11-1127: Lee, Kim, and Harvey 1
1
Pavement Type Selection for Highway Rehabilitation Based on a Life-Cycle Cost Analysis: 2
Validation of California Interstate 710 Project (Phase 1) 3
4
5
By Eul-Bum (E.B.) Lee, Changmo Kim, and John T. Harvey 6
7
8
Submitted to the Committee on Pavement Rehabilitation (AFD 70) 9
10
11
Paper No: 11-1127 12
13
14
15
Eul-Bum (E.B.) Lee, Ph.D., P.E., P.M.P. 16
Associate Researcher 17
University of California, Berkeley 18
Institute of Transportation Studies (UCPRC) 19
1353 S. 46th Street, Bldg. 452 20
Richmond, CA 94804 21
Phone: 510-665-3637, Fax: 510-665-3562 22
Email: [email protected] 23
24
Changmo Kim, Ph.D. (Corresponding Author) 25
Postdoctoral Researcher 26
University of California Pavement Research Center 27
3327 Apiary Road, Davis, CA 95616 28
Phone: 530-752-5363, Fax: 530-752-7872 29
Email: [email protected] 30
31
and 32
33
John T. Harvey, Ph.D., P.E. 34
Professor 35
University of California, Davis 36
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering 37
Engineering III, Room 3139, 38
One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616 39
Phone: 530-754-6409, Fax: 530-752-7872 40
Email: [email protected] 41
42
43
44
45
Total Words: 7,056 = Abstract (250) + Text (5,056) + Figure (1,000) + Tables (750) 46
47
For the 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board 48
January 23-27, 2011, Washington, D.C. 49
50
51
TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
11-1127: Lee, Kim, and Harvey 2
ABSTRACT 1
Life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) for highway projects is an analytical technique that uses economic 2
principles in order to evaluate long-term alternative investment options, especially for comparing the 3
value of alternative pavement structures and strategies. Recently, the California Department of 4
Transportation mandated LCCA implementation to evaluate the cost effectiveness of pavement design 5
alternatives for highway projects in the state. An LCCA approach, as reported in this paper, was utilized 6
for the validation of the pavement design on the I-710 Long Beach rehabilitation project with three 7
alternative pavement types: (1) Innovative (long-life) asphalt concrete pavement (ACP), (2) Standard-life 8
ACP, and (3) Long-life portland cement concrete pavement (PCCP). The LCCA followed Caltrans 9
procedure and incorporated information filed by the project team. The software tools CA4PRS 10
(Construction Analysis for Pavement Rehabilitation Strategies) and RealCost were used for the 11
quantitative estimates of construction schedule, work zone user cost, and agency cost for initial and future 12
maintenance and rehabilitation activities. Conclusions from the LCCA supported the use of the 13
Innovative ACP alternative, the one actually implemented in the I-710 Long Beach project (Phase 1), as it 14
had the lowest life-cycle costs over the 60-year analysis period. For example, the life-cycle agency cost 15
for the Innovative ACP alternative ($31.2 million) was about $13 million more cost-effective than that of 16
the Standard ACP alternative ($44 million) and about $38 million less expensive than the Long-life PCCP 17
alternative ($69.6 million). Utilization of the proposed computer tool-aided LCCA procedure would 18
contribute substantial economic and environmental benefits for nationwide highway projects, especially 19
rehabilitation and reconstruction. 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
11-1127: Lee, Kim, and Harvey 3
INTRODUCTION 1
Life-cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) is an analytical technique that uses economic principles to evaluate 2
long-term alternative investment options in highway construction. LCCA accounts for costs relevant to 3
the sponsoring agency, owner, facility operator, and roadway user that will occur throughout the life of an 4
alternative. Relevant costs include those for initial construction, for future maintenance and rehabilitation, 5
and user costs (time delay and vehicle operation costs in the work zone). The LCCA analytical process 6
helps to identify the lowest cost-alternative that will accomplish a highway project’s objectives by 7
providing critical information for the overall decision-making process. For the last decade, LCCA has 8
been emphasized as much as the initial project cost analysis in evaluating the design and construction 9
plans for highway projects. 10
Recently, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) mandated implementation of 11
LCCA in order to evaluate the cost effectiveness of alternative pavement designs for new roadways and 12
for existing roadways that require Capital Preventive Maintenance (CAPM), rehabilitation, or 13
reconstruction (1). The Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) Topics 612 and 619 identify situations 14
where an LCCA must be performed to assist in determining the most appropriate alternative for a project 15
(2). Since the cost impacts of a project’s life-cycle are fully taken into account when making project-level 16
decisions for pavements, Caltrans practice is to perform an LCCA when scoping a project (Project 17
Initiation Document phase). 18
Many researchers and practitioners have been developing LCCA concepts and computer tools to 19
undertake the most efficient cost comparison of alternatives. Papagiannakis and Delwar developed a 20
computer model to perform LCCA of roadway pavement, analyzing both agency and user costs. Their 21
software accepts inputs from a pavement management database and carries out pavement LCCA on both 22
network-wide and project-specific levels (3). Rather than considering user delay and future maintenance 23
and rehabilitation (M&R) costs, this software calculates the net annualized savings in user costs as the 24
benefit that result from reducing pavement roughness (e.g., vehicle depreciation, maintenance, and repair, 25
tires, and cargo damage) from its current condition to that in the end year of the life-cycle. 26
