Life-cycle cost analysis of optimal timing of pavement preservation

  • Zilong Wang
  • Hao Wang
Research Article


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.


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


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Labi S, Sinha K C. Measures of short-term effectiveness of highway pavement maintenance. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 2003, 129(6): 673–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Morian A D. Cost Benefit Analysis of Including Microsurfacing in Pavement Treatment Strategies & Cycle Maintenance. FHWA-PA- 2011–001–080503, 2011Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wang H, Wang Z. Evaluation of pavement surface friction subject to various pavement preservation treatments. Construction and Building Materials, 2013, 48: 194–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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: 9–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haider SW, Dwaika MB. Estimating optimal timing for preventive maintenance treatments to mitigate pavement roughness. Transportation Record, the 89th Annual Meeting, 2010Google Scholar
  7. 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): 1050–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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): 681–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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): 516–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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): 1297–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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. 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
  13. 13.
    Labi S, Lamptey G, Kong S H. Effectiveness of microsurfacing treatments. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 2007, 133(5): 298–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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. 15.
    Huang B, Dong Q. Optimizing pavement preventive maintenance treatment applications in tennessee (Phase 1). Final Report. Project#: RES1307, 2009Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ong G P, Nantung T, Sinha K C. Indiana Pavement Preservation Program. FHWA/IN/JTRP-2010/14, West Lafayette, IN, 2010Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Markow, M J. Life-cycle costs evaluations of effects of pavement maintenance. Transportation Research Record, 1991, 1276: 37–47Google Scholar
  18. 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. 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
  20. 20.
    Chatti K, Zaabar I. Estimating the Effects of Pavement Condition on Vehicle Operating Costs. NCHRP 720, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D C, 2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringRutgers, The State University of New JerseyPiscatawayUSA

Personalised recommendations