Papagiannakis and Delwar (2001) Incorporating User Costs Into Pavement Management Decisions PDF

5th International Conference on Managing Pavements (2001)
Incorporating User Costs into Pavement Management Decisions
A.T. Papagiannakis
Washington State University
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Pullman WA 99164-2910,
USA
(509) 335 4547
pappa@wsu.edu
M. Delwar
Washington State Department of Transportation
401 2nd Ave., Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98104-2887
USA
(206) 389-3039
delwarm@wsdot.wa.gov
Abstract Despite clearly established federal guidelines (1, 2, 3), few State DOT’s include
user costs, other than pavement works related travel delays, in pavement life cycle cost
analysis (LCCA) (4, 5). Omitting the variety of other user cost components, particularly
those related to vehicle operating costs, can potentially skews the results. The
international literature abounds in studies that relate user cost components (e.g., fuel
consumption, repair/maintenance and so on) to pavement roughness. Recent evidence has
shown that pavement roughness has a significant effect on certain user cost components
of trucks and passenger cars for the conditions encountered in European and US
conditions (6, 7). This paper demonstrates how these user cost relationships, along with
agency costs, can be incorporated into the process of making pavement investment
decisions at both the network and project levels. The process is implemented into a
software package named Pavement Investment Decisions (PID). This software is generic
and specially designed to be adaptable to the practices of various State DOT’s. At the
network level, sections are flagged in order of decreasing ratio of user benefit divided by
agency cost. User benefit is calculated as the reduction in user costs from its current
roughness to the roughness of a new pavement. The agency cost is considered to be that
that corresponds to the most capital intensive pavement 4-R treatment. At the project
level, the available budget is allocated amongst the sections identified in a away that
maximizes the user benefits over the analysis period. The pavement management
database of the Washington State DOT was used to implement this methodology and
pilot test PID.
INTRODUCTION
State Departments of Transportation (DOT) expend a great deal of effort in collecting

data on the condition of their roadway pavements, including roughness, structural
condition and distress. This data combined with a multitude of other information on
inventory, traffic and so on is stored in computer databases known as pavement
management systems (PMS). This database offers input to a variety of DOT activities
TRB Committee AFD10 on Pavement Management Systems is providing the information contained herein for use by individual practitioners
1
in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research
community. The information in this paper was taken directly from the submission of the author(s).
including network level and project level pavement investment decisions. At the network
level, the roadway network-wide needs are assessed and particular projects are selected
for rehabilitation, restoration, resurfacing or reconstruction (i.e., 4-R). The selected
sections are further analyzed at the project level, where project-specific decisions are
made on the optimum 4-R treatment.
Federal policies (1, 2) suggest that project level decisions should be taken on the basis
of life cycle cost analysis (LCCA). LCCA is defined (3) as “a process for evaluating the
total economic worth of one or more projects, that is investments, by analyzing both
initial costs as well as discounted future costs, such as maintenance, (includes repair,
rehabilitation, restoration and replacement-the 4-R’s), and user costs over the life of the
project”. User costs include a range of vehicle operating costs (e.g., fuel, repair
maintenance, depreciation and so on) and non vehicle operating costs (e.g., cargo
damage, health, traffic delay and so on).
National surveys (4, 5) suggest that although the number of State DOT’s performing
LCCA is growing, there are still fewer than half that consider user costs in their analysis.
Typically, these user costs include only traffic delay costs during pavement 4-R activities.
Hence, there is a need for a comprehensive methodology that considers two streams of
costs, those of the agency and those of the user, whereby the latter includes all the vehicle
operating cost components that depend on pavement roughness.
The paper at hand describes such a model, named Pavement Investment Decisions
(PID). PID incorporates agency cost in terms of the cost of the feasible pavement 4-R
treatments, given pavement distress and structural condition. PID incorporates two sets
of relationships between user cost components and pavement roughness, namely those
developed by Haugodegard et al. for Norwegian conditions (6) and those developed by
Papagiannakis for US conditions (7, 8). An example of the latter is shown in Figures 1
and 2. In developing PID, a great deal of effort was placed in providing a flexible and
user-friendly interface, that allows individual DOT’s to customize data input and analysis
to suit their particular PMS structure and pavement management practices. The
Washington DOT’s PMS was used as the test bed for developing and testing PID.
OBJECTIVES
The scope of this paper is to demonstrate a methodology for incorporating user costs
as well as agency costs in pavement investment decisions. The specific objectives are to:
● describe the input modules of the program that allow customizing of the pavement
management database and the pavement management practices to be implemented to
suit the particulars of a State DOT,
● outline the basic calculation modules that perform the user cost and the agency cost
calculations at the network and project level and finally,
● describe the output modules of the program, which include listings of projects that
either maximize user benefits given a budget or exceed the selected trigger values of
surface distress/roughness.
2
0.050
0.045
0.040
UNIT COST OF PARTS $/km
0.035
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
ROUGHNESS I RI m / km
FIGURE 1 Effect of Pavement Roughness (IRI) on the Cost of Truck Parts (7, 8)
0.00070
0.00065
0.00060
0.00055 Aver. of 121

TIRE COST $/km
Aver. of 101
0.00050
Aver. of 125
0.00045
Aver. of 130
0.00040 Aver. of 64
Best fit
0.00035
0.00030
1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
ROUGHNESS I RI m / km
FIGURE 2 Effect of Pavement Roughness (IRI) on the Cost of Truck Tires (7, 8)
3
SOFTWARE OVERVIEW
PID was conceived as a self-standing computer model that accepts input from the
PMS databases of any State DOT and utilizes LCCA principles in assisting pavement
investment decisions. Normally, the pavement evaluation data from the last survey year
are needed, from which PID extracts the necessary variables. All the non-essential
variables can be assumed, if not available. Some PMS databases may require additional
processing prior to running PID. For example, the database of the Washington State
DOT, which was used for developing and testing the software, had to be pre-processed
prior to running PID in order to:
● aggregate the condition survey mile-post system to the inventory mile-post system
(i.e., the former has a higher resolution) and,
● calculate total asphalt concrete thickness by adding original thickness to the past
overlay thicknesses.
In such cases, special interface software have to be custom-developed prior to running
PID, as it was done for the Washington State DOT PMS database.
A number of commercially available software tools were used in developing PID,
including:
● Microsoft Visual Basic®, which was used as the overall programming language for
the advantages it offered in interfacing data input and calculations,
● Crystal Report Writer®, which was used for producing the output reports,
● Microsoft Access®, which was used for the pavement management database storage
and handling,
● Structured Query Language (SQL®), which was used for sorting data, and
● Microsoft InstallShield®, which was used for developing the distribution CD-ROM
disks for the software.
PID and the final report for NCHRP Study 1-33 (7) can be downloaded from
http://www.ce.wsu.edu/CEgeotechnical/GTresearch/gtresearch.htm.
INPUT MODULES
The visual interface of PID is an essential component of the software. It allows users
to specify, through a series of screens, the State-particular characteristics of their
pavement management database and the pavement management practices. Data is input
in screens organized into the following input modules:
● Pavement management database description,
● Pavement classification,
● Pavement distress,
● Pavement performance,
● 4-R treatment performance,
● Unit costs for the agency, and
● Economic analysis.
The majority of these screens contain default input values. The user can override these
defaults and input data specific to another State. All screen input is saved on special
tables and hence, needs not to be reentered, unless some change in the structure of the
4
pavement management database or pavement management practices of that State is

effected. Each input module is described briefly next.
Pavement Management Database Description
Data can be extracted from a pavement management database, which is in a Microsoft

Access® format. This was deemed necessary to allow format-free input, while
associating particular columns of data with a variable name. Access® can read a variety
of other database formats (e.g., DBase®, FoxPro®, Oracle® and so on) and hence,
presents no implementation obstacle. The variables extracted from Washington DOT’s
pavement management database are shown in Table 1. The ones highlighted are essential
for running PID, the others can be assumed. The user is asked to supply the variable
name/table/path of their available variables, which are then extracted from the user’s
database(s) into a condensed database, which PID uses as input. A number of additional
screens are displayed asking specific questions to define the type of the various numerical
variables and the range/codes of categorical variables. Pavement roughness can be input
in either:
● numerical form, that is either the International Roughness Index IRI (9) or a newly
developed ISO-compatible index, named Roughness Index for Driving Expenditure
(RIDE) (10), or
● categorical form, involving up to eight discrete levels.
Pavement Classification
This module allows a fairly elaborate definition of pavement types on the basis of their
structural composition (i.e., flexible, rigid and composite). The flexible and composite
pavement types can be further subdivided, for the purpose of defining their performance,
in terms of wearing course and the combination of the thickness of their layers, where
base layers can be specified as either bound or unbound. This approach allows the
definition of up to 21 flexible pavement types (i.e., 3 asphalt concrete thickness
categories, 4 base thickness categories including no base and 2 base type categories,
bound or unbound), each with up to 50 wearing course types. Rigid pavements can be
subdivided, in terms of their reinforcement and joint design, as jointed plain (JPCP),
jointed reinforced (JRCP), and continuously reinforced concrete pavements (CRCP).
Each of these categories can be further subdivided, for the purpose of performance
definition, in terms of slab thickness (i.e., thin, medium and thick) through user-specified
thickness limits. This allows a total number of 9 combinations of rigid pavements. Rigid
pavements that were overlaid with asphalt concrete are treated as composite, because
they have different performance characteristics and require different 4-R treatments.
The user can specify the geographic region within a State, where each of these pavement
types is typically constructed, by associating geographic regions to counties.
Pavement Distress
Pavement distress information is used for both network and project level analysis. At the
network level, it serves simply as one of the alternative criteria for “flagging” pavement
5
TABLE 1: Variables Extracted from Washington State’s Pavement Management

Database.
VARIABLE DESCRIPTION
Pavement section identification number Longitudinal cracking with low severity
State route number Longitudinal cracking with medium severity
Beginning adjusted mile post Longitudinal cracking with high severity
Ending adjusted mile post Transverse cracking with low severity
Increasing or decreasing direction Transverse cracking with medium severity
County Transverse cracking with high severity
Administrative district Flushing with low severity
Number of lanes Flushing with medium severity
Left shoulder width Flushing with high severity
Right shoulder width Rutting
Road width Slab cracking with low severity
Main line, proposed, ramp, etc. Slab cracking with medium severity
Related roadway qualifier Slab cracking with high severity
Presence of bridge Patching with low severity
Whether there is PCC section buried under Patching with medium severity
surface
Pavement type/ category code Patching with high severity
Wearing course type Scaling with low severity
Top layer thickness (asphalt or Portland Scaling with medium severity
concrete)
Treated base Scaling with high severity
Treated base thickness Faulting with low severity
Untreated base thickness Faulting with medium severity
Traffic survey year Faulting with high severity
Annual average daily traffic Joint/crack spalling with low severity
Single unit trucks Joint/crack spalling with medium severity
Double unit trucks Joint/crack spalling with high severity
Multiple unit trucks Pumping with low severity
Average daily traffic growth rate Pumping with medium severity
Truck growth rate Pumping with high severity
% of peak hour traffic in busiest direction Rutting (abrasion) with low severity
% of AADT occurring in peak hour Rutting (abrasion) medium severity
Last 4-R activity year Rutting (abrasion) high severity
Condition survey year
Roughness
Alligator cracking with low severity
Alligator cracking with medium severity
Alligator cracking with high severity
Patching with low severity
Patching with medium severity
Patching with high severity
Raveling with low severity
Raveling with medium severity
Raveling with high severity
highlighted text = necessary variables
6
sections (i.e., identify pavement sections that warrant further analysis at the project level).
At the project level, pavement distress is an essential element in deciding which
pavement 4-R treatments apply to a particular pavement type and climatic region. For the
latter, a distress summary statistic (DSS) is used, with user-defined weigh factors for each
distress selected, amongst the ones listed in Table 2, as well as its extent and severity.
The 4-R treatments that apply to each pavement type and climatic region are user-
specified as a function of DSS and structural condition. The latter is input externally by
the user for the projects that were “flagged’ as candidates for 4-R treatment following the
network level of analysis.
TABLE 2 Distresses Considered in Calculating a Distress Summary (11)
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS RIGID PAVEMENTS
alligator cracking, Slab cracking

patching, Patching
raveling, Scaling
longitudinal cracking, Faulting
transverse cracking, Joint or crack spalling
flushing, Pumping
rutting Surface wear
block cracking, and Longitudinal cracking
reflection cracking. Transverse cracking
Corner breaks
Joint seal damage
Rutting (i.e., abrasion from studded tires).
Pavement Performance
This input module allows the users to specify which of the pavement/wearing course
types are typically built in each climatic region. The user can also specify, through a
series of screens, the rate of pavement deterioration, by entering the expected life of a
section in probabilistic terms, given the pavement/wearing course type and the climatic
region. For each pavement type, exponential curves are fitted for predicting pavement
roughness and DSS deterioration, given the present condition of a pavement section and
its age, as explained later. Postponing a needed 4-R treatment, increases the age of a
pavement section and hence increases its distress, which in turn narrows the alternative 4-
R options feasible to the more capital-intensive ones, which eventually results in
increased agency costs.
4-R Treatment Performance
This module allows the user to select the treatments applicable to each of the
pavement/wearing course types specified earlier, per climatic region, depending on
structural condition. Another set of screens allows the probabilistic input of the effective
life of each 4-R treatment (i.e., period in years between the application of a treatment and
the time when a 4-R treatment is required anew). For each pavement type and 4-R
7
treatment, exponential curves are fitted for predicting pavement roughness and DSS
deterioration, given the present condition of a pavement section and its age, as explained
later. As for new pavements, postponing a needed 4-R treatment, increases the age of a
pavement section and hence increases its distress, which in turn narrows the alternative 4-
R options feasible to the more capital-intensive ones, which eventually results in
increased agency costs.
Unit Costs
This module allows a user to specify the type of activities involved in each pavement 4-
R treatment, as well as their unit cost. Default unit cost values are provided, which can be
overridden by the user.
Economic Analysis
This module allows the user to select the user cost components to be considered in the
analysis. As part of the user cost related input, screens allow input of representative
values of passenger cars, tucks and buses, as well as their mileage-lives, tire prices and so
on. Default values are included for all this input. This module further allows the users to
select the type of user cost relationships to be used. The user can further specify the
analysis period (years), discount rate (%), budget cycle period (years), and amount of
budget ($) available during the upcoming budget cycle..
CALCULATION MODULES
The following sections describe the major calculation modules of PID, which perform
functions, such as calculating user costs due to roughness, calculating agency cost given
the distress condition, predict performance, determine the traffic-related level of service
(LOS) and so on. These modules are described briefly next.
User Costs
The LCCA algorithm implemented into PID accounts for the following user cost
components:
● vehicle depreciation, using the relationships described in Ref. 6.
● vehicle maintenance/repair, using either the relationships described in Refs. 6 or 7.
● tires, using either the relationships described in Refs. 6 or 7.
● cargo damage, using the relationships described in Ref. 6
● driver/passenger health and injury, using the relationships described in Ref. 6
● pavement 4-R related user delay.
For the latter, a delay algorithm was used based on shock-wave and queuing theory for
several lane-closure scenarios.
8
Agency costs
The agency cost for each 4-R treatment is calculated on the basis of a user-specified list
of activities and their corresponding unit costs. The total cost is calculated by adding the
cost of the materials involved in each activity on the basis of the lengths, areas and
volumes calculated from the beginning and ending mile-posts of a section, as well as its
number of lanes/shoulders and their width. Certain assumptions are made in relation to
the unit weights of various construction materials in order to convert volumes to weights.
A fixed overhead cost can be added to the total material-related cost for each 4-R activity
to arrive at the agency cost.
DSS Calculation
Although pavement distress, extent and severity are clearly defined (11), there is no
nationally accepted method for arriving at an index that summarizes the distresses
present. Hence, a generic method had to be devised for summarizing distresses for
incorporation into PID. A Distress Summary Statistic (DSS) was defined by subtracting
from 100, deduct values (DV) corresponding to the extent of each distress type and its
severity level. For each of the distress types selected and each severity level, DV’s are
calculated using the hyperbolic expression below:
Extent
DV = (1)
a + 0.1 Extent
The particular expression was selected because it yields relatively large DV’s before the
particular distress/severity covers large extents of the pavement surface and hence, it
gives an early warning of a problem. The user specifies the extent at which a distress of a
particular severity would, alone, suggest pavement failure (i.e., assumed to be 50 on a
scale of 0 to 100), which allows calculation of the constant a through Equation 1 (Figure
3). The DSS is calculated as:
DSS = 100 - ∑ ∑ DV (2)