Salem et al. introduced a risk-based probabilistic approach to predict probabilities of the 27
alternative occurrence of different life-cycle costs on infrastructure construction and rehabilitation. Their 28
model predicts the probability of time of infrastructure failure to build alternatives (4). Using the Florida 29
and Washington State Department of Transportation (DOT) project databases, Gransberg and Molenaar 30
developed best-value award algorithms of life-cycle cost for design/build highway pavement projects (5). 31
Labi and Sinha studied the cost effectiveness of different levels of life-cycle preventive maintenance 32
(PM) for three asphalt concrete (AC) functional class families and presented a methodology to determine 33
optimum PM funding levels based on maximum pavement life (6). 34
In 2002, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) first published an LCCA primer to 35
provide sufficient background and demonstrations for transportation officials (7). In addition, in 2004 the 36
FHWA distributed an LCCA software tool, RealCost (Version 2.1), to support practitioners performing 37
LCCA for highway projects (8). The Caltrans Office of Pavement Management and the University of 38
California Pavement Research Center (UCPRC) have enhanced RealCost software and customized it for 39
California (1) to add to its analytical capability for cost estimation, (2) to improve work zone traffic 40
analysis, and (3) to implement automatic future M&R sequencing. 41
I-710 LONG BEACH REHABILITATION PROJECT (PHASE 1) 42
Interstate 710 (I-710), known as the Long Beach Freeway, opened in 1952 and serves as a major route for 43
commuter and commercial traffic between Los Angeles and Long Beach (Figure 1). It is also a gateway to 44
the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, two of the busiest cargo ports in the U.S. However, a 51.5 km 45
stretch of the I-710 corridor had become seriously deteriorated and required rehabilitation to keep it safe 46
for road users. Caltrans consequently devised a rehabilitation project for I-710 and divided the plan into 47
four phases. To date, Phases 1 (2003) and 2 (2010) have been completed, while Phases 3 and 4 are 48
scheduled for the near future .Given the need for minimal disruption of heavy weekday traffic, Caltrans 49
TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
11-1127: Lee, Kim, and Harvey 4
decided to carry out the pavement rehabilitation on I-710 with 55-hour extended closures, Caltrans’ 1
typical Long-life Pavement Rehabilitation Strategy (LLPRS) practice for urban corridor networks. 2
3 FIGURE 1 Location of the California I-710 rehabilitation project (Phase 1: Long Beach). 4
The scope of the I-710 Long Beach Project (Phase 1) was to rehabilitate the approximately 4.4 5
centerline-km of existing concrete pavement on I-710 near the city of Long Beach with long-life (30-year 6
design) AC pavement. (Figure 2) (9). The existing pavement consisted of 200 mm (8 in.) portland cement 7
concrete (PCC) on top of 100 mm (4 in.) of cement-treated base (CTB), which was formerly Caltrans’ 8
most common rigid pavement type in the 1960s through 1970s. The rehabilitation included the three 9
main lanes, the median, and shoulder in each direction. Beneath the highway overpasses, which did not 10
meet current federal bridge clearance requirements, the existing concrete pavement structure was 11
removed—with an additional 150 mm (6 in.) excavation—and replaced with a total of 330 mm (13 in.) of 12
new AC with five layers. Between the overpasses, the old concrete slab was cracked, seated (rolled), and 13
overlaid with 230 mm (9 in.) of a new AC with four layers. Typically, two sections—a 400-m (1,300 feet) 14
section of full-depth asphalt concrete (FDAC) replacement under the overpass, and a 1,200-m (4,000 feet) 15
section of crack seat and overlay (CSOL) between the overpasses—were finished within one 55-hour 16
closure. 17
TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
11-1127: Lee, Kim, and Harvey 5
1
FIGURE 2 Long-life AC pavement rehabilitation on I-710 with 55-hour extended weekend closure. 2
Caltrans initially planned ten extended weekend closures with an incentive bonus, and the 3
contractor successfully completed the rehabilitation with eight closures and received a $500,000 incentive 4
bonus. 5
During the pavement rehabilitation with 55-hour extended weekend closures, Caltrans applied a 6
counter-flow traffic system, completely closing off one side of the highway for construction and diverting 7
traffic to the roadbed on the other side of the construction site through median crossovers. The outside 8
shoulder was temporarily converted to a main traffic lane to provide two lanes in each direction, using 9
moveable concrete barriers (MCB). The main rehabilitation operations were performed with around-the-10
clock construction (nonstop) during 55-hour extended weekend closures (from 10 p.m. Friday to 5 a.m. 11
Monday) to avoid weekday commute traffic. 12
A postconstruction summary report was recently published that included some periodic 13
measurements of long-life AC pavement performance on I-710 Long Beach (Phase 1), including those 14
made with the falling weight deflectometer (FWD) at approximate annual intervals as well as some 15
pavement noise and skid measurements, from the opening to traffic in the summer 2003 to January 2009 16
(10). In summary, the overall actual performance of the I-710 Long Beach Project measured for the last 17
five years shows the long-life AC pavement behaving as it was designed to do. In addition, the rutting 18
performance of the I-710 long-life AC pavement, which was measured in summer 2009 after six years of 19
service traffic, shows a very positive indication on rut depth: approximately 5 to 6 mm (about 2 inches) at 20
its greatest (roughly half of the expected long-life AC mix design criterion). 21
STUDY OBJECTIVE AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES 22
The primary objective of the LCCA study summarized in the paper was validation of the benefit derived 23
