specifications, and failure of the system is the contractor’s financial responsibility. When

Case Examples 29
the feature being protected is of high value or particularly sensitive, the contractor must submit
the proposed design for CDOT review and concurrence. This submittal review takes place after
contract award. In some projects, a CDOT-owned moveable rockfall barrier is an option for the
contractor to consider.
Scaled Slope Performance and Lessons Learned

CDOT encourages its maintenance personnel to use its rockfall activity reporting system to
record and document the occurrence of rockfall. While the process isn’t uniformly and univer-
sally implemented, CDOT has observed two trends based on the slope’s characteristics. If the
rock is poor quality, with close joint spacing, they have observed increases in short-term rockfall
activity followed by long-term improvement. Where the rock is higher quality, with wider joint
spacing, short- and long-term improvements are realized immediately.
CDOT has one of the longer-running statewide programs for managing rockfall. Slope scaling
has been a regular part of its rockfall mitigation toolbox for decades. One of CDOT’s primary
lessons learned from this experience has been the invaluable nature of having an owner’s rep-
resentative with extensive rock slope experience on site directing scaling efforts and making the
determination of when scaling is complete.
Idaho Transportation Department, District 6

Administration of Scaling Projects and Construction Activities
The six districts of the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) operate semi-autonomously
with regard to scaling practice. District 6, covering eastern Idaho’s mountainous terrain north and
northeast of the Snake River Plain toward Yellowstone National Park, has established a unique
and successful scaling program. The program is led by the district’s engineering geologist.
Sites to be scaled are decided upon through the combined use of a rockfall activity database
maintained by ITD and the Idaho State Police, spreadsheets with RHRS ratings and rankings of
select corridors, and rock slopes where scaling and draped steel mesh would provide significant
improvements. Sites that would be only partially mitigated with scaling and draped mesh are
recorded for later, more complex rockfall mitigation efforts. By actively avoiding slopes that
require more in-depth mitigation measures, ITD expects that it will eventually need to change
or adjust this program to account for more complex geology and more difficult conditions.
Budgeting is set at $100,000 annually for this district and includes both scaling activities and
draped mesh installation. This sum includes outsourced labor for scaling and traffic control.
Materials, such as draped mesh materials, anchor materials, and grout; traffic control devices;
and internal ITD costs are not included in this amount. Annual activities cease when the budget
is exhausted. Often, projects are picked up again the following season until they are completed.
The scaling is accomplished with the use of a private specialty scaling contractor with support
from ITD’s maintenance and geotechnical personnel. The contractor scales loose rock and
installs draped mesh at the direction of the engineering geologist. ITD maintenance personnel
haul debris away, stockpiling useful rock for future use (bank armoring, shoulder improve-
ments, and gabion basket fill) and placing waste materials in exhausted or unused material
sources as part of their reclamation plans. Maintenance also provides all traffic control devices,
while the scaling contractor provides traffic control labor. As part of directing duties, ITD’s
geologist helps with acquiring and transporting construction materials. On average, the scaling
crew can complete approximately 8,000 to 10,000 square feet of slope scaling per week.


ITD District 6 has learned that executing and maintaining an annual scaling program pro-
vides a number of benefits. These benefits include being able to address slopes that may have
experienced an uptick of rockfall activity in the late winter or early spring months that can
then be scaled that same year. This avoids costly emergency response programs and the time-
consuming environmental permitting and PS&E (plans, specifications, and engineer’s estimate)
process, provided work activity is accomplished within ITD’s right-of-way and can be addressed
solely by scaling or draped mesh.
ITD has compared this partially insourced program with fully outsourced programs. In the
same area and similar geologic conditions, ITD has incurred costs of $260,000 for a fully out-
sourced program at one rockfall site. This compares with $105,000 for two slopes and twice the
total treatment area for those projects completed within the partially insourced program. Note
that this comparison is not detailed for the mitigation measures and quantities used at each
slope, but does illustrate the value that ITD District 6’s maintenance scaling program provides
to the department.
Through the close working relationship that the district engineering geologist has with the
scaling contractor, a non-adversarial and balanced rapport is achieved. This fosters a sense of
trust between the owner and contractor and results in improved project outcomes. The success
of this program is evidenced by slopes that were once some of the most active, problematic
rockfall sites becoming some of the least active following scaling and draped mesh installation.
New Hampshire Department of Transportation

New Hampshire performs roughly 90% of its scaling work as part of other highway preserva-
tion or improvement projects, a significantly higher proportion than that of other states. More
than a decade of conscientious relationship building between the New Hampshire Department
of Transportation’s (NHDOT) highway design and geotechnical groups has enabled the depart-
ment to adopt a quasi-proactive approach to scaling slopes. The geotechnical group maintains a
statewide rock slope inventory, and the highway design group routinely calls during the planning
stage to ask if scaling work should be added to a slope within the project limits. In approximately
90% of cases, scaling is added to the project during this stage, though scaling limits and efforts
may be constrained by right-of-way or environmental concerns.
Because scaling is routinely incorporated into highway preservation projects, scalers are
almost always subcontractors to the general contractor, with qualification requirements set by
the state. In cases where both scaling and rock bolting are required, NHDOT requires that both
tasks be performed by the same contractor. This is in response to previous difficulties where a
rock bolt contractor wished to perform additional safety scaling on a slope scaled by a separate
contractor.

In estimating production rates for a scaling project, NHDOT draws on institutional knowl-
edge. The state’s typical rock slopes are composed of crystalline rock with wide joint spacing,
and production rates have been relatively predictable. A review of roughly a dozen recent proj-
ects showed production rates ranging from 750 to 1,500 square feet of rock slope face per scaler
per day, with a maximum production rate of 2,333 square feet per scaler per day. NHDOT
reports that for these slopes, a significant source of variation in production rates is slope height,

Case Examples 31
which impacts how often scalers have to rope up. Production rates and scaled volumes on slopes
with significant differential erosion features are more difficult to estimate, but are less common
in New Hampshire.
Almost all scaling design work is performed in-house by NHDOT, with only a small propor-
tion designed by consultants.
During construction, an observer from the geotechnical group is on site at least 90% of
the time. This helps address any issues as they arise, while providing support for the regular
construction inspector, who may have limited experience observing scaling work.

Scalers hired by the general contractor must meet the specifications developed by NHDOT.
Because the state provides full-time inspection and observation services during construction,
NHDOT is able to limit the level of detail regarding scaling extent in the specifications. Hand
scaling and machine scaling are paid at separate rates, but the specifications make clear that hand
scaling includes all tools, such as air pillows and boulder busters, that may be required to scale
individual large blocks.
Scaling is paid for by the individual scaler hour. NHDOT has used crew hours in the past, but
the difficulty of maintaining a constant crew size throughout the project made this logistically
challenging from an accounting perspective. Instead, the department provides an estimate of the
crew size that will be required for the project, but pays according to the hourly work performed
by each individual member of that crew.
The general contractor is also responsible for disposing of excavated scaling material and
designing adequate traffic protection measures. Partly because of the relatively small size of the
scaling work in comparison with the overall contract, disposing of scaling waste has not been
an issue for contractors. Traffic protection must meet the approval of NHDOT. The design
goal is 100% retention during construction. This is typically achieved by cleaning out the ditch,
taking a lane, and installing jersey barriers on the centerline. Temporary closures or traffic
stops may also be used, depending on the functional requirements of the roadway. For rare
situations where additional rockfall protection has been required, such as a moveable rockfall
barrier, the state has paid the contractor an additional amount to develop a temporary system
that met project needs.
Slope Scaling Performance and Lessons Learned

NHDOT has a database of RHRS-type ratings for rock slopes, and scaled slopes are re-rated
for entry in the database. Rockfall activity is largely monitored on an ad-hoc basis, with main-
tenance personnel calling in to report specific rockfalls. Events that maintenance perceives as
“routine” are likely underreported in this system. Anecdotally, NHDOT, as with some other
scaling states, notes a temporary increase in the number of small rocks falling from a slope
immediately after scaling is completed, which then rapidly tapers off.
Like many agencies, NHDOT is working to integrate advanced techniques in rock slope
management. The state has recently received a STIP grant to collect photogrammetrically
derived point clouds of rock slopes and analyze them using change detection programs. Photo
acquisition has been from UAVs or ground-based equipment. The second round of point cloud
image collection is currently under way. Implementation of this program will allow the depart-
ment to better assess rockfall activity on both scaled and unscaled slopes. It also helps identify
unstable blocks earlier in the design process on the basis of observed slope deformation. Finally,

by routinely tracking rock slopes, NHDOT will have the ability to more accurately incorporate
rockfall risks into project selection tools. Earlier incorporation of scaling into project design
will make it easier for the department to identify the most cost-effective method for rockfall
risk reduction.
Ohio Department of Transportation

In 2007, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) initiated an RHRS-type rockfall
management program under the guidance of Dr. Abdul Shakoor at Kent State University and
with software developed by the University of Akron. This original assessment system is currently
being transitioned to an Esri Collector app for increased ease of use in the field. At this time, there
are approximately 6,000 rock slopes in the database. For the majority of these slopes, rockfall
is caused by differential erosion.
Twenty-five years ago, all scaling work was emergency response work. Since then, the depart-
ment has made a conscious effort to adopt a proactive management approach, with the result
being that roughly 60% of all scaling work is now programmed.
Rockfall-related work competes with other geotechnical issues, such as landslides and aban-
doned mines, for limited mitigation dollars. Scaling projects are selected using a combination
of factors. The department then identifies those that appear to be most critical, and contracts
three to four of those sites annually for scaling work. These jobs typically require 80 crew hours
of scaling work by a three-man crew, but have required up to 230 crew hours.
Contractors who bid on these projects hire scalers who meet the qualification guidelines set by
the department: 2 years of scaling experience for both scalers and foremen, and 1 year of experi-
ence for personnel using mechanical scaling. There is no provision for on-the-job training.

Design work incorporates information from maintenance, a roadside visual review, and lidar.
In cases where specific areas of concern are obscured, inspections may be conducted from ropes
or lifts. A total excavation quantity is developed from the available data and is used to guide bid
development. Additional safety scaling is typically minor, and is paid at the contract rate.
From experience, the department defines average scaling production as 200 square feet per
crew hour in its specifications. This assumes a crew of three qualified scalers. When scaling rates
are significantly slower than anticipated, a geotechnical professional is brought in to help develop
a solution to the poor production rates. In general, four to five department geotechnical personnel
are available during the construction process, so construction observation may be conducted by an
engineer with limited scaling experience.

Installation of rock bolts and draped mesh require approval by a professional engineer. Pure
scaling work is designed and approved in-house, with scaling extents marked on oblique photo
graphs of the slope.
Safety measures during scaling work are designed and implemented by the contractor. Items
to be protected range from roadway components to trees on state forest reserve land. Temporary
road closures are also regularly employed during rockfall mitigation work.

Case Examples 33
ODOT conducts lidar scans of the project area before and after scaling work is conducted
to improve their estimates for future projects. Recently, ODOT has acquired UAV technology
that has subsequently been used to perform initial inspections following a rockfall event. During
the actual project, removal of scaling debris is typically tracked using truck counts, and paid
for by the 10-yard-truck unit. Lidar scans, rather than hours, have also been used as the basis
of payment on a small number of mechanical scaling projects.

The existing rock slope inventory and rating program has enabled ODOT to track improve-
ments in slope performance following scaling work. In roughly 75% of cases, scaling improves
the slope by one tier—for example, from a tier 4 (high risk of rockfall reaching the roadway) to
a tier 3 (moderate risk). Records of rockfall activity are also kept informally.
ODOT has struggled with the lack of local scaling crews. Most scaling work is performed
by companies from the coastal states, and the distances involved in mobilization can create
cost-per-hour irregularities. As a result, prime contractors are motivated to employ mechanical
scaling or solutions using earthwork equipment to the extent possible. The lack of local scaling
contractors has also hampered the ability of the department to complete projects at their desired
rate, as high bids or no bids on a project are a frequent occurrence. Frequently, the solution to
this problem is to recut the slope to a shallower, more stable angle, which removes the need
for scaling, subsequent installation of draped mesh, or other rockfall mitigation components.
ODOT reports that as re-excavating slopes has become more common, the use of draped mesh
has decreased statewide, but scaling expenditures have remained steady.
Tennessee Department of Transportation

At the time of writing, the majority of the scaling work of the Tennessee Department of
Transportation (TNDOT) (roughly 70%) is performed on an emergency basis following rock-
fall events. However, the department, under the direction of the chief engineer, is pushing to
transition from a reactive to a proactive approach.
In 2007, TNDOT initiated a rockfall management program for department slope assets. As of
spring 2019, approximately 1,800 slopes had been inventoried in this system, using RHRS-type
ratings. Of these slopes, 30% (roughly 500) had been re-rated, enabling the department to
begin collecting data on long-term asset performance and deterioration. Incorporating data
from the rockfall management program, mitigation projects were in the development phase
for 20 slopes, with the first project bid in summer 2019. TNDOT currently budgets $20 million
annually for rockfall-related work. At the time of this writing, approximately 20% of TNDOT’s
scaling work is programmed as part of larger rockfall mitigation projects, with an additional
5% of scaling work performed as routine maintenance. TNDOT plans to increase these per-
centages in the coming years.

TNDOT design efforts begin with input from maintenance on slope activity, followed by a
visual review of the slope from the roadside by department or consulting geotechnical design
personnel. However, the department is currently developing a rope access training program
that would enable department personnel to more closely inspect the slope during the initial
design phase.

The department has special provisions in the bid package for scaling, specifying minimum
experience requirements in terms of years of experience. A prequalified scaler list is also under
development by the department, but is not yet readily available to prime contractors. TNDOT
reports that since the incorporation of these special provisions, “self-performance”—where
general contractors perform work without qualification requirements—has largely vanished,
though emergency response work occasionally slips through.

When estimating project costs, the department currently bids scaling by the square yard of
rock face to be scaled, but is planning to transition to a time-unit rate of measurement (hours),
as this appears to be the more common system of measurement employed by other DOTs.
TNDOT has also been an early adopter of using lidar tools to measure volume of scaling
debris. By flying a lidar-equipped drone before and after scaling, the department is able to
quickly and accurately assess the total volume removed by the contractor. Where this measure-
ment method is not used, ditch cleanup and removal of scaling debris are both measured by
weight, with trucks being weighed at highway scales.
During construction, an inspector reviews work from the ground as part of other inspection
duties. If possible, the engineer in charge will call and request a site visit from a geotechnical
specialist for the final post-scaling inspection. In emergency response situations, final inspec-
tions are typically conducted from the ground because of the scheduling constraints asso-
ciated with emergency work. Programmed slopes are more likely to receive a close inspection
post scaling.

