This paper describes the development of a practical tool for selecting and prioritizing rehabilitation (RH) and preventive maintenance (PM) activities in roadway pavements. The development was based on data collected through a survey of district engineers of the Texas Department of Transportation (DOT). The survey collected data on the key factors used for selecting the projects to be treated and for deciding on RH versus PM treatments: pavement condition and distress scores, average daily traffic, surface age, ride score, and past PM expenditures. Weight factors were developed for each key factor by fitting simple logit curves to data obtained by surveying the 25 Texas DOT districts. These weights were aggregated into a prioritization score for PM treatment and another for RH treatments. This process was implemented into an Excel-based tool. The output of this tool was successfully compared with actual district decisions on the type of treatment applied and the priority assigned to pools of projects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
PapagiannakisA., GharaibehN., WeissmannJ., and WimsattA.. Pavement Scores Synthesis. Report FHWA/TX-09/0-6386-1. Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, 2009.
2.
TigheL., KarimM., HerringA., CheeK., and MoughabghabM.. Prioritization Methods for Effective Airport Pavement Management: A Canadian Case Study. Presented at 6th International Conference on Managing Pavements: The Lessons, The Challenges, The Way Ahead. Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 2004.
3.
HaasR., RonaldH. W., and ZaniewskiJ.. Modern Pavement Management. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Fla., 1994.
4.
AlvitiE., JohnsonE. G., KulkarniR. B., and StoneJ. C.. A Pavement Network Optimization System Using Dantzig-Wolfe Decomposition. In Network Optimization, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997.
5.
HicksR. G., SeedsS. B., and PeshkinD. G.. Selecting a Preventive Maintenance Treatment for Flexible Pavements. Foundation for Pavement Preservation, Washington, D.C., 2000.
6.
Pavement Preventive Maintenance Guidelines. Foundation for Pavement Preservation, Washington, D.C., 2001.
7.
FreemanT. J., RenH., SpiegelmanC. H., and PinchottD. A.. Analysis and Treatment Recommendations from the Supplemental Maintenance Effectiveness Research Program (SMERP). Report FHWA/TX-03/4040-3.Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, 2003.
8.
FreemanT., and LittleD.. Maintenance Strategies for Pavements with Chemically Stabilized Layers. Report FHWA/TX-01/1722-6.Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, 2002.
9.
HallK. T., CorreaC. E., and SimpsonA. L.. Performance of Flexible Pavement Maintenance Treatments in the Long-Term Pavement Performance SPS-3 Experiment. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1823, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 47–54.
10.
JacksonN. M., DeepakD., SebaalyP. E., and PorrittG. L.. Preventive Surface Treatments vs. Traditional Corrective Maintenance Measures. In Transportation Research Circular E-C078: Roadway Pavement Preservation: First National Conference on Pavement Preservation, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 120–131.
11.
JahrenC. T., NixonW. A., and BergesonK. L.. Phase Two Report with Guidelines for Winter Maintenance on Thin Maintenance Surfaces. Project TR 435.Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames, 2003.
12.
BausanoJ. P., ChattiK., and WilliamsR. C.. Determining Life Expectancy of Preventive Maintenance Fixes for Asphalt-Surfaced Pavements. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1866, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 1–8.
13.
CooperS. B., and MohammadL. N.. NovachipTM Surface Treatment: Six Year Evaluation, Theriot Canal Bridge–St. Charles Bridge. Report 04-2TA.Louisiana Transportation Research Center, Baton Rouge, 2004.
14.
CuelhoE., MokwaR., and AkinM.. Preventive Maintenance Treatments of Flexible Pavements: A Synthesis of Highway Practice. Report FHWA/MT-06-009/8117-26.Western Transportation Institute, Montana State University, Bozeman, 2006.
15.
PeshkinD. G., HoernerT. E., and ZimmermanK. A.. NCHRP Report 523: Optimal Timing of Pavement Preventive Maintenance. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004.
16.
StampleyB. E., MillerB., SmithR. E., and ScullionT.. Pavement Management Information System Concepts, Equations, and Analysis Models. Report FHWA/TX-96/1989-1. Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, 1995.
17.
SravyaS., PeddibhotlaS., MurphyM., and ZhangZ.. Validation and Implementation of the Structural Condition Index (SCI) for Network-Level Pavement Evaluation. Report FHWA/TX-11/5-4322-01-1.Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, 2011.
18.
GharaibehN., FreemanT., WimsattA., and ZouY.. Evaluation and Development of Pavement Scores, Performance Models and Needs Estimates: Phase I Activities. Report FHWA/TX-11/0-6386-2.Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, 2011.
19.
DessoukyS., KruglerP., PapagiannakisA. T., and FreemanT.. Review of Best Practices for the Selection of Rehab and Preventive Maintenance Projects. Report FHWA/TX-11/0-6586-1.Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, 2011.
