This article was downloaded by: [University of Aberdeen]

On: 20 July 2013, At: 15:49

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Pavement Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gpav20

Life-cycle cost analysis system for pavement

management at project level
a a
João Santos & Adelino Ferreira
a
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Coimbra, Rua Luís Reis Santos, 3030-788,
Coimbra, Portugal
Published online: 06 Oct 2011.

To cite this article: Joo Santos & Adelino Ferreira (2013) Life-cycle cost analysis system for pavement management at project
level, International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 14:1, 71-84, DOI: 10.1080/10298436.2011.618535

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2011.618535

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering
Vol. 14, No. 1, January 2013, 71–84

Life-cycle cost analysis system for pavement management at project level

João Santos1 and Adelino Ferreira*
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Coimbra, Rua Luı́s Reis Santos, 3030-788 Coimbra, Portugal
(Received 1 April 2011; final version received 25 August 2011)

Despite the fact that it considers a design period of 20 years for flexible pavements, the Portuguese manual of pavement
structures states the importance of making a life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) for a period of no less than 40 years, called
project analysis period, in order to compare different pavement solutions in terms of global costs for the final choice of the
pavement structure for a national road or a highway. The problem is that until now this analysis has never been done in
Portugal. This paper presents a new LCCA system based on an optimisation model considering pavement performance,
called OPTIPAV, developed and programmed to help pavement designers to choose the best pavement structure for a road
or a highway. The LCCA system considers the serviceability concept adopted by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials for use in the design of flexible pavements. The results obtained by the application of
the new LCCA system clearly indicate that it is a valuable addition to the road engineer’s toolbox.
Downloaded by [University of Aberdeen] at 15:49 20 July 2013

Keywords: pavement design; life-cycle cost analysis; deterministic pavement performance models; pavement maintenance
and rehabilitation; optimisation models; genetic algorithms

1. Introduction such as bridges, highways, pavements, etc. Peterson

Despite the fact that it considers a design period of 20 (1985) explains how LCCA can be used by pavement
years for flexible pavements, the Portuguese manual of designers and maintenance engineers to select a pavement
pavement structures (JAE 1995) states the importance structure that is the least expensive over time.
of making a life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) for a period of Gransberg and Molenaar (2004) stated that minimising
no less than 40 years, called project analysis period, in the pavement life-cycle cost will enhance the sustain-
order to compare different pavement solutions in terms of ability of the nation’s highways by delivering pavements
global costs for the final choice of the pavement structure that last longer and reduce user impact costs. They
for a national road or a highway. proposed best-value award algorithms that can be used to
It also states that the following costs must be choose pavements on the basis of life-cycle cost rather
considered in the LCCA: construction costs, maintenance than low-bid initial costs. Chan et al. (2008) evaluated
costs throughout the project analysis period, user costs LCCA practices in the Michigan Department of Trans-
throughout the project analysis period and the pavement portation and analysed its accuracy in projecting the actual
residual value at the end of the project analysis period. The costs over the pavement service life and choosing the
problem is that until now this analysis has never been done lowest-cost pavement alternative. Salem et al. (2003)
in Portugal. presented an approach for estimating life-cycle costs and
LCCA is a key component of the infrastructure evaluating infrastructure rehabilitation and construction
management process, and it is used extensively to support alternatives, derived from probability theory and simu-
network- and project-level decisions. LCCA is an analysis lation application. This risk-based life-cycle cost model
technique that builds on the well-founded principles of considers the time to failure of each pavement
economic analysis to evaluate the overall long-term rehabilitation/construction alternative and provides
economic efficiency between competing alternative additional knowledge about the uncertainty levels that
investment options. It incorporates initial and discounted accompany the estimated life-cycle costs. Li and Madanu
future agency, user and other relevant costs over the (2009) presented an uncertainty-based methodology for
lifetime of alternative investments. It attempts to identify highway project-level LCCA that handles certainty, risk
the best value (the lowest long-term cost that satisfies the and uncertainty inherited with the input factors for the
performance objective being sought) for investment computation. Thoft-Christensen (2010) stated that in the
expenditures (Walls and Smith 1998). life cycle of an infrastructure user costs are usually greater
LCCA is considered an important tool by several than maintenance, rehabilitation or replacement costs of
authors for the design and maintenance of infrastructures, the infrastructure. He also mentioned that for society (and