by selecting long-life (for 30+ years design life) AC pavement 60 years of the analysis period. Following 24
the formal Caltrans LCCA procedure, agency costs (including initial construction cost and maintenance 25
cost) and road user costs (traffic delay) for the work zone are estimated for each alternative, utilizing 26
pavement engineering tools such as the RealCost and CA4PRS (Construction Analysis for Pavement 27
TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
11-1127: Lee, Kim, and Harvey 6
Rehabilitation Strategies). In this post-construction analysis, the baseline pavement type selected for the I-1
710 project (i.e., long-life AC pavement) is compared with other candidate alternative types from the 2
perspective of savings of life-cycle agency cost and user cost. 3
The Caltrans LCCA procedures summarized below—and as specified in the department’s procedure 4
manual (11)—have been applied to the validation of pavement type selection for the I-710 Long Beach 5
rehabilitation project. 6
Select several pavement design alternatives for initial construction, including pavement types, 7
cross-sections, materials, and expecting design lives. 8
Determine the analysis period to cover the design lives of the initial construction and future M&R 9
activities. Caltrans recommends using a 60-year analysis period when long-life (30+ years) 10
pavement design is compared in the LCCA. 11
Identify future M&R activities for each design alterative, including pavement cross-section 12
change, sequence, and timeline over the analysis period. 13
Analyze the construction schedule for the initial construction and the future M&R activities. 14
Estimate the project cost associated with the initial construction and the future M&R. 15
Calculate the road user cost (RUC) in the work zone for the initial construction and the future 16
M&R activities. 17
Calculate the life-cycle cost for each design alternative using the concept of net present value 18
(NPV) based on the discounted rate. 19
Evaluate the LCCA results for the pavement design alternatives in terms of the benefits of life-20
cycle cost savings to validate and justify the adoption of long-life AC pavement for the I-710 21
project 22
ENGINEERING TOOLS UTILIZED 23
CA4PRS for Schedule, Traffic, and Cost Analysis 24
This LCCA study utilized CA4PRS software to analyze the project schedule, construction cost, and road 25
user cost (12). This software was developed by the UC Berkeley Institute of Transportation Studies as an 26
FHWA pooled-fund program. CA4PRS incorporates three interactive analytical modules: a Schedule 27
module that estimates project duration, a Traffic module that quantifies the delay impact of work zone 28
lane closures, and a Cost module that compares project cost among alternatives (13). The results (outputs) 29
of these three modules in CA4PRS integrate directly into the formulation (inputs) of life-cycle cost 30
analysis. 31
These capabilities were confirmed on several large highway rehabilitation projects in U.S. states 32
including California, Minnesota, Utah, and Washington. For example, CA4PRS played a crucial role in 33
the concrete pavement reconstruction of Interstate 15 Devore near San Bernardino (California), helping 34
reduce agency cost by $8 million and saving $2 million in road user delays using continuous closures and 35
24/7 construction, compared with repeated (about 10 months) nighttime traffic closures, the traditional 36
approach (14). 37
There is growing recognition of the capabilities of CA4PRS and the benefits of its use. For 38
example, CA4PRS won a 2007 Global Road Achievement Award from the International Road Federation 39
(IRF). The FHWA recently endorsed CA4PRS as a ―2008 Priority, Market-Ready Technologies and 40
Innovations‖ product, and acquired an unlimited CA4PRS group license for all 50 states to deploy the 41
software nationally. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 42
(AASHTO) Technology Implementation Group (TIG) is focusing on CA4PRS for nationwide promotion 43
to its members. 44
RealCost for LCCA 45
RealCost software is a life-cycle cost analysis tool developed by FHWA to calculate life-cycle values for 46
both agency and user costs associated with the construction and rehabilitation of a highway project (7, 8). 47
The LCCA method in RealCost is computation intensive and ideally suited to a spreadsheet application. 48
TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
11-1127: Lee, Kim, and Harvey 7
However, the current version of RealCost (version 2.1) software does not have an analytical capacity to 1
calculate agency costs or to estimate service lives for individual construction or rehabilitation activities, 2
which should be input by users directly, based on agency’s practices. The software includes a function for 3
automating FHWA’s work zone user cost calculation method. This method for calculating user costs 4
compares traffic demand to roadway capacity on an hour-by-hour basis, revealing the resulting traffic 5
conditions. As with any economic tool, LCCA provides critical information to the overall decision-6
making process, but not the answer itself. 7
PAVEMENT DESIGN (TYPE) ALTERNATIVES 8
In interviews with the authors, I-710 project team members who participated in the design and 9
construction stages suggested the following three pavement design (type) alternatives for design 10
validation from a LCCA perspective: 11
Alternative 1—Innovative ACP rehabilitation: (a) Caltrans long-life crack, seat, and overlay 12
(CSOL) for total 2.8 centerline-km and (b) long-life full-depth asphalt concrete (FDAC) for total 13
1.6 centerline-km. 14
Alternative 2—Standard ACP rehabilitation: (a) standard-life CSOL for total 2.8 centerline-km 15
and (b) standard-life FDAC for total 1.6 centerline-km 16
Alternative 3—Long-life PCCP reconstruction for 4.4. centerline-km 17
Based on the interviews and the Caltrans LCCA procedure manual (11), more design details such 18
as cross-section, design life, and M&R sequence for each alternative were developed and confirmed by 19