m n
where, m and n are the total number of the user-defined distresses and severity levels,
respectively. PID extracts the necessary fields from the pavement management database,
performs the calculations and adds a column for the DSS data to the condensed table used
for PID input. It is recognized that this generic approach for summarizing pavement
distress, despite its flexibility, may not suit the practice of every State DOT. To
accommodate a different approach, it may be necessary to alter the PID code.
Performance Prediction
Pavement performance, in terms of either roughness (i.e., IRI or RIDE) or distress (i.e.,
DSS) is estimated for each particular pavement section on the basis of its present
9
100
90
80 a-value
70 0.1
Deduct Value
60 0.2
0.3
50
0.4
40
0.5
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Extent (%)
FIGURE 3 Definition of the Relationship between the Extent of Distress and Deduct
Values (DV) (e.g., for a user-specified 10% extent signifying failure, the constant a is
0.1).
roughness/distress condition and its age since the last 4-R activity. Future performance
of each section is predicted through exponential relationships such as those shown below:
Roughness F = Roughness P + e C Age

(3)
DSS F = DSS P − e C Age (4)
where, the subscripts F and P suggest future and present condition, respectively and Age
is the number of years since the last 4-R activity. The exponential constant C reflects the
rate of pavement deterioration (i.e., the larger the value of C, the higher the rate of
deterioration and hence, the lower the life of a section). It is calculated on the basis of the
user-specified expected life of a pavement/wearing course type, given the climatic region.
An example is given in Figure 4 on how the exponent C is calculate from user input.
Once a treatment is applied, the DSS and the roughness is restored to those corresponding
to a new pavement.
Effect of Traffic Congestion
Traffic congestion leads to reduced speeds, which result to a diminished importance of

the effect of pavement roughness on user costs (e.g., at Level of Service (LOS) F, user
10
1400
1200
C-value
1000 0.5
IRI (cm/km)
800 0.6
0.7
600
0.8
400 0.9
200
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Age (years)
FIGURE 4 Pavement Performance Curves (IRI Roughness versus Age) for Various
Values of the Exponential Constant C.
costs depend far more on congestion than on roughness). PID offers a mathematical
method for apportioning user costs to pavement roughness only. This is based on
experimentally obtained values of vertical acceleration and horizontal acceleration on
board vehicles tested over a wider range of pavement roughness and LOS. Using the root
mean square (RMS) acceleration measurements, the excitation Ratio (ER) was defined
as:
RMS (VA)
ER = (5)
RMS (VA)+ RMS ( HA)
where, VA and HA are the vertical and horizontal acceleration measurements,

respectively. The ER values obtained for the instrumented passenger car and truck are
listed in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. These tables contain average ER values in percent
and their standard deviation for various categories of pavement roughness levels (IRI
m/km) and LOS. A simplified method is used for arriving at the LOS from the roadway
configuration, the average daily traffic volumes and an assumed distribution of the daily
traffic within the hour (12). This approach allows apportioning user costs to pavement
roughness only.
Network Level Benefit-Cost Ratio Calculations
PID calculates benefits as the net annualized savings in user costs from a reduction in
pavement roughness from its current condition to that of a new pavement, minus the user
delay costs incurred due to 4-R. A ratio is calculated by dividing this net user benefit by
the annualized agency cost for the most capital-intensive 4-R treatment (i.e.,
reconstruction), expressed as:
11
TABLE 3 ER(%) as a Function of Roughness (IRI) and LOS; Passenger Car
Level of Service A to B
Roughness IRI (m/km)
1-2 2-3 3 -4
Average 63.62 62.28 66.98
S. Deviation 8.18 8.31 8.22
Level of Service C to D
1-2 2-3 3 -4
Average 45.31 44.20 54.40
S. Deviation 12.02 17.87 13.79
Level of Service E to F
1-2 2-3 3 -4
Average 31.44 30.15 n/a
S. Deviation 5.16 13.21 n/a
n/a = combination of roughness and LOS not encountered.
TABLE 4 ER (%) as a Function of Roughness (IRI) and LOS; Truck
Level of Service A to B
0-1 1-2 2-3 3 -4
Average 75.61 75.21 75.52 74.86
S. Deviation 0.89 2.09 2.29 0.78
Level of Service C to D
0-1 1-2 2-3 3 -4
Average 70.89 71.35 72.33 71.01
S. Deviation 3.43 3.77 3.99 3.18
Level of Service E to F
0-1 1-2 2-3 3 -4
Average 65.30 64.44 64.85 72.32
S. Deviation 3.33 5.56 4.81 3.19
B ∆ ( Net Annualized User Costs )