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 1029-8436 print/ISSN 1477-268X online
q 2013 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2011.618535
http://www.tandfonline.com
 72 J. Santos and A. Ferreira

users) it is therefore of great importance that maintenance, called OPTIPAV, developed and programmed to help
rehabilitation or replacement of an infrastructure is pavement designers to choose the best pavement structure
performed in such a way that all costs are minimised, for a road or a highway. The paper is divided into four
and not merely the owners’ cost. Thoft-Christensen sections. The first section consists of a brief description of
(2009), on life-cycle costs of bridges, stated that user the state-of-the-art in terms of LCCA. The second section
costs, in most cases, completely dominate the total costs. contains a detailed description of the OPTIPAV system.
In some cases, user costs are even more than 10 times The third section presents the results obtained by the
higher than the costs of maintenance and rehabilitation application of the OPTIPAV system to the pavement
(M&R). structures of the Portuguese manual. The final section
Fwa and Sinha (1991) concluded that there is need to comprises a synthesis of the conclusions reached so far and
consider pavement performance in LCCA. The incorpor- a statement of prospects for future research.
ation of pavement performance consideration into an
economic analysis provides a more complete evaluation of
different pavement maintenance strategies. Abaza (2005) 2. Proposed life-cycle cost analysis system
also stated that pavement performance has long been 2.1 Introduction
recognised as an important component in the design of The proposed LCCA system, called OPTIPAV, consists of
flexible pavements. Abaza (2004) presented a determinis- the components shown in Figure 1: the objective of the
Downloaded by [University of Aberdeen] at 15:49 20 July 2013

tic performance prediction model for use in the analysis, the road pavement data and models, the
rehabilitation and management of flexible pavements constraints that the system must guarantee and the results.
using the serviceability concept adopted by the American The OPTIPAV system was implemented using the
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Microsoft Visual Studio programming language (David
(AASHTO) for use in the design of flexible pavements. et al. 2006, Randolph and Gardner 2008) adapting and
Ozbay et al. (2004) proved that there is a gap between introducing new functionalities to an existing genetic
the state of the practice and state of the art of LCCA. Thus, algorithm program called GENETIPAV-D (Ferreira 2001,
it is fundamental to apply LCCA to practical case studies Ferreira et al. 2002, 2009a), which was previously
that should be useful for highway agencies. developed to solve deterministic optimisation models.
This paper presents a new LCCA system based on an The results of the application of the OPTIPAV system
optimisation model considering pavement performance, consist of the optimal pavement structure, the predicted

Minimisation of total costs

Objective
(construction costs, M&R costs, user costs, residual value of pavements)

Number of years of the project analysis period

Discount rate
Traffic
Pavement width and length
Admissible pavement layers and construction costs
Data and models M&R actions and unit agency costs
Pavement foundation class
Performance model
User costs model
Residual value model
Minimum quality levels to guarantee

Verifying the minimum quality levels

Constraints Using only the M&R actions defined by the infrastructure manager
Not exceeding the maximum number of M&R actions during the project analysis period

Optimal pavement structure

Predicted annual pavement quality
Results Construction costs
M&R plan and costs
User costs
Residual value in the end of the project analysis period

Figure 1. OPTIPAV system components.

 International Journal of Pavement Engineering 73

annual pavement quality, the construction costs, the M&R otherwise it is equal to zero; d is the discount rate; Zst are
plan and costs, the user costs and the pavement residual the condition variables for pavement structure s in year t; Z

value at the end of the project analysis period. The are the warning levels for the condition variables of
objective of the analysis, the road pavement data and pavement structures; Msl is the material of layer l of
models and the constraints that the system must guarantee pavement structure s; Thsl is the thickness of layer l
are described in the following section. of pavement structure s; Nmaxs is the maximum number of
M&R operations that may occur in pavement structure s
over the project analysis period; F are the pavement
2.2 Optimisation model formulation condition functions; Q are the residual value functions; Cc
The optimisation model introduced above can be are the construction cost functions;Ca are the agency cost
formulated as follows: functions for M&R; Cu are the user cost functions and V
are the feasible operations sets.
T X
X R
1 Equation (1), the objective function of this quite
Min CCs0 þ £ MCrst £ X rst complex, highly non-linear discrete optimisation model,
t¼1 r¼1
ð1 þ dÞt
expresses the minimisation of the total discounted costs
X
T over the project analysis period, while keeping a pavement
1 1
þ t £ UCst 2 £ RVs;Tþ1 ; ð1Þ structure above specified quality standards. Total costs
ð1 þ dÞ ð1 þ dÞTþ1
Downloaded by [University of Aberdeen] at 15:49 20 July 2013

t¼1 include construction costs, M&R costs, user costs and the

 residual value of a pavement structure, i.e. its value at the
Z st ¼ F Z s0 ; X 1s1 ; . . . ; X 1st ; . . . ; X Rs1 ; . . . ; X Rst ; end of the project analysis period.
ð2Þ Constraints (2) correspond to the pavement condition
s ¼ 1; . . . ; S; t ¼ 1; . . . ; T;
functions, expressing pavement condition in each year as a
( ) set of functions of the initial pavement state and the M&R
#
Z st
s ¼ 1; . . . ; S; t ¼ 1; . . . ; T;
Z; ð3Þ operations previously applied to the pavement. These
$ functions can describe the pavement condition with regard
to variables such as cracking, rutting, longitudinal
X rst [ VðZ st Þ; r ¼ 1; . . . ; R; s ¼ 1; . . . ; S; roughness, surface disintegration (potholing and ravelling)
and overall quality of pavements, etc.
t ¼ 1; . . . ; T; ð4Þ
In Portugal, the pavement management system (PMS)
X
R of the Portuguese Road Administration (Picado-Santos
X rst ¼ 1; s ¼ 1; . . . ; S; t ¼ 1; . . . ; T; ð5Þ and Ferreira 2008, Ferreira et al. 2011) and other
r¼1 municipal PMS (Ferreira et al. 2009a,b) uses the pavement

 performance model of the flexible pavement design
CCs0 ¼ Cc M sl ; Thsl ; s ¼ 1; . . . ; S; ð6Þ method developed by AASHTO (1993) to predict the

 future quality of pavements. Thus, the first application of
MCrst ¼ Ca Z st ; X rst ; r ¼ 1; . . . ; R;
the LCCA system will consider the AASHTO flexible
s ¼ 1; . . . ; S; t ¼ 1; . . . ; T; ð7Þ pavement design method. This pavement design method is
extensively used in the USA and is probably the most
UCst ¼ CuðZ st Þ; s ¼ 1; . . . ; S; t ¼ 1; . . . ; T; ð8Þ widely used in the world (C-SHRP 2002). This design

 approach applies several factors such as the change in
RVs;Tþ1 ¼ Q CCs0 ; Z s;Tþ1 ; s ¼ 1; . . . ; S; ð9Þ present serviceability index (PSI0-PSIt) over the design
period, the 80 kN equivalent single-axle load (ESAL)
X
R X
T
applications, materials properties, drainage and environ-
X rst # N maxs ; ;s ¼ 1; . . . ; S; ð10Þ
r¼2 t¼1
mental conditions and performance reliability to obtain a
measure of the required structural strength through an
where R is the number of alternative M&R operations; S is index known as the structural number (SN). The SN is then
the number of pavement structures generated for analysis; converted to pavement layer thicknesses according to layer
T is the number of years in the project analysis period; structural coefficients representing relative strength of the
CCs0 is the construction cost of a pavement structure s in layer materials. The basic design equation used for flexible
year 0 in function of the material and thickness of each pavements is Equation (11). The AASHTO flexible
layer; MCrst is the maintenance cost for applying operation pavement design method considers the structural coeffi-
r to pavement structure s in year t; UCst is the user cost for cients presented in Table 1, the initial and terminal PSI
pavement structure s in year t; RVs,Tþ1 is the residual value values presented in Table 2 and the statistic design values
for a pavement structure in year T þ 1; Xrst is equal to one (ZR and S0) presented in Table 3. The drainage coefficients
if operation r is applied to pavement structure s in year t, are equal to 1.0 if it is considered that the drainage systems
 74 J. Santos and A. Ferreira

Table 1. Structural coefficients. project analysis period.

Material Description Cen =cm log10 ðW 80 Þ ¼ Z R
S0 þ 9:36
log10 ðSN þ 1Þ 2 0:2
AC-S Asphalt concrete – surface layer 0.17323  
DAC-Bi Dense asphalt concrete – binder layer 0.17323 log10 DPSI=ð4:2 2 1:5Þ
AC-Bi Asphalt concrete – binder layer 0.13386 þ

AC-B Asphalt concrete – base layer 0.13386
0:40 þ 1094=ðSN þ 1Þ5:19
G-B Granular material – base layer 0.05512
GC-B Granular material treated with hydraulic 0.09055 þ 2:32
log10 ðM R Þ 2 8:07; ð11Þ
cement – base layer
G-SB Granular material – sub-base layer 0.04331 PSIt ¼ PSI0 2 ð4:2 2 1:5Þ
h  i
ðlog10 ðW 80t Þ2Z R £S0 29:36£log10 ðSNt þ1Þþ0:222:32£log10 ðMR Þþ8:07Þ£ 0:4þðSNt1094
þ1Þ5:19
£ 10 ;
ð12Þ