pavement experts in industry (especially, the southern California chapter of the National Asphalt 20
Pavement Association (NAPA) and academia (University of California, Berkeley and Davis). 21
Alternative 1: Innovative Asphalt Concrete Pavement (ACP) 22
The Innovative ACP alternative, which is the long-life AC pavement implemented on the I-710 project, is 23
a new Caltrans AC pavement technology to enhance pavement quality and life (30-plus design years). It 24
consists of two rehabilitation sections (2.8 km total) with CSOL of existing PCC slabs with AC and three 25
FDAC replacement sections (1.6 km total) under highway overpasses. The designs for the innovative 26
pavement structure were developed using mechanistic-empirical (ME) design methodologies to 27
accommodate 200 million equivalent single axle loads (ESAL) over 30 years. The I-710 Long Beach 28
project was the first demonstration of the innovative ACP in the Caltrans Long-Life Pavement 29
Rehabilitation Strategies (LLPRS) program. The LLPRS was launched in 1998 to rebuild approximately 30
2,800 lane kilometers of deteriorated urban highways that had poor pavement structure condition and ride 31
quality with a minimum ADT of 150,000 or average daily truck traffic of 15,000 (9). The contract 32
included performance-related materials specifications for stiffness, fatigue resistance, and rutting 33
resistance for the AC layers, as well as for higher than normal compaction. 34
The long-life CSOL consists of 30 mm (1.2 in.) open-graded friction coarse (OGFC), 75 mm (2.9 35
in.) PBA-6a, 100 mm (3.9 in.) AR-8000, and 30 mm (1.2 in.) dense-graded asphalt concrete (DGAC) 36
(Figure 3[a]). 640 mm (25.2 in.) of the existing PCC pavement is excavated and 150 mm (5.9 in.) of 37
Aggregate Base (AB) is filled first in on the FDAC sections. The long-life FDAC consists of 30 mm (1.2 38
in.) of OGFC, 75 mm of PBA-6a, 150 mm of AR-8000, and 75 mm AR-8000(+0.5 percent) (Figure 3[b]). 39
The AR-8000 is an asphalt type having a viscosity of 8,000 poise (±25 percent) at 60°C after aging and 40
the AR-8000(+0.5 percent) is a rich bottom dense-graded asphalt concrete with conventional binder. The 41
PBA-6a is a dense-graded asphalt concrete type with polymer-modified binder. 42
TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
11-1127: Lee, Kim, and Harvey 8
1 FIGURE 3 Cross-sections of the innovative and standard ACP alternatives 2
Alternative 2: Standard Asphalt Concrete Pavement (ACP) 3
The Standard ACP alternative is based on a typical AC pavement cross-section for standard design life 4
(20 years), which is the most common flexible pavement design in California highways. The Caltrans 5
project team confirmed that if the Innovative ACP was not proposed, then most likely the Standard ACP 6
alternative could have been implemented to rehabilitate the existing PCC pavement on I-710 Long Beach. 7
The Standard ACP alternative consists of two sections (2.8 km total) with the standard-life CSOL of 8
existing PCC slabs with AC and three standard-life FDAC replacement sections (1.6 km total) under 9
highway overpasses. For the initial construction of the Standard ACP alternative, the standard CSOL 10
consists of 30 mm OGFC and 110 mm DGAC (Figure 3[c]). For the standard FDAC pavement section, 11
150 mm of the 730 mm of the existing pavement is excavated and filled with Aggregate Base (AB). The 12
standard FDAC pavement consists of 30 mm of OGFC and 550 mm of Aged Residue (AR)-4000 on top 13
of the 150 mm of new AB (Figure 3[d]). The AR-4000 is an asphalt type that has a viscosity of 4,000 14
poise (±25 percent) at 60°C after aging. 15
Alternative 3: Long-Life Portland Cement Concrete Pavement (PCCP) 16
Long-life PCCP competed with the Innovative ACP for use in replacing the entire stretch (total 4.2 17
centerline-km) of the I-710 Long Beach project. The Long-life PCCP consists of 300 mm Portland 18
concrete cement and 150 mm of hot-mix asphalt (HMA) or lean concrete base (LCB). Generally, Long-19
life PCCP requires a slightly higher initial construction cost than the long-life ACP but its use may result 20
in lower overall maintenance and user cost in life-cycle because it does not demand frequent maintenance 21
for overlays. 22
23
TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
11-1127: Lee, Kim, and Harvey 9
LCCA COMPONENTS 1
The elements required to perform an LCCA for the I-710 project (Phase 1) include pavement design 2
alternatives, analysis period, discount rate, M&R schedules, and cost estimates. Per Caltrans policy (11), 3
this LCCA is based on a 60-year analysis period and applied a fixed discount rate of four percent, the 4
difference of between a six percent inflation rate and a two percent rate of interest in the long-run. No 5
salvage (or residual) value was accounted for in the sixtieth year and the cost of pavement treatment in the 6
sixtieth year was excluded for all the alternatives. The following sections describe the major elements and 7
their inputs and assumptions in this study. 8
Agency Cost Estimate 9
Construction cost for California highway projects consists of pavement cost, traffic-handling cost, 10
drainage cost, specialty (storm water pollution prevention plan: SWPPP) cost, and other miscellaneous 11
costs. In the CA4PRS cost module, pavement cost is estimated by a function (multiplication) of pavement 12
item, thickness, lane width, length, and unit price. The unit prices for major pavement items were 13
acquired from Caltrans’ contractor bid database (15). For the purpose of simplicity, other cost 14
components such as non-pavement items and indirect costs, and Caltrans engineering support costs were 15
covered by using multipliers, based on Caltrans typical cost estimate practice for rehabilitation projects, 16
as listed in Table 1. 17
TABLE 1 Typical Percentages and Multipliers of Cost Estimates 18
Number Construction Item(1)
Description Percentage Multiplier
1 Pavement Cost - 100% 1.00
2 Traffic Handling Cost % of (1) 8% 1.08
