Life-cycle cost analysis of optimal timing of pavement preservation
- 128 Downloads
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.
Keywordspavement preservation life-cycle cost analysis agency cost vehicle operation cost
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Morian A D. Cost Benefit Analysis of Including Microsurfacing in Pavement Treatment Strategies & Cycle Maintenance. FHWA-PA- 2011–001–080503, 2011Google Scholar
- 4.Peshkin D G, Hoerner T E, Zimmerman K A. Optimal Timing of Pavement Preventive Maintenance Treatment Measures. NCHRP Report 523, Transportation Research Board, 2004Google Scholar
- 6.Haider SW, Dwaika MB. Estimating optimal timing for preventive maintenance treatments to mitigate pavement roughness. Transportation Record, the 89th Annual Meeting, 2010Google Scholar
- 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, 2002Google Scholar
- 12.Labi S, Mahmodi M I, Fang C, Nunoo C. Cost-effectiveness of microsurfacing and thin hot-mix asphalt overlays: comparative analysis. Transportation Research Board 86th Annual Meeting, 2007Google Scholar
- 14.Haider S W, Baladi G Y. Effect of pavement condition data collection frequency on performance prediction. Transportation Record, 89th Annual Meeting, 2010Google Scholar
- 15.Huang B, Dong Q. Optimizing pavement preventive maintenance treatment applications in tennessee (Phase 1). Final Report. Project#: RES1307, 2009Google Scholar
- 16.Ong G P, Nantung T, Sinha K C. Indiana Pavement Preservation Program. FHWA/IN/JTRP-2010/14, West Lafayette, IN, 2010Google Scholar
- 17.Markow, M J. Life-cycle costs evaluations of effects of pavement maintenance. Transportation Research Record, 1991, 1276: 37–47Google Scholar
- 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, 2004Google Scholar
- 19.Morosiuk G, Riley M, Toole T. HDM-4 Highway Development & Management. Volume Two, Application Guide. PIARC, World Road Association, 2002, 2–133.Google Scholar