C = Annualized Agency Cost (6)
12
If this ratio is larger than a pre-selected value (e.g., 1.00), the section is “flagged” for
subsequent project level analysis. The rationale is that if the most capital intensive 4-R
treatment is economically effective, it is likely that less capital intensive ones may also be
effective and hence, the particular pavement section should be analyzed at the project
level.
Aggregation of Analysis Units into Projects
Consecutive pavement sections “flagged” at the network level are grouped into pavement
projects prior to conducting the project level analysis. This is done by treating as
individual entities consecutive sections of the same pavement/wearing course type of a
certain direction of a particular State route. Allowances are made to include short
sections (e.g., 1 mile long) that did not get “flagged” by the network level analysis, to
maintain a reasonable continuity of a pavement project. Mileage-weighed average values
are calculated for the DSS, roughness and benefit-cost ratio of these pavement projects.
The final output of the network level of the analysis is a list of candidate pavement
projects prioritized in terms of decreasing order of benefit-cost ratio.
Project Level Benefit-Cost Ratio Calculations
At the project level, the analysis focuses only on the pavement projects identified at the
network level. The difference is that the project level analysis considers the life-cycle
cost of all feasible 4-R alternatives and calculates the respective agency and user cost
over the life of each treatment. The feasible alternatives are defined from the
pavement/wearing course type, its distress level, the climatic region and the structural
condition of each project.
The overall objective is to select the 4-R alternative for each project that will
maximize the benefit of the user, given the budget available for the budget period
specified. This is done through deterministic dynamic programming, whereby pavement
condition at any point in the future is defined by the present condition and each 4-R
treatment decision. The actual algorithm is illustrated in Table 5. The projects are
arranged and analyzed in decreasing benefit-cost order. For each project, the alternative
4-R treatments are listed in increasing order of capital expenditure. All the projects
selected under Scenario 1 (i.e., dark circles) are the least capital-intensive, and hence they
maximize the number of projects that can be carried out, given the available budget. The
two subsequent scenarios illustrate the successive substitution of more capital intensive
treatments on fewer projects, for the original least capital intensive ones. The scenario
selected is the one that maximizes user benefits over the analysis period.
OUTPUT MODULE
This module allows the users to customize the format of the output. The network
level output lists sections that need to be subsequently analyzed at the project level. The
“flagging” criteria are either a selected value of the benefit cost ratio (i.e., Equation 6), or
user-specified trigger values for pavement roughness or distress. The project level output
13
TABLE 5 Example of Project Level Analysis Algorithm.
Scenario 1
Project B/C SR BMP EMP Alt 1 Alt 2 - Alt M
1 10.21 2 3.6 8.4 -
2 8.55 2 20.8 22.3 -
3 6.36 3 50.0 56.9 -
4 5.44 3 63.1 64.4 -
5 5.39 3 100.0 105.2
- - - - - - - - -
N-2 2.23 5 69.7 71.4 -
N-1 1.99 5 76.0 80.2 -
N 1.12 K 200 206.3 -
Scenario 2
1 10.21 2 3.6 8.4 -
2 8.55 2 20.8 22.3 -
3 6.36 3 50.0 56.9 -
4 5.44 3 63.1 64.4 -
5 5.39 3 100.0 105.2
- - - - - - - - -
N-2 2.23 5 69.7 71.4 -
N-1 1.99 5 76.0 80.2 -
N 1.12 k 200 206.3 -
Scenario 3
1 10.21 2 3.6 8.4 -
2 8.55 2 20.8 22.3 -
3 6.36 3 50.0 56.9 -
4 5.44 3 63.1 64.4 -
5 5.39 3 100.0 105.2
- - - - - - - - -
N-2 2.23 5 69.7 71.4 -
N-1 1.99 5 76.0 80.2
N 1.12 k 200 206.3 -
= 4-R alternative selected