By shifting rockfall management from a reactive to a proactive approach, TNDOT reports it
has been able to access additional federal funding. At the time the RHRS inventory was under
taken, programmed department rockfall expenditures were limited to roughly $2 million
annually in ditch cleaning. Once more information was available for a proactive asset manage
ment approach, the annual maintenance budget was increased to $10 million, and later
$20 million following federal matching. The RHRS program also provides a framework for
cataloguing rockfall activity and for tracking post-scaling slope performance. This database
enables TNDOT to improve their risk assessments over time and to calculate the return on
investment obtained from scaling work.

CHAPTER 5
Conclusions and Research

Opportunities
Conclusions
According to input from 42 departments of transportation and two regional divisions of the
Office of Federal Lands Highway, scaling loose rock from highway rock slopes is an important
aspect of improving rock slope safety in mountainous areas. Ongoing weathering and deteriora-
tion of rock slopes in an aging transportation network will require a gradual increase in rockfall
mitigation work, of which scaling is a significant first step.
Responses indicated that many of the methods that form the themes and major points of earlier
literature, such as scaling from the top downward, requiring scalers with documented experience,
and employing a time basis for pay items, have been used by most scaling states. Many other
items, such as details on estimating productivity, how to contract and pay for debris removal,
best practices for plan preparation, and how temporary protection is designed and contracted,
have not been adequately documented. The following are the key findings of this synthesis.
Reliance on Expert Judgment

A predominant theme is a reliance on experience, which recognizes unique aspects of access-
ing and working on rock slopes high above the highway. The experience of both scaling per-
sonnel and designers matters to the success of a scaling project. For scaling, experience, and
judgment play a greater role than in other highway construction projects because of the absence
of engineered quantity measurements (such as bridge deck area), predictable and routine perfor-
mance measures (e.g., 30-day concrete compressive strength), and clear completion milestones
(e.g., bridge opening). Most scaling states reported that they had obtained satisfactory scaler
judgment through the use of experience requirements defined in construction contract docu-
ments, though some standard guidelines may help those DOTs with infrequent scaling projects
to achieve better outcomes. Designer experience has often been accounted for by maintaining
in-house expertise or through established processes for professional services acquisition, such
as qualification-based procurement methods. Department-run scaling programs, such as that
run by Caltrans, have maintained experience levels for both scaler and designer through exten-
sive and well-documented training regimens. Overall, successful scaling projects can be realized
when all professionals involved have demonstrable experience, recognize and acknowledge the
uncertainties inherent in slope scaling, and work toward the common goal of efficiently and
safely mitigating rockfall hazards.
Selecting Slopes to Scale

Transportation departments often have hundreds or thousands of rock slopes adjacent to
their highway systems. Many of these slopes could benefit from periodic rock slope scaling.
35

If a 15-year interval between scaling efforts, the longest interval that was encountered in the
literature search for this synthesis, were implemented on all of a hypothetical state’s 1,000 rock
slopes, 67 scaling projects per year would be required to achieve full coverage—a significant
project count that no state appears to achieve. Therefore, DOTs are selecting which slopes to
scale and which ones not to scale. They typically follow one of four approaches: (1) emergency
response, where a slope fails and then needs to be scaled to restore safety; (2) programmatic
approaches, sometimes facilitated by rockfall or geohazard management programs, and well-
recorded rockfall maintenance records informing geotechnical personnel where rockfall hazards
exist; (3) maintenance programs, where DOT personnel select slopes to be scaled; or (4) scaling
slopes during other highway projects when non-rockfall-related work is planned.
Proactive selection could prevent rockfall-related road closures and injuries, though this study
found a wide range of selection methods noted and little industry guidance. Some DOTs and
federal agencies have recently been adopting or developing geotechnical asset management
programs to provide enhanced decision support tools for reducing rockfall and other geohazard
occurrences.
Practice Varies in Preparing Plans and Specifications

Scaling plans that clearly communicate scaling limits and heavy or intensive scaling areas
with the use of annotated aerial oblique images in the plan set body have been found to be
effective by those who use such scaling plans, though they were not in use in most departments.
Use of UAVs and other emerging methodologies may assist with the development of these more
effective plan sets. Some scaling states were using or planned to begin using these technologies.
Specifications that clearly define scaler or corporate experience requirements have helped
departments contract with experienced scalers rather than with the lowest bidder, regardless
of qualifications. The lack of available local scalers has forced some departments to change or
eliminate scaling areas in an effort to reduce rockfall hazards.
Scaling is frequently measured and paid for by the hour; a detailed definition of when scaling
starts and stops in the specification has led to improved project outcomes. Practice varies for
payment of safety scaling on adjoining slopes, but a general consensus is that if the scaling is for
an agreed-to safety concern, it is generally a paid effort. Payment for removal of scaling debris
varies, but is a paid effort—not incidental—for the majority of scaling projects.
Temporary protection measures for scaling have varied significantly, with many departments
implementing contractor-designed approaches while others have been dissatisfied with such
an approach. A minority typically provided the contractor with detailed temporary protection
designs in the plans and specifications package. A variety of temporary protection measures
have been used with varying success, though the most common was standard concrete barriers,
and the most successful was moveable rockfall barriers.
Scaling Activities During Construction

Inspection during scaling activities followed a variety of methods that ranged from inexperi-
enced personnel periodically inspecting from the ground to experienced geologists and engineers
inspecting from ropes full time. Similarly, personnel who accepted that scaling was complete
included those with and without experience, either from the ground or on the slope. Given the
reliance on experience for many aspects of scaling, the use of inspectors without experience
marks a departure at a critical phase of any scaling project.

Conclusions and Research Opportunities 37
Future Research Opportunities

The following research opportunities are suggested to address knowledge gaps identified by
the synthesis.
Scaling Estimation
The reliance on experienced personnel in lieu of recorded data to accurately estimate pro-
duction leaves departments at risk of losing institutional knowledge as the workforce ages
and retires. Some efforts to begin indexing scaling production numbers (scaler productivity,
volume estimation, etc.) to rock quality metrics had begun with one department, Caltrans.
A wide geographic reach and scaling measurements representative of the common design-
bid-build approach to scaling contracting may be applicable to more DOTs than Caltrans’s
nationally unique state employee maintenance approach. Research results would assist DOTs
with scaling cost estimation and would preserve and document institutional knowledge.
Scaling Framework and Best Practices

Preparation of a scaling practice framework following research on effective practices would
help guide less experienced DOTs with rock slope scaling. Research would focus on areas where
risk to the owner, designer, or contractor may be reduced, and where weaknesses inherent with
inconsistent or poorly documented practices could be overcome. Design worksheets, sample
specifications, and plan sheet examples that incorporate effective practices would be a high-
value deliverable from this research.
Scaling Decision Support Tools

Decision support tools to help departments with selecting which slopes are eligible for scaling
and subsequent prioritization criteria may benefit many DOTs.
Methods to Manage and Document Poor Production

or Poor Performance
Some agencies have had to manage contractors with unsatisfactory production rates or other
wise poor performance. Some communicated that a lack of documented performance measures
and production rates left them with little justification for terminating contracts or for seeking
out additional contractors. Published methods for describing and measuring appropriate and
suitable production rates may benefit those DOTs with limited scaling experience.
Scaling Database
Establishing a national scaling database with values for production rates, rock quality, and
slope rating values, among other items, could provide a robust knowledge base for analysis
and guidance to help scaling states refine their scaling practices and help less experienced DOTs
achieve better project outcomes when scaling is required.

