Life-cycle cost analysis of optimal timing of pavement preservation

Abstract

Optimal application of pavement preservation or preventive maintenance is critical for highway agencies to allocate the limited budget for different treatments. This study developed an integrated life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) model to quantify the impact of pavement preservation on agency cost and vehicle operation cost (VOC) and analyzed the optimal timing of preservation treatments. The international roughness index (IRI) data were extracted from the long-term pavement performance (LTPP) program specific pavement studies 3 (SPS-3) to determine the long-term effectiveness of preservation treatments on IRI deterioration. The traffic loading and the initial IRI value significantly affects life extension and the benefit of agency cost caused by pavement preservation. The benefit in VOC is one to two orders greater in magnitude as compared to the benefit in agency cost. The optimal timing calculated based on VOC is always earlier than the optimal timing calculated based on agency cost. There are considerable differences among the optimal timing of three preservation treatments.

Keywords

pavement preservation / life-cycle cost analysis / agency cost / vehicle operation cost

References

[1] Labi S, Sinha K C. Measures of short-term effectiveness of highway pavement maintenance. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 2003, 129(6): 673–683

[2] Morian A D.Cost Benefit Analysis of Including Microsurfacing in Pavement Treatment Strategies & Cycle Maintenance. FHWA-PA-2011–001–080503, 2011

[3] Wang H, Wang Z. Evaluation of pavement surface friction subject to various pavement preservation treatments. Construction and Building Materials, 2013, 48: 194–202

[4] Peshkin D G, Hoerner T E, Zimmerman K A. Optimal Timing of Pavement Preventive Maintenance Treatment Measures. NCHRP Report 523, Transportation Research Board, 2004

[5] Wei C, Tighe S. Development of preventive maintenance decision trees based on cost-effectiveness analysis an Ontario case study. Transportation Research Record, 2004, 1866: 9–19

[6] Haider S W, Dwaikat M B. Estimating optimal timing for preventive maintenance treatments to mitigate pavement roughness. Transportation Record, the 89th Annual Meeting, 2010

[7] Wang G, Morian D, Frith D. Cost-benefit analysis of thin surface treatments in pavement treatment strategies and cycle maintenance. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 2013, 25(8): 1050–1058

[8] Dong Q, Huang B. Evaluation of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of asphalt pavement rehabilitations utilizing LTPP data. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 2012, 138(6): 681–689

[9] Wang Y, Wang G, Mastin N. Costs and effectiveness of flexible pavement treatments: experience and evidence. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 2012, 26(4): 516–525

[10] Lu P, Tolliver D. Pavement treatment short-term effectiveness in IRI change using long-term pavement program data. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 2012, 138(11): 1297–1302

[11] Hall K T, Correa C E, Simpson A L.LTPP data analysis: effectiveness of maintenance and rehabilitation options. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, NCHRP Web Document 47 (Project 20-50[3/4]): Contractor’s Final Report, 2002

[12] Labi S, Mahmodi MI, Fang C, Nunoo C. Cost-effectiveness of microsurfacing and thin hot-mix asphalt overlays: comparative analysis. Transportation Research Board 86th Annual Meeting, 2007

[13] Labi S, Lamptey G, Kong S H. Effectiveness of microsurfacing treatments. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 2007, 133(5): 298–307

[14] Haider S W, Baladi G Y. Effect of pavement condition data collection frequency on performance prediction. Transportation Record, 89th Annual Meeting, 2010

[15] Huang B, Dong Q.Optimizing pavement preventive maintenance treatment applications in tennessee (Phase 1). Final Report. Project#: RES1307, 2009

[16] Ong G P, Nantung T, Sinha K C. Indiana Pavement Preservation Program. FHWA/IN/JTRP-2010/14, West Lafayette, IN, 2010

[17] Markow, M J. Life-cycle costs evaluations of effects of pavement maintenance. Transportation Research Record, 1991, 1276: 37–47

[18] ARA Inc. ERES Division. Development of the 2002 Guide for the Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavements. NCHRP 1-37A Report, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D C, 2004

[19] Morosiuk G, Riley M, Toole T. HDM-4 Highway Development & Management. Volume Two, Application Guide. PIARC, World Road Association, 2002, 2–133.

[20] Chatti K, Zaabar I. Estimating the Effects of Pavement Condition on Vehicle Operating Costs. NCHRP 720, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D C, 2012

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2016 Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg