Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
2017 N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I V E H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 859 Consequences of Delayed Maintenance of Highway Assets Carlos M. Chang Soheil Nazarian Marketa Vavrova The UniversiTy of Texas aT el Paso El Paso, TX Margot T. Yapp Linda M. Pierce nichols consUlTing engineers, chTd. Reno, NV William Robert sPy Pond ParTners, llc Arlington, MA and Roger E. Smith College Station, TX Subscriber Categories Maintenance and Preservation Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research is the most effective way to solve many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation results in increasingly complex problems of wide inter- est to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 ini- tiated an objective national highway research program using modern scientific techniquesâthe National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to administer the research program because of TRBâs recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive com- mittee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, univer- sities, and industry; TRBâs relationship to the National Academies is an insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of special- ists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and transporta- tion departments and by committees of AASHTO. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO Standing Committee on Research (SCOR), and each year SCORâs recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Directors and the National Academies. Research projects to address these topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified research agencies are selected from submitted proposals. Administra- tion and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Academies and TRB. The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate, other highway research programs. Published research reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet by going to http://www.national-academies.org and then searching for TRB Printed in the United States of America NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 859 Project 14-20A ISSN 2572-3766 (Print) ISSN 2572-3774 (Online) ISBN 978-0-309-44662-4 Library of Congress Control Number 2017955591 Â© 2017 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The research report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturersâ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Boardâs varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.
C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research team would like to acknowledge the departments of transportation and city and county governments that provided valuable input on current practice for maintaining highway assets, and refer- ence materials to develop the models and examples presented in this report. The research team also would like to acknowledge the support of several University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) studentsâLuis Valdez, Erick MuÃ±oz, John Padilla, Sandra Gutierrez, Shahrouz J. Ghadimi, Oscar Ortega, and Edgar Rodriguezâfor their work on preparing data, assisting in the statistical analysis for developing models, and gathering the information to complete this final report. CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 859 Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Amir N. Hanna, Senior Program Officer Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Sharon Lamberton, Editor NCHRP PROJECT 14-20A PANEL Field of MaintenanceâArea of Maintenance of Way and Structures Sue McNeil, University of Delaware, Newark, DE (Chair) Brad W. Allen, Applied Pavement Technology, Inc., Albany, NY (formerly with New York State DOT) Anita K. Bush, Nevada DOT, Carson City, NV James Selywn Gillespie, Virginia DOT, Charlottesville, VA Lacy D. Love, Volkert, Inc., Raleigh, NC Richard W. Miller, Kansas DOT, Topeka, KS Morgan Kessler, FHWA Liaison James W. Bryant, Jr., TRB Liaison
This report presents a process for quantifying the consequences of delayed maintenance of highway assets that considers the asset preservation policy, the maintenance and budget needs, and the analyses of delayed maintenance scenarios. This process considers delayed maintenance caused by the inability to meet the agency-defined application schedule or the unavailability of the funds required to perform all needed maintenance, and expresses the consequences in terms of asset condition and the costs to owners and road users. Detailed descriptions of the use of the proposed process to quantify the consequences of delayed maintenance for seven highway assets are available online. The information contained in the report will be of immediate interest to state maintenance engineers and others involved in the different aspects of asset maintenance and preservation. Various maintenance treatments are employed by highway agencies to slow deterioration and restore condition of highway pavements, bridges, and other physical assets. However, budget constraints and other factors have often led to delaying or eliminating the applica- tion of these treatments. Such actions are expected to adversely influence the condition and performance and lead to a reduced level of service, to early deterioration, and eventually to the need for costly rehabilitation or replacement. Analytical tools are currently available to quantify the effects of the application of main- tenance treatments for highway pavements, bridges, and