References
Abellán, A., J. Calvet, J. M. Vilaplana, and J. Blanchard. 2010. Detection and Spatial Prediction of Rockfalls by
Means of Terrestrial Laser Scanner Monitoring. Geomorphology 119, 162–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.geomorph.2010.03.016.
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. n.d. Overview of AKDOT&PF’s Geotechnical
Asset Management Program [Web document]. http://akdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.
html?appid=15ca1b0297e94ad386c01cc459851ee8. Accessed April 18, 2019.
Anderson, S. A., M. J. Vessely, and T. Ortiz. 2017. An Example of Risk-Based Geotechnical Asset Management.
In Proceedings of the 68th Highway Geology Symposium. Presented at the 68th Highway Geology Symposium,
Marietta, Ga.
Andrew, R. D., R. Bartingale, and H. Hume. 2011. Context Sensitive Rock Slope Design Solutions. Final Report
No. FHWA-CFL/TD-11-002. Federal Highway Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway Division,
Lakewood, Colo.
Andrew, R. D., and L. A. Pierson. 2012. Stabilization of Rockfall. In Rockfall: Characterization and Control,
(A. K. Turner and R. L. Schuster, eds.). Miscellaneous publication, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C., pp. 468–493.
Arndt, B. 2020. Questionnaire Results. In Transportation Research Circular E-C260: Managing Highway Rock
Slope Scaling: Design and Construction State of the Practice. Presentations from the 97th Annual Meeting
of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Beckstrand, D., and A. Mines. 2017. Jump-Starting a Geotechnical Asset Management Program with Existing
Data. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2656, pp. 23–30.
https://doi.org/10.3141/2656-03.
Beckstrand, D., A. Mines, B. Black, B. George, P. D. Thompson, and D. Stanley. 2017. Rockfall Hazard Process
Assessment. No. FHWA/MT-17-008/8239-001. Montana Department of Transportation, Helena, Mont.
Brawner, C. O. 1994. Rockfall Hazard Mitigation Methods. Participant Workbook, NHI Course No. 13219.
FHWA SA-93-085. National Highway Institute, Washington, D.C.
Caltrans. 2014a. Caltrans Bank Scaling & Rock Climbing Student Manual, version 9.0. California Department of
Transportation, Sacramento, Calif.
Caltrans. 2014b. Caltrans Memorial Honors 183 Fallen Highway Workers and Reminds Motorists to Slow
for the Cone Zone and Move Over. News release. https://tpgonlinedaily.com/caltrans-memorial-honors-
183-fallen-highway-workers-reminds-motorist-slow-cone-zone/. Accessed April 3, 2019.
Cook, W., P. J. Barr, and M. W. Halling. 2015. Bridge Failure Rate. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities,
29. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000571.
Duffy, J. D. 2018. Rock Slope Scaling Investigative Approach and Volume Estimation Method. In Proceedings
of the 69th Highway Geology Symposium. Presented at the Highway Geology Symposium, Portland, Maine.
Dunham, L., J. Wartman, M. J. Olsen, M. O’Banion, and K. Cunningham. 2017. Rockfall Activity Index (RAI):
A Lidar-Derived, Morphology-Based Method for Hazard Assessment. Engineering Geology, No. 221,
pp. 184–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2017.03.009.
Federal Highway Administration. 1989. Rock Slopes: Design, Excavation, Stabilization. FHA, Washington, D.C.
George, B., B. Black, and J. Sharkey. 2016. D3 Rockfall Mitigation Project Interstate 15, Helena to Great Falls,
Montana. In Proceedings of the 67th Highway Geology Symposium, Colorado Springs, Colo., pp. 151–173.
Lan, H., C. D. Martin, C. Zhou, and C. H. Lim. 2010. Rockfall Hazard Analysis Using LiDAR and Spatial Model-
ing. Geomorphology, No. 118, pp. 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.01.002.
Man Killed in Fall During Rockfall Mitigation Work in Clear Creek Canyon [Web document]. 2018. KMGH.
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/worker-killed-in-rockfall-mitigation-accident-
in-clear-creek-canyon. Accessed April 4, 2019.
38

References 39
Mines, A., D. Beckstrand, P. D. Thompson, B. Boundy, S. Helm, and J. Jackson. 2018. Estimating Event Likelihood
for Rock Slope Assets on Transportation Networks. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans-
portation Research Board, No. 2672, pp. 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118777622.
Pierson, L. A. 1991. The Rockfall Hazard Rating System. Final Report No. FHWA-OR-GT-92-05. Oregon State
Highway Division, Salem, Ore.
Pierson, L. A., and R. Van Vickle. 1993. Rockfall Hazard Rating System: Participant’s Manual. Final Report
No. FHWA-SA-93-057. Oregon State Highway Division, Salem, Ore.
Pierson, L. A., and M. P. Vierling. 2012. Mitigation Selection. In Rockfall Characterization and Control
(A. K. Turner and R. L. Schuster, eds.). Miscellaneous publication, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C., pp. 445–467.
Preston, P. 2017. Falling Rock Kills Oregon Man on Wyo Highway Project [Web document]. https://www.kulr8.
com/news/man-dies-after-being-injured-in-a-highway-project-west/article_29856c0f-3134-57d4-86d4-
d6028ab7aedd.html. Accessed April 3, 2019.
Santana, D., J. Corominas, O. Mavrouli, and D. Garcia-Sellés. 2012. Magnitude–Frequency Relation for Rock-
fall Scars Using a Terrestrial Laser Scanner. Engineering Geology, Vol. 145–146, pp. 50–64. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enggeo.2012.07.001.
Stover, B. K. 1992. SP-37 Highway Rockfall Research Report. Special Publication No. 37. Colorado Geological
Survey, Department of Natural Resources, Denver, Colo.
Thompson, P. D., D. Beckstrand, A. Mines, M. Vessely, D. Stanley, and B. Benko. 2016. Geotechnical Asset
Management Plan: Analysis of Life-Cycle Cost and Risk. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, No. 2596, pp. 36–43. https://doi.org/10.3141/2596-05.
Turner, A. K., and G. P. Jayaprakash. 2012. Recognition of Rockfall Hazard: Introduction. In Rockfall Charac-
terization and Control (A. K. Turner, and R. L. Schuster, eds.). Miscellaneous publication, Transportation
Research Board, Washington D.C., pp. 3–19.
Turner, A. K., and R. L. Schuster (eds.). 2012. Rockfall: Characterization and Control. Miscellaneous publication,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Vessely, M., W. Robert, S. Richrath, V. R. Schaefer, O. Smadi, E. Loehr, and A. Boeckmann. 2019. NCHRP Research
Report 903: Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies, Volume 1: Research Overview.
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Wyllie, D. C. 2017. Rock Fall Engineering, 1st ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla.
Wyllie, D. C., and C. W. Mah. 2004. Rock Slope Engineering: Civil and Mining, 4th ed. Spon Press, New York.

APPENDIX A
Survey Questionnaire
40

Survey Questionnaire 41

















APPENDIX B
Questionnaire Responses
Note that responses have had geographic identifiers removed.