= 4-R alternative not selected
14
lists the selected projects and the particular treatment assigned to each project, given a
certain budget level. In addition, the user benefits for each treatment are listed.
REFERENCES
1. Federal-Aid Policy Guide (FAPG), Section 500/Subpart B on Pavement

Management Systems, FHWA, U. S. Department of Transportation, Transmittal 10,
April 22 1994.
2. AASHTO Guidelines for Pavement Management Systems, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., July 1990.
3. Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), H.R. 2400, enacted on
June 9th, 1998.
4. Peterson, D. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of Pavement, Synthesis of Highway Practice
No. 122, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research
Board, Washington, D.C., December 1985.
5. Federal Highway Administration, Life Cycle Cost Analysis - Summary of
Proceedings - FHWA Life Cycle Cost Symposium, Searching for Solutions: A
Policy Discussion Series, No. 12, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.
C., 1994.
6. Haugodegard, T., Johansen, J., Bertelsen, D., and Gabestad, K. (1994). “Norwegian
Public Roads Administration: A Complete Pavement Management System in
Operation.” Volume 2, Proceedings, Third International Conference on Managing
Pavements, San Antonio, Texas, May 22-26, 1994, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C.
7. Papagiannakis, A.T., and M. Delwar (1999), “Methodology to Improve Pavement
Investment Decisions,” Final Report to National Cooperative Highway Research
Program for Study 1-33, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., April.
8. Papagiannakis, A.T., (1999). “On the Relationship between Truck Operating Costs
and Pavement Roughness”, SAE Technical Paper Series No. 1999-01-3783, Society
of Automotive Engineers Warrendale PA.
9. Sayers, M. W., T. D. Gillespie, and D. W. O. Paterson. “Guidelines for Conducting
and Calibrating Road Roughness Measurements”. Technical Paper No. 46, The
World Bank, Washington, D. C. 1986.
10. Papagiannakis, A.T., (1998), “The Need for a New Pavement Roughness Index;
RIDE”, Journal of Commercial Vehicles, Transactions of the Society of Automotive
Engineers, Section 2, Vol. 106, pp. 648-655.
11. “Distress Identification Manual for the Long Term Pavement Performance Project”,
SHRP-P-338, Strategic Highway Research Program, Washington DC, 1993.
12. Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Special Report 209, TRB
Washington DC 1985.
15

Papagiannakis and Delwar (2001) Incorporating User Costs Into Pavement Management Decisions PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Papagiannakis and Delwar (2001) Incorporating User Costs Into Pavement Management Decisions PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

5th International Conference on Managing Pavements (2001)

Incorporating User Costs into Pavement Management Decisions

State Departments of Transportation (DOT) expend a great deal of effort in collecting

0.00055 Aver. of 121

pavement management database or pavement management practices of that State is

Pavement Management Database Description

Data can be extracted from a pavement management database, which is in a Microsoft

TABLE 1: Variables Extracted from Washington State’s Pavement Management

TABLE 2 Distresses Considered in Calculating a Distress Summary (11)

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS RIGID PAVEMENTS

alligator cracking, Slab cracking

4-R Treatment Performance

DSS = 100 - ∑ ∑ DV (2)

Roughness F = Roughness P + e C Age

DSS F = DSS P − e C Age (4)

Effect of Traffic Congestion

Traffic congestion leads to reduced speeds, which result to a diminished importance of

where, VA and HA are the vertical and horizontal acceleration measurements,

Network Level Benefit-Cost Ratio Calculations

TABLE 3 ER(%) as a Function of Roughness (IRI) and LOS; Passenger Car

TABLE 4 ER (%) as a Function of Roughness (IRI) and LOS; Truck

B ∆ ( Net Annualized User Costs )

Aggregation of Analysis Units into Projects

Project Level Benefit-Cost Ratio Calculations

TABLE 5 Example of Project Level Analysis Algorithm.

= 4-R alternative selected

1. Federal-Aid Policy Guide (FAPG), Section 500/Subpart B on Pavement

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen