Skip to main content
Log in

Life-cycle cost analysis of optimal timing of pavement preservation

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google 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, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Haider SW, Dwaika MB. Estimating optimal timing for preventive maintenance treatments to mitigate pavement roughness. Transportation Record, the 89th Annual Meeting, 2010

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google 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, 2002

    Google 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, 2007

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google 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, 2004

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hao Wang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, Z., Wang, H. Life-cycle cost analysis of optimal timing of pavement preservation. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 11, 17–26 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-016-0369-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-016-0369-3

Keywords

Navigation