Question: Scaling projects are often selected using a variety of methods; some planned and some
unplanned. Of the following project selection methods, please fill in the general percentage (0 to 100
scale) adding up to 100 (required) for each method. General percentages based on recollection (+/–
10%) are okay.
AVERAGE TOTAL RESPONSES
ANSWER CHOICES NUMBER NUMBER
Performed as a routine maintenance exercise and/or part of a 12 212 17
maintenance program
Performed as part of other highway preservation work (paving, minor 25 455 18
realignments, major ditch rehabilitation, guardrail replacements, etc.)
Programmed as part of a Statewide Transportation Improvement 40 875 22
Program (STIP), a Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), or
other statewide or regional project candidate as part of a larger
rockfall mitigation project
Performed on an emergency basis following rockfall events 34 818 24
Other (comment below) 7 40 6
Comments:
[…] districts are autonomous of each other. Depending on the district and its management, routine scaling work
may or may not be done at all.
At the moment the majority of rock scaling throughout […] is done on a reactive approach. However […] now
has a rockfall management program and in the future with a proactive approach these numbers will change.
Performed as design recommendation after rockfall modeling during construction.
As requested by […] Maintenance Division for spot improvement of problematic sites.
58

Questionnaire Responses 59
Question: How do scaling contractors generally get selected? Of the following methods, please fill in
the general percentage (0 to 100 scale) adding up to 100 (required) for each method. General
percentages based on recollection (+/– 10%) are okay.
AVERAGE TOTAL RESPONSES
ANSWER CHOICES NUMBER NUMBER
Prequalified scaler and/or contractor, on-call list for emergency 28 275 10
response
Not-prequalified, on-call list for emergency response 28 250 9
Low bid, qualifications of scalers and/or contractor required 33 457 14
Low bid 20 100 5
Hired by general contractor without qualification requirements 15 135 9
Hired by general contractor with qualification requirements 68 1083 16
Other (Comment Below) 25 100 4
Comments:
In my district we have a yearly rockfall mitigation contract that is paid out of maintenance funding to the
district. Under this contract in our district we scale and hang draped rockfall netting and perform erosion
control installations to establish vegetation and reduce rockfall on selected slopes.
[…] is currently in the process to create a prequalified scaler list. But this is in the works.
We typically write the special provisions, but do not get involved in the selection process. When done in-house,
our maintenance crews perform the work under a geologist’s supervision and guidance.
Question: What level of effort does your department typically use for designing and specifying scaling
activities?
NUMBER OF RESPONSES
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES (PERCENT)
Maintenance activity and observations 14 58.33%
Roadside visual review by department or consultant geotechnical design 23 95.83%
personnel
Up-close slope inspection by personnel in boom lifts, crane baskets, or on ropes 13 54.17%
Advanced laser scanning and/or photogrammetric techniques 10 41.67%
Other (please specify) 5 20.83%
Comments:
I select sites and have used many measures for selection as detailed above. Each site requires different levels of
effort.
All of the above.
[…] is in the first stages of utilizing UAV inspection of slopes.
[…] has only recently started to use terrestrial lidar and UAV lidar. Photogrammetric techniques are used on a
case-by-case basis.
We are beginning to look at ground and aerial UAV tools to help us monitor scaling pre- and post-scaling
rockfall.

Question: How does your department estimate the volume of scaling debris for removal and haul?
NUMBER OF RESPONSES
Expert judgement for rock type and rock quality 16 66.67%
Volume & area relationships (e.g., ½ cy per 100 sf of slope to be scaled) 9 37.50%
Unit (vol./weight) production per scaler hour (e.g. ½ cy per scaler hour) 4 16.67%
Weight & area relationships (e.g., 1 ton per 100 sf of slope to be scaled) 1 4.17%
Comments:
Under our yearly program we are tied into scaling work with department forces and equipment. Our maintenance
crews do the haul and roadway and ditch cleanup. We count loads to estimate the amount of material removed
from the slope but generally we scale until I decide that we are done. Under programmed projects we have used
varied methods and await the next project for evaluation of lidar data for estimating purposes. My first project
was done by consultants and estimates were based on expert knowledge and cross sections. Payment was by the
ton removed.
Department is progressing towards using more detailed topographic and/or lidar surveys to more accurately
determine the quantity of rock that needs to be removed.
We add a 30% bulk volume increase of calculated volume of scaled material.
Visual estimate of total quantity.
Estimate excavation quantity from surveyed cross sections or assumed typical section area of debris removal .
Question: How does your department estimate scaling production rates?

NUMBER OF RESPONSES
Expert judgement for individual slopes 18 75.00%
Expert judgement for various scaling levels of effort 13 54.17%
Standard quantity for all slopes 2 8.33%
Analytical approach using rock quality indicators (RMR, RQD, GSI, etc.) 2 8.33%
A few standard quantities for overburden/rock types, slope geometries, etc. 0 0%
Proprietary methods 0 0%
Comments:
On maintenance projects it’s expert judgment. On programmed projects it’s a mix depending on the slope.
[…] bids scaling by square yard of rock face. We are currently reviewing our bid process for rock scaling.
Scaling production rates are estimated only for project scheduling purposes; payment is based on other factors .
Generally do not figure rates. Most done as lump sum or time and materials.
200 SF/HR is our published guidance in Supplemental Specification 862 (starting point for an estimate) .
We have looked at past levels of effort put into scaling on previous rock slope remediation projects to help us
with our estimation of hand scaling production rates.
Essentially hours per rope set and add traffic cue clearing time.

Question: In your department’s experience, what is considered a “reasonable” production rate for
“General Scaling”? For consistency between geologic materials and project purposes, presume a non-
presplit rock slope, an RQD of 60%, and as part of a larger rockfall mitigation project within a two-
lane, rural, mountainous highway corridor with scaling performed using rope access methods.
NUMBER OF RESPONSES
Too variable to answer. 11 47.83%
50–200 square feet per individual scaler hour. 6 26.09%
800+ square feet per individual scaler hour. 0 0%

Question: Which units does your department most frequently use to measure scaling quantities? If
multiple methods are used, select which one has had the most success.
NUMBER OF RESPONSES
Hours (Crew Hours) 12 50.00%
Hours (Individual Scaler Hours) 4 16.67%
Unit Volume 3 12.50%
Unit Area 2 8.33%
Unit Length 0 0%
Lump Sum 0 0%
Comments:
Not sure, either unit volume or lump sum.
Scaling operations are paid by Unit Area; debris is removed and paid by Unit Volume.
Hours (Crew Hours) with supplemental pay items for Trimblasting (SF) and Debris Removal/Excavation (CY).

Question: Does your department use separate bid items for different scaling techniques (hand scaling
from ropes, hand scaling from lifts, mechanical scaling, air-pillows, heavy scaling, etc.)?
NUMBER OF RESPONSES
Yes 12 50.00%
No 8 33.33%
Comments:
We typically only use a single bid item for scaling, which indicates scaling from ropes or lifts using scaling bars or
air-pillows. We have discussed using mechanical scaling techniques but this is not typical for our department
and would require a separate bid item.
Typically “No” but have used CY for mechanical scaling on limited # (less than 10%) of projects.
In the past hand scaling bid item has included all work with pry bars as well as using air bags, hydraulic splitters,
expanding grout, and other propellant-based systems. Currently we have begun to separate hand scaling with pry
bars using rappel from air bagging/splitting/expanding grout/etc. We call this item “Mechanical Scaling,” which is
separate from “Machine Scaling,” which is defined as using heavy equipment to rip loose rock out either with a
bucket and/or hammer.
Slope scaling includes all scaling techniques other than excavator or crane-assisted mechanical scaling.

Question: What is your department’s preferred method for delineating scaling extents in the plan
drawings?
NUMBER OF RESPONSES
Oblique photographs with scaling extents drawn 11 45.83%
Plan view drawings with scaling station-extent shown 5 20.83%
Scaling extents by station in a table 3 12.50%
Comments:
We typically use both photographs and plans.
Plan view drawings with scaling station-extent (we also use photos and have a Geologist on site to direct
contractor to achieve preferred results).
Show stop/start limits by station.
Onsite scaling direction during scaling from qualified personnel. […] Slope Assessment Forms (assess the safety
and goals of slopes for scaling operation).
Annotated panel photos of rock cut by stationing depicting areas to be scaled and expected degree of effort
(heavy scaling vs. general scaling).
Preferred Method for Delineating Scaling Extents

Question: Does your department specify performance criteria that defines satisfactory scaling or to
otherwise judge when scaling is complete?
NUMBER OF RESPONSES
Yes 6 25.00%
No 12 50.00%
Comments:
I use visual examination. When double twist or other mesh is to be installed I require that scaling must remove
all loose rock capable of exceeding the capacity or the mesh to contain without damage. I instruct the scaling
crew to use their professional judgment when double twist mesh is being installed to inform the inspector when
they believe scaling is complete and no obvious loose rocks capable of damaging the mesh have been removed.
I then usually review the slope visually or in some cases rappel areas to confirm their assessment. I take into
account slope elevation and observe rock roll outs to determine the point when rock will no longer reach the
roadway also to assess completion of scaling.
Scaling is always specified “as directed by the Engineer” which indicates that the construction inspector
determines when scaling is complete. There is no standard performance criteria that the inspector uses but it
prevents the contractor from determining scaling extents and duration.
See question 3.
Scaling completion/adequacy is determined by visual inspection by Engineering Geologist designer of record.
Performed to the satisfaction of the project geologist.
Onsite scaling review by qualified personnel. Slope Assessment Form [requires] onsite evaluation and whether
we met the goals set out in Slope Assessment Form.

Question: If your department requires qualifications for scaling, whom do they apply to?
NUMBER OF RESPONSES
All scaling personnel 13 54.17%
All scaling personnel, but with a training/journeyman provision 5 20.83%
Not applicable 4 16.67%
Foremen only 1 4.17%
For the company as a whole rather than on a person-by-person basis 1 4.17%
Comments:
We are not too involved with consultant selection processes.
Question: If your department requires prequalification for scaling, what are the qualifications?
NUMBER OF RESPONSES
Hours of experience per qualified scaler 8 33.33%
Number of projects completed per scaler 0 0%
Number of years of scaling work (per company) 1 4.17%
Number of projects for scaling work (per company) 3 12.50%
References from past clients (per company) 0 0%
Comments:
We have used number of projects completed per company and number of years of scaling work per scaler.
We are not too involved with consultant selection processes.
Number of year per scaler on similar projects.
General requirement assumption that individual scalers are comfortable with the described methods at height.
Loosely quoted as “a description of all the likely techniques and that the personnel are experienced doing this at
the prescribed height.”
Years of scaling with foreman/training exemption
[…] uses a combination of choices 2–6.
Years of experience for scalers/foreman/past project experience.
Hours of experience, minimum number of scaling jobs, and sometimes references on complex slopes.

Question: If paying hourly, when does scaling typically “start”?

NUMBER OF RESPONSES
When ascending (e.g., hiking, boom lift, helicopter, etc.) to the top of the slope 5 20.83%
Beginning of the shift 5 20.83%
When in position and actively scaling using the allowed scaling methods 4 16.67%
When ascending the slope while harnessed up 1 4.17%
Comments:
When fully staffed crew is working on the slope.
Varies per contract.
When actively getting harnessed up and preparing rigging to begin scaling activities.

Question: How does your department measure and pay for removal of scaling debris?
NUMBER OF RESPONSES
Unit volume removed 10 41.67%
Incidental to scaling 4 16.67%
Lump sum 2 8.33%
Time & materials 2 8.33%
Unit weight measured 1 4.17%
Comments:
We have used both lump sum and unit weight. Weight requires scales which is not always practical. I believe
this is best determined based on the scaling site specifics and the logistics related to the waste site.
Either unit weight or volume. Depends on the amount and if we have lidar set up in contract.
Either unit volume removed or time and materials (equipment hours).
Either lump sum or unit volume removed.
Has been incidental to scaling but is being updated to unit volume removed.

Question: How does your department handle “safety scaling” requested by the Contractor not
specified in the Plans? For purposes of this survey only, “safety scaling” is scaling requested by the
scaling contractor that falls outside the scaling boundaries required in the plan and specifications
package.
NUMBER OF RESPONSES
Case-by-case 10 41.67%
Pay it at the contract rate 9 37.50%
It is considered incidental 3 12.50%
Pay at a new, negotiated rate 1 4.17%
Comments:
Safety scaling is a difficult subject. If it’s for the contractors’ convenience then it’s incidental; if it potentially has
production implications to the rest of the project, then it’s paid by the contract rate with a no-effect change
order that does not allow renegotiating prices. If it’s truly for the safety of the scalers to be able to perform the
contract scaling as outlined in the plans, then we prefer to negotiate a separate price. In reality you can’t ask
them to scale below a hazard that you know about without some form of payment.
Scope escalations initiated by the contractor are not allowed.
Question: What tasks are measured and paid as “scaling”?

NUMBER OF RESPONSES
Non-scaling foreman 15 65.22%
Labor to support scaling/equipment moving (air hoses, ropes, etc.) while not 15 65.22%
harnessed up
Tree/vegetation removal at the slope crest and/or on the slope 14 60.87%
Bench cleaning 11 47.83%
Safety spotters 10 43.48%
Comments:
On typical projects only scaling vegetation removal at the crest of the slope and/or on the slope are paid as
scaling. On maintenance projects directed by the state, it’s all things that need being done so as to reduce the
overall manpower needs on the project.
Only rock removal is paid as scaling. Safety spotters are on a case-by-case basis. Non-scaling foreman is required
but not paid separately; general labor and tree/vegetation removal are paid as separate items.
We do not get very involved with […] contracts regarding pay items.
Lump sum or time and materials.

Question: If your department requires temporary roadway/property protection (e.g., pavement,

appurtenant structure, river, or property protection rather than safety-related protection) during
scaling, is it:
NUMBER OF RESPONSES
Contractor designed? 13 54.17%
Designed by the Owner or their representative? 5 20.83%
We do not require roadway protection. 1 4.17%
Comments:
Both contractor designed on projects and state designed on maintenance projects.
It has been both designed by owner and designed by contractor.
We have used both owner-designed and supplied systems, and contractor-designed and supplied systems.
The manner in which we handle this varies by contract. In some cases, we design sand blankets or use owner-
selected barriers. In many cases, protection of features is up to the contractor.
Often contractor designed with performance specification and submittal requirements but when environmental
clearance is required prior to design completion, the protection plan is designed by the Owner so NEPA can be
completed prior to construction.
Question: If your department requires temporary rockfall protection (e.g., rockfall safety protection
for public or others), is it:
NUMBER OF RESPONSES
Contractor designed? 10 41.67%
Designed by the Owner or their representative? 5 20.83%
We always completely close the road, so rockfall protection for the public is not 4 16.67%
needed
Comments:
Both contractor designed on projects and state closes road on maintenance projects.
It has been both designed by owner and designed by contractor.
Varies. We typically run a rudimentary or complete rockfall simulation to determine road closure. If it is even in
the realm of being safe we will see what’s available to the contractor and re-assess. For program work we
evaluate proposals from the contractor.
[…] uses both Owner-designed and Contractor-designed systems, depending on the project.
When possible, we completely close the road for 2- to 4-hour time-frames with limited daily openings.
Otherwise, it is the same as answered for [the prior question].

Question: If your department uses temporary rockfall protection measures to facilitate traffic passage,
please indicate the success of each measure as part of a temporary rockfall protection system.
FAILED MINOR MAJOR
NOT USED IN WHEN USED CONTRIBUTOR CONTRIBUTOR
OUR ON A STAND- TO SYSTEM TO SYSTEM TOTAL
ANSWER CHOICES DEPARTMENT ALONE BASIS SUCCESS SUCCESS RESPONDENTS
Freshly cleaned 20.00% ( total) 0% 40.00% 40.00%
20
catchment ditch 4 (count) 0 8 8
Energy-absorbing gravel 36.84% 0% 57.89% 5.26%
19
blanket 7 0 11 1
Construction material
barrier (plywood/hay 57.89% 0% 26.32% 15.79%
19
bales/debris berm/sand 11 0 5 3
bags/etc.)
Concrete barriers 5.00% 10.00% 40.00% 45.00%
20
1 2 8 9
Stationary rockfall 52.63% 0% 0% 47.37%
19
barrier 10 0 0 9
Shipping containers or 57.89% 0% 5.26% 36.84%
19
other barriers 11 0 1 7
Barrier-mounted fence
50.00% 0% 25.00% 25.00%
extension for small 20
10 0 5 5
debris
Moveable rockfall 23.81% 0% 4.76% 71.43%
21
barrier 5 0 1 15
Crane-supported debris 47.37% 0% 15.79% 36.84%
19
barrier 9 0 3 7
Other 100.00 0% 0% 0%
2
2 0 0 0
Comments:
My district does use some of these methods above but has never allowed live traffic while scaling. The systems
above were used to facilitate road cleanup to release traffic after temporary closures .
We assume moveable rockfall barrier includes portable concrete barrier.

Question: How does your department inspect and review scaling activities (multiple choice)?
NUMBER OF RESPONSES
Inspector reviews from the ground as part of other inspection duties 18 75.00%
Inspector with rock slope experience (in-house or consultant) reviews 16 66.67%
performance by accessing the slope via ropes or other slope access technique
(i.e., boom lift, crane basket, etc.)
Inspector with rock slope experience (in-house or consultant) inspects 11 45.83
performance from the ground full-time
Other (please specify) 6 25.00
Comments:
Inspector with rock slope experience inspects part-time.
Inspector is briefed on process w/r/t time and expected techniques. Periodic inspection by geotech staff.
Inspector review from ground is primary. Inspection by accessing the slope is limited (maybe 10–20% of time).
Assisted by departmental geologist.
[…] is exploring the use of UAVs for pre- and post-scaling inspection.
Owner Inspector trained by engineering geologists before project starts and engineering geologists often visit
the site for final “buyoff” evaluation of the slope scaling before other rockfall mitigation activities commence.
Question: Who accepts the completed scaling work (multiple choice)?

NUMBER OF RESPONSES
Experienced designer with on-slope verification 12 50.00%
Construction engineer with scaling experience 11 45.83%
Construction engineer without scaling experience 9 37.50%
They are done when the budget is exhausted 1 4.17%
Comments:
Engineering Geologist designer of record typically from the ground, but occasionally from on-rope.
Agency Engineering Geology personnel with scaling experience.
Assisted by departmental geologist.
The […] Engineering Project Manager accepts the work based on technical guidance provided by the
Geotechnical Section or their qualified designee.
The Agency Geologist and/or qualified inspector views the scaling work at the request of the Resident Engineer.
Once approval is given by Geologist/qualified inspector then Resident Engineer accepts the completed scaling
work.

Question: Does your department currently or plan to use advanced techniques to measure scaling
completion for payment purposes (multiple choice)?
NUMBER OF RESPONSES
Yes, we plan to use advanced techniques to measure scaling completion and
9 37.50%
area coverage
No 8 33.33%
We’ve considered it, but not sure of its use, reliability, or defensibility 6 25.00%
Yes, we currently use advanced techniques (laser scanner, photogrammetry,
2 8.33%
etc.) to measure scaling completion and area coverage
Comments:
“Advanced techniques” have been used when mechanical scaling is specified with payment in CY. Volume of
debris from scaling (scaling measured in $/hr) is measured per SS862 guidance—there are two options: 3-D
volume method or “Measured in Vehicle.”
Scaling itself will still be measured by hours. Depending on job size, some thought is being given to measuring
scaled material quantities via UAV or similar means, but still paid as unclassified excavation. (Typically the
material removal is completed by the prime contractor and not directly tied to the scaling items.)
We plan to use before-and-after scaling scans to evaluate rockfall activity post-scaling. We haven’t used it for
measurements of payment.

Question: Does your department keep records of rockfall activity following scaling?
NUMBER OF RESPONSES
Yes, but kept informally or through job experience 9 37.50%
No 5 20.83%
Yes, and we have documentation that we can share 2 8.33%
Comments:
We track rockfall events that are reported to the department by county sheriffs, state law enforcement, and
individuals, or by maintenance personnel.
We keep records through our Maintenance rockfall reporting system but the results are not comprehensive—
reporting quality varies across the state. We are happy to share the documentation that we have.
Performance of slopes is documented as part of our unstable slope management system.
Yes but it isn’t well coordinated. Slope scaling may occur but that information may take time to get to the
personnel recording the activity.
Yes; kept through continuation of periodic monitoring of all highway rock cuts within our Rockfall
Hazard Management System.
We have a rockfall reporting system through our maintenance department.
This is captured in our Rock Slope Asset Management Program (RAMP),
https://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/webdata/external/research/docs/research_proj/rockfall/PROJECT_S
UMMARY.pdf.
We are not owners of the facilities that we help maintain but we work with the owners to track rockfall activity
before and after the scaling. We often participate in adding informat ion to their slope asset management or
maintenance information systems for tracking rockfall activity, but more recently, we have been emphasizing
instituting an unstable slope management tool for managing their slope assets. Setting this system up for the
owner to use prior to the scaling has been very helpful in allowing them to track their slope assets performance.
Question: Does your department keep records of slope condition (RHRS ratings, apparent RQD,
RMR, etc.) pre- and post-scaling?
NUMBER OF RESPONSES
Yes 13 54.17%
No 8 33.33%
Comments:
Each district has or does not have a rockfall inventory system. Mine uses RHRS and we track scaling success and
rockfall events after scaling. Some slopes we scale every 2–5 years when frequency of events increases.
We try to do another RHRS after scaling but many times the elapsed time is significant .
Work with our local maintenance crews to record rockfall event occurrence before and after scaling operations
to determine effectiveness.

Question: If your department uses advanced techniques to monitor slope performance following
scaling completion, which technique?
NUMBER OF RESPONSES
No, we do not use advanced techniques 18 75.00%
Yes, other (please specify) 4 16.67%
Yes, we use terrestrial scanner techniques 1 4.17%
Yes, we use UAV-based technology (photogrammetry, laser scanner, etc.) 1 4.17%
Yes, we use terrestrial photogrammetry techniques 0 0%
Comments:
We have just begun the process of collecting UAV-based and terrestrial scanner and photogrammetry
technology but have not yet collected follow-up scans.
We have used both terrestrial lidar, [but] more typically, we use photogrammetric record.
We have used terrestrial scanning techniques and are exploring the use of UAV-based technology for future
projects.
We are starting to use terrestrial with photogrammetry overlays and UAV-based technology to look at slope
performance following scaling activities. This discussion and techniques have only been applied with some of
our partners through pilot programs in the last 2 years.

Question: If applicable, what lesson has your department learned regarding slope scaling over the
past 10 to 20 years?
Comments:
The more time and experience you spend prior to scaling to access the degree of effort for scaling needed the
better the project outcome will be.
Accurate surveying of the existing slope topography is important.
It is invaluable to have an individual with extensive rock slope experience directing the scaling efforts at a site
and determining when scaling is complete.
Correct catchment design is strived for if space is available on a given project. Pre-splitting is highly
recommended to keep rock mass from becoming damaged (some Districts prefer a more natural rock slope
which tends to give more rockfall problems vs. pre-splitting). Ensure that Maintenance knows that it is very
important to keep the catchment ditch cleaned out to original design criteria.
Build in risk to project (extra contingency) due to unpredictable, variable quantities. Best results occur when
Geotech (design expert) is on site to use judgement on scaling locations and quantities.
We have seen an interest from contractors to employ “apprentice” scalers, which are not currently allowed in our
specification. In cases where roadway or feature protection is provided by the contractor, they often are not
prepared to provide a level of protection that we, as the owner, feel is adequate. We have typically experienced
difficulties in the accurate estimation of debris removal quantities despite employing a variety of methods.
Although some of the observed variability can be attributed to difficulties in quantifying how rock scales based
on its condition, some is likely the result of variation in practice from scaler to scaler. This issue is especially acute
on very high slopes. We place a high value on the use of experienced engineering geologists to guide scaling work
to reduce the potential for damaging the slope and also for focusing work in targeted areas. We see quite a bit of
variation from project office to project office in how scaling hours are counted; do the hours include accessing
the slope? How are traffic control delays accounted for? Is a standby rate applied? etc. Experience submittals
often vary in how scaling hours are presented and counted, requiring iterative clarification in order to align with
our specification.
Issues with temporary catchment, productivity rates.
Quantities for scaling can almost never be overestimated; scaling operations should be closely monitored and
inspected for compliance. Experience is key!
Typically only complete this work to address emergencies.
We have chosen crew time as opposed to volume production. Mostly because it’s easier for an inspector to
record. Additionally, there are a limited number of scaling contractors who work on our projects so we are familiar
with their technique, experience and production.
That estimating scaling hours and quantity material is very difficult and varies significantly on every job.
Lack of [state] based scalers can create $/hr irregularities. Prime contractors are motivated to use earthwork
equipment instead of a subcontractor scaling.
Relying on general contractors to perform challenging scaling work has become more difficult and we are moving
toward using specialty contractors.
We have found the maintenance scaling of slopes to be extremely important in improving public safety, reduced
maintenance expenses, accelerating emergency openings of highways after storm events and improved
protection to state facilities.
Photo plans are a tremendous aid for bidding and contract administration. Scaling is cost-effective rock slope
mitigation and can be incorporated in larger projects to take advantage of traffic control. Some additional rockfall
can be expected and planned for after scaling as the slope re-stabilizes.
Performance-based contracts frequently result in cost overruns or poor performance. Prescriptive approaches
have been effective in managing contract costs.

We have run into problems with running out of scaling hours on projects before, specifically for two reasons: (1)
Extensive vegetation has obscured some areas of the rock cut, making it difficult to predict actual rock slope
conditions, leading to change in design once the vegetation is cleared. (2) The rock composing the areas to scale
is much more weathered/unstable than anticipated, leading to extra scaling time—the opposite has also been
true in the past, where even though numerous joints have been exposed, making easy access for scaling/air
bagging, the rock has been competent enough to greatly slow down scaling activities. We have also run into the
issue of scaling thoroughness, meaning that there have been disagreements between us and the scalers as to
deciding on when an area has been scaled to satisfaction.
Use qualification-based requirements for all scaling personnel; provide a safe way for training scalers in your
specifications to allow for replenishment of industry workers; require air pillows as mandatory equipment for
slope scaling (for general and intensive areas); include safety scaling as incidental to your scaling item; allow
contractors to use their ingenuity for protecting property and the roadways through performance specifications
and the submittal process; pay by the scaling hour per scaler, not the crew hour or by area on the slope. I would
prefer to separate debris removal, including haul, from the slope scaling bid item because it makes it difficult to
follow trends in scaling unit bid prices when the debris removal is part of the equation and may heavily influence
the unit prices. I am working on this with our construction and contracting folks.

APPENDIX C
Example Scaling Plan Sheets

Submitted by DOTs
Appendix C is available on the TRB website (www.TRB.org) by searching for “NCHRP

Synthesis 555.” The appendix contains example scaling plan sheets submitted by
• Central Federal Lands Highway Division
• Montana Department of Transportation
• Ohio Department of Transportation
• Western Federal Lands Highway Division
• Washington State Department of Transportation
• Wyoming Department of Transportation
78

APPENDIX D
Example Scaling Specifications

and Contractor Submittals
Provided by DOTs
Appendix D is available on the TRB website (www.TRB.org) by searching for “NCHRP
Synthesis 555.” The appendix contains example scaling specifications and selected contractor
submittals provided by
• Central Federal Lands Highway Division (with sample contractor submittal)
• Montana Department of Transportation (with sample contractor submittal)
• North Carolina Department of Transportation
• Ohio Department of Transportation (with sample contractor submittal)
• Oregon Department of Transportation
• Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
• Western Federal Lands Highway Division (with sample contractor submittal)
• Washington State Department of Transportation
• Wyoming Department of Transportation (with sample contractor submittal)
79


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

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
Washington, DC 20001
500 Fifth Street, NW
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
NON-PROFIT ORG.
ISBN 978-0-309-48146-5
COLUMBIA, MD
PERMIT NO. 88
U.S. POSTAGE
90000
PAID
9 780309 481465

Estimating and Contracting Rock Slope Scaling Adjacent To Highways. NCHRP 555 (NAP)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Estimating and Contracting Rock Slope Scaling Adjacent To Highways. NCHRP 555 (NAP)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25824 SHARE

Estimating and Contracting Rock Slope Scaling Adjacent to

88 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2020. Estimating and

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NCHRP SYNTHESIS 555

A Synthesis of Highway Practice

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP SYNTHESIS 555

Published reports of the

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

Transportation Research Board

and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

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

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP SYNTHESIS 555

NCHRP PROJECT 20-05 PANEL

TOPIC 50-13 PANEL

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

ABOUT THE NCHRP SYNTHESIS PROGRAM

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

9 Chapter 2 Literature Review

26 Chapter 4 Case Examples

35 Chapter 5 Conclusions and Research Opportunities

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Estimating and Contracting

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

2 Estimating and Contracting Rock Slope Scaling Adjacent to Highways

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Role of Rock Slopes Within Transportation Corridors

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Figure 1. Hand scaling via rope access and with

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

8 Estimating and Contracting Rock Slope Scaling Adjacent to Highways

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

10 Estimating and Contracting Rock Slope Scaling Adjacent to Highways

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

State of the Practice

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

12 Estimating and Contracting Rock Slope Scaling Adjacent to Highways

Figure 4. Map of survey respondents.

100 1. Programmed as part of an STIP, HSIP, or other

60 work (paving, minor realignments, major ditch

Figure 5. Survey responses for project selection methods.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

State of the Practice 13

100 1. Hired by general contractor with qualification

Figure 6. Survey responses for use of contractor qualifications, their contracting,

Design Efforts for Scaling

100 95.8 1. Roadside visual review by department or consultant

58.3 lifts, in crane baskets, or on ropes

Figure 7. Design efforts for scaling.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.