other assets. However, processes for using these tools to demonstrate the potential savings and performance enhancements that result from applying maintenance treatments at the right time are not readily available. Research was needed to develop such processes to help highway agencies better assess the economic benefits of maintenance actions and their role in enhancing the level of service of the highway system. In addition, incorporating these processes in asset management systems would provide a means for optimizing the allocation of resources. Under NCHRP Project 14-20A, âConsequences of Delayed Maintenance of Highway Assets,â the University of Texas at El Paso worked with the objective of developing pro- cesses for quantifying the consequences of delayed application of maintenance treatments on highway assets such as pavements, bridges, and other physical assets. Consequences were expressed in terms of performance indicators (e.g., condition index, individual distresses, and serviceability), costs to owners and road users, or other relevant measures. Delayed maintenance applications were defined by (1) the inability to meet the agency-defined application schedule or (2) the available budget relative to an unconstrained budget (i.e., availability of the funds required to perform all needed maintenance). To accomplish this objective, the researchers focused on developing a rational framework for a process to quan- tify the consequences of delayed maintenance of highway assets. The proposed framework F O R E W O R D By Amir N. Hanna Staff Officer Transportation Research Board
consists of three steps. The first step defines the asset preservation policy by (1) identifying the types of required maintenance, (2) establishing performance objectives, and (3) formulating decision criteria for maintenance activities. The second step determines maintenance and budget needs by (1) assessing condition or remaining service life, (2) selecting performance models to forecast condition and/or remaining service life, and (3) performing analysis to identify the maintenance needed to meet the established objectives. The third step conducts analysis of delayed maintenance scenarios by (1) formulating delayed maintenance scenarios, (2) performing analysis of the formulated scenarios, and (3) determining the consequences of delayed maintenance. Using this framework, the researchers then developed processes for quantifying the consequences of delayed maintenance for seven highway assets: pavements, bridges, culverts, guardrails, lighting, pavement markings, and signs. Seven appendices contained in the research agencyâs final report (not published herein) describe the procedures for quantifying the consequences of delayed maintenance of seven assets (pavements, bridges, culverts, guardrails, lighting, pavement markings, and high- way signs). These appendices are available online at www.trb.org by searching âNCHRP Research Report 859â.
1 Summary 3 Chapter 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Background 4 1.2 Objective and Scope 4 1.3 Research Approach 5 1.4 Organization of this Report 6 Chapter 2 Framework for Quantifying Delayed Maintenance of Highway Assets 6 2.1 Introduction 7 2.2 Preservation Goals and Policies for Maintenance 8 2.3 Asset Inventory 9 2.4 Condition Assessment, Service Life, and Performance Measures 9 2.4.1 Condition Assessment 10 2.4.2 Service Life 10 2.4.3 Performance Measures 11 2.5 Performance Models 11 2.5.1 Performance Models and Maintenance 13 2.5.2 Selection of Performance Modeling Approach 14 2.6 Needs Analysis 16 2.7 Alternatives Evaluation 16 2.7.1 Formulate Delayed Maintenance Scenarios 16 2.7.2 Perform the Delayed Maintenance Scenario Analysis 17 2.7.3 Determine the Effects of Delayed Maintenance 18 2.7.4 Report the Consequences of Delayed Maintenance 19 Chapter 3 Procedures to Quantify Consequences of Delayed Maintenance of Highway Assets 19 3.1 Introduction 21 3.2 Pavements 21 3.2.1 Pavement Preservation Policy 23 3.2.2 Pavement Maintenance and Budget Needs 24 3.2.3 Consequences of Delayed Maintenance of Pavements 26 3.3 Bridges 26 3.3.1 Bridge Preservation Policy 28 3.3.2 Bridge Maintenance and Budget Needs 29 3.3.3 Consequences of Delayed Maintenance of Bridges 31 3.4 Culverts 32 3.4.1 Culvert Preservation Policy 34 3.4.2 Culvert Maintenance and Budget Needs 36 3.4.3 Consequences of Delayed Maintenance of Culverts C O N T E N T S
37 3.5 Guardrails 39 3.5.1 Guardrail Preservation Policy 40 3.5.2 Guardrail Maintenance and Budget Needs 42 3.5.3 Consequences of Delayed Maintenance of Guardrails 43 3.6 Lighting 43 3.6.1 Lighting Preservation Policy 45 3.6.2 Lighting Maintenance and Budget Needs 46 3.6.3 Consequences of Delayed Maintenance of Lighting 48 3.7 Pavement Markings 48 3.7.1 Pavement Marking Preservation Policy 50 3.7.2 Pavement Marking Maintenance and Budget Needs 52 3.7.3 Consequences of Delayed Maintenance of Pavement Markings 53 3.8 Highway Signs 54 3.8.1 Highway Sign Preservation Policy 55 3.8.2 Highway Sign Maintenance and Budget Needs 56 3.8.3 Consequences of Delayed Maintenance of Highway Signs 57 3.9 Suggestions for Implementing the Procedures 59 Chapter 4 Research Contributions and Suggestions 59 4.1 Research Contributions 60 4.2 Quantifying the Consequences of Delayed Maintenance 60 4.2.1 Performance Models and Analytical Tools 60 4.2.2 Delayed Maintenance Scenarios 62 4.3 Reporting the Consequences of Delayed Maintenance 65 4.4 Areas of Future Research 67 References 71 Appendices Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.