3 Drainage Cost % of (1) 1% 1.09
4 Specialty (SWPPP) Cost % of (1) 15% 1.24
5 Minor Cost % of Sum (1) through (4) 5% 1.30
6 Mobilization Cost % of Sum (1) through (5) 10% 1.43
7 Supplemental Cost % of Sum (1) through (6) 5% 1.50
8 Contingency Cost % of Sum (1) through (7) 20% 1.80
9 Engineering Supporting Cost % of Sum (1) through (8) 16% 2.09
Note: (1) Construction items are specified in the Caltrans Construction Manual, Chapter 4.Construction 19
details (16). 20
For example, the routine annualized maintenance cost used for the Standard FDAC and 21
Innovative FDAC and CSOL was $1,860 per kilometer ($3,000 per mile) and that used for the Standard 22
CSOL was $930 per kilometer ($1,500 per mile). The annual maintenance cost for the Long-life portland 23
cement concrete pavement (PCCP) was as $620 per kilometer ($1,000 per mile). Routine annualized 24
maintenance costs (dollar per lane-km per year) were acquired from the Caltrans LCCA procedure 25
manual (11). 26
Work Zone User Cost Calculation 27
The weekday traffic (146,000 average daily traffic [ADT]) and weekend traffic (106,000 ADT) were 28
collected before the construction (rehabilitation) and used in the work zone traffic analysis for LCCA. 29
Five percent of the traffic was assumed to be single unit trucks and ten percent a combination of trucks. 30
TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
11-1127: Lee, Kim, and Harvey 10
The annual growth rate of traffic volume was assumed at 0.5 percent every year (based on the California 1
historical traffic database) (17). 2
A two-peak pattern, a typical pattern on urban highway segments, was observed in the both 3
directions for the weekdays. Traffic during weekends was lower than traffic on weekdays for both 4
directions, appearing flat-peaked in afternoon. In Fact, Caltrans decided to undertake the project with the 5
55-hour extended weekend closures that least impact traffic, based on this traffic pattern. 6
In estimating road user cost with the CA4PRS Traffic module, which is based on the Highway 7
Capacity Manual’s demand-capacity model (18), traffic delay is given a road users’ time value that 8
includes additional travel time needed to pass through a work zone and extra time to travel through 9
detours required disruptions caused by construction activities that interfere with traffic flow. Traffic delay 10
is converted into a dollar amount using the value of time and it is compared among alternative as agency 11
cost was compared. The time value of passenger cars was $11.51 per hour and the time value of trucks 12
was $27.83 per hour, following Caltrans policy (19). 13
LCCA COMPARISON 14
Future Maintenance and Rehabilitation 15
For each pavement design alternative, future M&R details, such as sequencing, time frequency (design 16
life), and cross-sections, are developed based on the Caltrans LCCA Procedure Manual (11), as 17
summarized in Table 2. 18
Agency Costs Comparison 19
The agency cost of each construction activity for each alternative was also estimated using the CA4PRS 20
Cost module, which incorporates unit prices of major pavement items based on the Caltrans historical 21
contractor bid database (15). The agency’s initial construction (rehabilitation) cost for the Innovative 22
ACP (Alternative 1) was estimated at approximately $23.9 million and the initial construction cost of the 23
Standard ACP (Alternative 2) was estimated at $24.2 million. The agency’s initial construction cost for 24
the Long-life PCCP (Alternative 3, $63.5 million) was 270 percent higher than that of the Innovative 25
ACP. 26
The primary reason for the higher cost (about $63.5 million) of initial construction for the long-27
life PCCP, compared to that of the long-life ACP (about $23.9 million), is that the concrete mix is 28
assumed to be Rapid Strength Concrete (RSC), which cures within 12 hours from its mixing during 55-29
hour weekend closures. For comparison, if normal (28-day curing time mix) PCC is used, the initial 30
construction cost might be about half of the RSC cost. 31
Per the LCCA procedure, future M&R construction costs are discounted (with four percent) for 32
the net present value (NPV) conversion. After applying the discount rate, the discounted total NPV of life 33
cycle (60 years) agency cost (including the initial construction and future M&R) of the Innovative ACP 34
alternatives came to $31.2 million, as shown in Table 3 (i.e., about $17 million for CSOL and about $14 35
million for FDAC). 36
The total life-cycle agency cost of the Standard ACP is about $44 million, whereas the long-life 37
PCCP is about $70 million. The LCCA indicates that the Innovative ACP adopted on the I-710 Long 38
Beach project might save a total of about $13 million life-cycle agency cost over 60 years of the analysis 39
period (service life). 40
The LCCA results show that the Innovative ACP alternatives require the lowest agency cost for initial 41
construction as well as the lowest total agency cost for the entire life-cycle period among all the 42
alternatives. Compared with the long-life PCCP, the Innovative ACP saves a total of about $40 million 43
Caltrans capital project (agency cost). The LCCA study justifies the implementation of the long-life 44
(Innovative) ACP on the I-710 Long Beach project, from the total agency cost perspective in the long-run, 45
compared with other two alternatives. 46
TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
11-1127: Lee, Kim, and Harvey 11
TABLE 2 Summary of Schedule Estimates 1
Yr
Alt. 1: Innovative ACP Alt. 2: Standard ACP Alt. 3: Long-Life PCCP
a. CSOL b. FDAC a. CSOL b. FDAC
Description No. of
Closures Description No. of
Closures Description No. of
Closures Description No. of Closur
es Description
No. of Closures
0
30mm OGFC 75mm PBA-6a 100mm AR-8000 30mm DGAC
5 Week-
end
30mm OGFC 75mm PBA-6a 150mm AR-8000 OBC 75mm AR-8000+0.5%
5 Week-
end
30mm OGFC 75mm DGAC 30mm DGAC
6 Week-
end
30mm OGFC 550mm DGAC AR-4000
6 Week-
end
300mm PCC 150mm HMA or LCB
12 Week-
end
10
1st CAPM 1st CAPM n.a.
30mm Mill&Rep OGFC 30
Night 30mm Mill&Rep OGFC 17
Night
30mm Mill&Rep OGFC 60mm Mill DGAC 90mm Rep DGAC
70 Night
30mm Mill&Rep OGFC 60mm Mill&Fill DGAC
35 Night
15 n.a. n.a.
2nd CAPM n.a. 30mm Mill OGFC 30mm Mill&Rep DGAC 30mm Rep OGFC
45 Night n.a.
20
2nd CAPM 1st Rehab n.a.
30mm Mill&Rep OGFC 30 Night
30mm Mill&Rep OGFC
17 Night
30mm Mill&Rep OGFC 90mm Mill DGAC 120mm Rep DGAC
90 Night
30mm Mill&RepOGFC 60mm Mill&Fill DGAC
35 Night
30
1st Rehab 2nd Rehab 1st CAPM 30mm Mill&Rep OGFC 75mm Mill&Fill PBA-6a
70 Night
30mm Mill&Rep OGFC 75mm Mill&Fill PBA-6a
45 Night
30mm Mill&Rep OGFC 60mm Mill DGAC 90mm Rep DGAC
70 Night
30mm Mill&Rep OGFC 60mm Mill&Fill DGAC
35 Night CPR(C)
38 Night
35 n.a. n.a.
3rd CAPM 2nd CAPM 30mm Mill OGFC 30mm Mill&Rep DGAC 30mm Rep OGFC
45 Night n.a. CPR(B) 75
Night
40
3rd CAPM 3rd Rehab n.a.
30mm Mill&Rep OGFC 30 Night Mill&Rep OGFC 17
Night
30mm Mill&Rep OGFC 90mm Mill DGAC 120mm Rep DGAC
90 Night
30mm Mill&Rep OGFC 60mm Mill&Fill DGAC
35 Night
45 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 3rd CAPM
CPR(A) 130
Night
50
4th CAPM 4th CAPM 1st Rehab
30mm Mill&Rep OGFC 30
Night 30mm Mill&Rep OGFC 17
Night
30mm Mill&Rep OGFC 60mm Mill DGAC 90mm Rep DGAC
70 Night
30mm Mill&Rep OGFC 60mm Mill&Fill DGAC
35 Night 300mm PCC
8 Week-
end
55 n.a. n.a.
5th CAPM n.a. 30mm Mill OGFC 30mm Mill&Rep DGAC 30mm Rep OGFC
45 Night n.a. -
Note: Weekend = 55-hour extended weekend closure (Friday 10 P.M – Monday 5 A.M. 2
Night = 8-hour night time closure (9 P.M.-5 A.M.) 3
4
TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
11-1127: Lee, Kim, and Harvey 12
1
TABLE 3 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs 2
Year
Alt 1: Innovative ACP Alt 2: Standard ACP Alt 3: Long-Life PCCP
a. CSOL b. FDAC a. CSOL b. FDAC
Agency Cost
RUC(1) Agency
Cost RUC(1)
Agency Cost
RUC(1) Agency
Cost RUC(1)
Agency Cost
RUC(1)
0 $12.23M $0.66M $11.62M $0.66M $6.71M $0.79M $17.49M $0.79M $63.45M $1.58M
10
$1.24M $0.77M $0.68M $0.44M $4.31M $1.80M $1.55M $0.93M
15 2nd CAPM
$1.91M $1.04M
20 2nd CAPM 1st Rehab
$0.84M $0.60M $0.46M $0.36M $3.63M $1.78M $1.05M $0.71M
30 1st Rehab 2nd Rehab 1st CAPM
$2.03M $1.06M $1.11M $0.70M $1.97M $1.06M $0.71M $0.55M $0.32M $0.58M
35 3rd CAPM 2nd CAPM
$0.87M $0.61M $1.24M $1.00M
40 3rd CAPM 3 rd Rehab
$0.38M $0.35M $0.21M $0.21M $1.66M $1.03M $0.48M $0.41M
45 3rd CAPM
$1.20M $1.30M
50 4th CAPM 4th CAPM 1st Rehab
$0.26M $0.26M $0.14M $0.16M $0.90M $0.61M $0.32M $0.31M $3.38M $0.70M
55 5th CAPM
$0.40M $0.35M
60
Sub-Total
$16.97M $3.70M $14.23M $2.52M $22.35M $9.08M $21.59M $3.70M $69.59M $5.16M
Total Life-cycle Cost
$31.20M (Agency Cost) + $6.25M (RUC) =$37.42M
$43.94M (Agency Cost)+$12,78M (RUC) = $56.68M
$69.59M(Agency Cost) +$5.16M(RUC)
=$74.75M
Note: (1) RUC = Road user cost. 3
(2) Costs in the table are discounted (with four percent rate) net present value (NPV). 4
Agency costs also include the annualized routine maintenance costs (dollar per lane-km per year), 5
which is a relatively small dollar amount, compared with the initial and major M&R costs, based on the 6
Caltrans LCCA Procedure Manual (11). For the routine annualized maintenance life-cycle cost of the 7
Innovative ACP alternative, the CSOL section requires $1.07 million in total and the FDAC section 8
requires $0.59 million in total for the 60 years of the LCCA period in NPV. For the Standard alternative, 9
the CSOL section requires $0.54 million in total and the FDAC section requires $0.59 million in 10
annualized routine maintenance cost (NPV) for the LCCA period. The Long-life PCCP alternative only 11
requires $0.55 million in annualized routine maintenance costs for the 40 lane-km (24.5 lane-mi.) of the 12
PCC section. 13
TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
11-1127: Lee, Kim, and Harvey 13
Construction Schedule Comparison 1
Construction schedule (mainly closure number) is a needed parameter for the LCCA to be inputs for cost 2
estimates (especially transportation management plan cost and more importantly work zone traffic delay 3
cost analysis. 4
Utilizing CA4PRS software, the construction schedules for initial rehabilitation and future M&R 5
were determined for each alternative, as summarized in Table 2. According to the scheduling results, 6
Alternatives 1 (the Innovative ACP alternatives) require total ten (five for CSOL and five for FDAC) 55-7
hour extended weekend closures and Alternatives 2 (the Standard ACP alternatives) require twelve (six 8
for CSOL and six for FDAC) 55-hour extended weekend closures, whereas Alternative 3 (the Long-life 9
PCCP alternative) requires twelve weekend closures for the initial construction. Comparing the schedules 10
for the entire life-cycle analysis period (60 years), the Innovative ACP (Alternative 1) requires about total 11
190 nighttime closures for the CSOL sections and about total 113 nighttime closures for the FDAC 12
sections for their future maintenance. The Standard ACP (Alternative 2) requires about total 525 13
nighttime closures for the CSOL sections and about total 175 nighttime closures of the FDAC sections for 14
their maintenance. The Long-life PCCP (Alternative 3) requires another eight weekend closures 50 years 15
after initial construction, in addition to total 243 nighttime closures for future M&R, and five weekend 16
closures for its rehabilitation (slab replacement at year 35) (Table 2). 17
User Costs Comparison 18
Road user cost is generated by additional traffic delays due to lane closures during construction. This cost 19
is considered as an indirect public inconvenience (time value) cost through work zone rather than an 20
agency cost (real money) but it comes to the fore when included in an LCCA. This study utilized 21
CA4PRS’traffic module. The work zone traffic analysis results show no significant difference between the 22
user costs of the Innovative ACP (Alternative 1, $1.32 million) and the Standard ACP (Alternative 2, 23
$1.58 million) for the initial construction. However NPV of total life cycle user cost of the Standard ACP 24
alternative ($12.78 million) is almost twice as high as that of the Innovative ACP alternative ($6.22 25
million) for the entire life-cycle analysis period (Table 3). The user cost of the Long-life PCCP is 26
estimated to be as much as $5.16 million, which is less than that of the Innovative ACP alternative. 27
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 28
LCCA for highway projects is an analytical technique that uses economic principles in order to evaluate 29
long-term alternative investment options, especially for comparing the value of alternative pavement 30
structures and strategies. 31
Life-cycle costs including agency and user costs, for three different pavement design alternatives 32
(i.e., Innovative (long-life) ACP, Standard (-life) ACP, and Long-life PCCP) were compared with the 33
software (CA4PRS and RealCost). The LCCA utilized in the study followed the Caltrans procedure and 34
policy and incorporated filed information especially the project team’s expert opinions, collected through 35
post-construction interviews. Based on this information, LCCA inputs such as pavement cross-sections 36
and materials, future M&R sequencing and timeline, and lane closure schemes were generated to compare 37
the three pavement design alternatives. 38
Construction schedule for initial construction and subsequent future M&R activities for each of 39
the alternatives were determined in the CA4PRS schedule module. Agency costs were estimated based on 40
material unit prices, which incorporate the Caltrans historic bid database, and pavement quantity in the 41
CA4PRS cost module. User costs in the work-zones for each activity were quantified in the CA4PRS 42
traffic module. The concept of NPV is used for life cycle cost summary and conversion with four percent 43
discount rate. 44
Comparison of the total agency and user life-cycle costs for the alternatives indicated that the 45
Innovative (long-life) ACP alternative ($39.1 million), which was actually implemented on the I-710 46
Long Beach rehabilitation project, had the lowest costs over 60 years of the analysis period. The total life-47
cycle cost of the Standard ACP alternative was $57.2 million and that of the Long-Life PCCP Alternative 48
TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
11-1127: Lee, Kim, and Harvey 14
was $75.3 million (Figure 4). In summary, this LCCA case study proves that the I-710 rehabilitation 1
project implemented the most life-cycle cost effective pavement design type (Innovative long-life ACP) 2
that might save a total agency and user life cycle cost of $18 million, compared to the Standard ACP 3
alternative, and about $36 million, compared to the Long-life PCCP alternative, in the long-run (60 years 4
of the analysis period). More specifically, the life-cycle agency cost for the Innovative ACP alternative 5
($31.2 million) is about $13 million more cost-effective than that of the Standard ACP alternative ($44 6
million) and is about $38 million cheaper than the Long-life PCCP alternative ($69.6 million). 7
This post-construction LCCA case study not only supports and justifies the adoption of the 8
innovative pavement technology on the I-710 Long Beach project, but it also emphasizes the importance 9
of LCCA implementation for pavement (design) type comparison for highway rehabilitation projects. 10
11
FIGURE 4 Comparison of total life-cycle costs (NPV) for the alternatives. 12
It is recommended that transportation agencies undertake an appropriate LCCA during the 13
pavement design and planning stages. Furthermore, utilization of construction analysis tools such as 14
