This paper summarizes the research study conducted to develop and implement a methodological framework, using an economic analysis technique, to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the three different preventive maintenance treatments applied to roadways in Texas: chip seals, microsurfacing, and thin overlays. The analysis is based on a stochastic evaluation of the effective life and cost of more than 14,000 maintenance and rehabilitation projects undertaken from 1994 to 2015. The effect of traffic loads, traffic volume, and roadway type was also evaluated. The life-cycle cost of the preventive maintenance techniques was obtained using a Monte Carlo simulation. Among the principal results, it was found that chip seals are the most cost-effective treatment and present the lowest life-cycle cost variability. The effective life of all three treatments was found to be quite similar. Additionally, it was found that the chip seals and microsurfacing tend to present comparable life-cycle costs when used on heavy traffic roadways.
PourS. A.JeongD. H. S.Realistic Life-Cycle Cost Analysis with Typical Sequential Patterns of Pavement Treatment Through Association Analysis. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2012. 2304: pp. 104–111.
3.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Life Cycle Cost Analysis in Pavement Design – In Search of Better Investment Decisions. Report FHWA-SA-98-079. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 1998.
4.
FerreiraA.SantosJ.Life-Cycle Cost Analysis System for Pavement Management at Project Level: Sensitivity Analysis to the Discount Rate. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 7, 2013, pp. 655–673.
5.
BegM. A.ZhangZ.HudsonW. R.A Rational Pavement Type Selection Procedure. Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin, 1998.
6.
PeshkinD. G.HoernerT. E.ZimmermanK. A.NCHRP Report 523: Optimal Timing of Pavement Preventive Maintenance Treatment Applications. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004.
7.
GransbergD. D.ScheepbouwerE.Infrastructure Asset Life Cycle Cost Analysis Issues. AACE International Transactions, 2010, pCSC.03.1.
8.
PittengerD. M.Stochastic Life Cycle Cost Analysis Model for Sustainable Pavement Preservation Treatments. Doctoral dissertation. University of Oklahoma, 2012.
9.
PittengerD. M.GransbergD. D.ZamanM.RiemerC.Stochastic Life-Cycle Cost Analysis for Pavement Preservation Treatments. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2012. 2292:45–51.
10.
HarveyJ.RezaeiA.LeeC.Probabilistic Approach to Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of Preventive Maintenance Strategies on Flexible Pavements. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2012. 2292:61–72.
ChangJ. R.ChenD. H.HungC. T.Selecting Preventing Maintenance Treatments in Texas: Using the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution for Specific Pavement Study 3-Sites. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2008. 1933: 62–71.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Primer. Federal Highway Administration, Office of Asset Management, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2012.
17.
WallsJ.SmithM. R.Life-Cycle Cost Analysis in Pavement Design - Interim Technical Bulletin. Publication No. FHWA-SA-98-079. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Pavement Division, Washington, D.C., 1998.
18.
SerigosP.SmitA.ProzziJ.Performance of Preventive Maintenance Treatments for Flexible Pavements in Texas. TxDOT Technical Report No: 0-6878-2. Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin, 2017.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Commodity Data Database. U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., 2016. https://www.bls.gov/data/
22.
WimsattA.ChangC.KruglerP.ScullionT.FreemanT.ValdovinosM.Considerations for Rigid vs. Flexible Pavement Designs When Allowed as Alternate Bids. Technical Report No: FHWA/TX-09/0-6085-1. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, 2005.