CA4PRS or RealCost will present comprehensive and realistic LCCA results, minimizing engineers’ 15
efforts and uncertainty. 16
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 17
The contents of this paper reflect the views of the authors and are not the official views of the State of 18
California. The authors thank Caltrans engineers (especially, Bill Nokes) and other pavement experts 19
(Prof. Carl Monismith and Louw Plessis) who participated in the interview and survey. 20
TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
11-1127: Lee, Kim, and Harvey 15
REFERENCES 1
1. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Life-Cycle Cost Analysis, Office of Pavement 2
Engineering, Sacramento, CA, 2007. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/Translab /ope/LCCA.html. 3
Accessed June 25, 2009. 4
2. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Highway Design Manual, Sacramento, CA, 2007. 5
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/hdmtoc.htm. Accessed on June 5, 2009. 6
3. Papagiannakis, P. and M. Delwar. Computer Model for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of Roadway 7
Pavements. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 15 (2), 2001, pp. 152-156. 8
4. Salem, O., S. AbouRizk, and S. Ariaratnam. Risk-based Life-cycle Costing of Infrastructure 9
Rehabilitation and Construction Alternatives. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, ASCE, Vol. 9, No. 1, 10
2003, pp. 6-15. 11
5. Gransberg, D.D. and K.R. Molenaar. Life-Cycle Cost Award Algorithms for Design/Build Highway 12
Pavement Projects. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, ASCE, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2004, pp. 167-175. 13
6. Labi, S. and K.C. Sinha. Life-Cycle Evaluation of Flexible Pavement Preventive Maintenance. 14
Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 131 No. 10, 2005, pp. 744-751. 15
7. U.S. Department of Transportation. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Primer. Federal Highway 16
Administration, Office of Asset Management, 2002. isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/FHWA/010621.pdf. 17
Accessed June 1, 2010. 18
8. U.S. Department of Transportation. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis RealCost User Manual. Federal 19
Highway Administration, Office of Asset Management, 2004. 20
www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/rc210704.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2010. 21
9. Lee, E.B., H. Lee, and M. Akbarian. Accelerated Pavement Rehabilitation and Reconstruction with 22
Long-Life Asphalt Concrete on High-Traffic Urban Highways. Journal of the Transportation 23
Research Board, No 1905, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, 24
D.C., 2005, pp. 56-64. 25
10. Monismith, C.L., J.T. Harvey, B. Tsai, F. Long, and J. Signore. Summary Report: The Phase 1 I-710 26
Freeway Rehabilitation Project: Initial Design (1999) to Performance after Five Years of Traffic 27
(2009). Report No: UCPRC-SR-2008-04 (FHWA No.: CA101891A), February 2009. 28
11. California Department of Transportation. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Procedures Manual, 2007. 29
www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/Translab/OPD/LCCA_Manual_MASTERFinal.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2010. 30
12. Lee, E.B. and C.W. Ibbs. Computer Simulation Model: Construction Analysis for Pavement 31
Rehabilitation Strategies. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131 No. 4, 32
2005, pp. 449-458. 33
13. Lee, E.B., and K. Choi. Pavement Rehabilitation: Fast-Track Construction for Concrete Pavement 34
Rehabilitation: California Urban Highway Network. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 35
No 1949, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 3-36
10. 37
14. Lee, E.B., and D.K. Thomas. State-of-Practice Technologies on Accelerated Urban Highway 38
Rehabilitation: I-15 California Experience. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 39
Vol. 133, No. 2, 2007, pp.105-113. 40
15. California Department of Transportation. Caltrans Contractor Bid Database, 2010. 41
sv08data.dot.gov.ca/contractcost. Accessed July 1, 2010. 42
16. California Department of Transportation. Caltrans Construction Manual, 2009. 43
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/construc/manual2001/. Accessed July 1, 2010. 44
17. California Department of Transportation. Caltrans Traffic Data Branch. traffic-45
counts.dot.ca.gov/index.htm. Accessed July 1, 2010 46
18. Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2000, National Research Council, 47
Washington D.C. 2000. 48
19. California Department of Transportation. 2006 Travel Time Values for Automobiles and Trucks, 49
Division of Traffic Operations, Memorandum. March 3, 2006. 50
TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.