Table 2. Initial and terminal PSI values. X

L
SN ¼ H l £ C el £ Cdl ; ð13Þ
Road class PSI0 PSIt l¼1

Highways 4.2 – 4.5 2.5 –3.0 ð1 þ gh Þyt 2 1

National roads 4.2 – 4.5 2.0 W 80t ¼ 365 £ AADTh £ £ a; ð14Þ
Downloaded by [University of Aberdeen] at 15:49 20 July 2013

Municipal roads 4.2 – 4.5 1.5 gh

where W80 is the number of 80 kN ESAL applications

estimated for a selected design period and design lane; ZR
is the standard normal deviate; S0 is the combined standard
Table 3. Statistic design values. error of the traffic prediction and performance prediction;
DPSI is the difference between the initial or present
Confidence level (%) ZR S0 serviceability index (PSI0) and the terminal serviceability
50 20.000 index (PSIt); SN is the structural number indicative of the
60 20.253 total required pavement thickness; MR is the sub-grade-
70 20.524
75 20.674 resilient modulus (pounds per square inch); C el is the layer
80 20.841 (structural) coefficient of layer l; C dl is the drainage
85 21.037 coefficient of layer l; H l is the thickness of layer l; PSIt is
90 21.282 the PSI in year t; PSI0 is the PSI of a pavement
91 21.340 immediately after construction (year 0); W 80t is the
92 21.405 0.40 2 0.50
93 21.476 number of 80 kN ESAL applications in year t (million
94 21.555 ESAL/lane); SNt is the SN of a pavement structure in year
95 21.645 t; AADTh is the annual average daily heavy traffic in the
96 21.751 year of construction or the last rehabilitation, in one
97 21.881 direction and per lane; gh is the annual average growth rate
98 22.054
99 22.327 of heavy traffic; Y t is the time since the construction of the
99.9 23.090 pavement or its last rehabilitation (years) and a is the
99.99 23.750 average heavy-traffic damage factor or simply truck factor.
Constraints (3) are the warning-level constraints which
define the maximum (or in relation to the PSI, the
minimum) level for the pavement condition variables.
will function well. Equation (11) can be transformed into The warning level adopted in this study considering the
Equation (12) to be directly used in the prediction of the AASHTO pavement design method was a PSI value of 2.0
PSI value in each year of the design period. which corresponds to the PSI terminal value for national
To conclude, in the first application of the LCCA roads (Table 2). A corrective M&R operation appropriate
system, the pavement condition functions are Equations for the rehabilitation of a pavement structure must be
(12) – (14). Equation (12) is used to compute the overall performed when the PSI value is lower than 2.0.
quality of pavements defined by the PSI in year t (PSIt) Constraints (4) represent the feasible operation sets,
which ranges between 0.0 and approximately 4.5 (the i.e. the M&R operations that can be applied to maintain or
value for a pavement immediately after construction). rehabilitate the pavement structure in relation to its quality
Equation (13) is used to calculate the SN value for each condition. In this study two M&R operations will be
pavement structure. Equation (14) is used to compute the considered (Table 4). The M&R operation 1 that
number of 80 kN ESAL applications for any year of the corresponds to ‘do nothing’ is applied to a pavement
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering 75

Table 4. M&R operations.

M&R operation Description Cost M&R actions involved Cost

2
1 Do nothing e0.00/m No actions e0.00/m2
Wearing layer (5 cm) e6.69/m2
Tack coat e0.41/m2
Base layer (10 cm) e8.63/m2
Tack coat e0.41/m2
2 Structural rehabilitation e21.29/m2 Membrane anti-reflection of cracks e1.88/m2
Tack coat e0.41/m2
Surface levelling (2 cm) e2.45/m2
Tack coat e0.41/m2

structure if the PSI value is above the warning level; that year T þ 1; CC0 is the construction cost of a pavement
is, if the PSI value is greater than 2.0. The M&R operation structure in year 0 depending on the material and thickness
number 2 is the operation that must be applied to a of each layer and PSITþ1 is the PSI in year T þ 1.
pavement structure when the warning level is reached; that
is, this operation is applied to rehabilitate the pavement
Downloaded by [University of Aberdeen] at 15:49 20 July 2013

structure. The M&R operation costs, in the same way as 3. Case study
the construction costs, were obtained from the PMS of the 3.1 Introduction
Portuguese road administration and correspond to the
In the Portuguese manual (JAE 1995), a pavement
85th percentile.
structure is recommended depending on traffic class,
Constraints (5) indicate that only one M&R operation
which varies between T1 and T6, and pavement
should be performed per pavement structure in each year.
foundation class, which varies between F1 and F4. Traffic
Constraints (6) represent the construction costs, which are
class is defined by the number of 80 kN ESAL applications
computed in relation to the material and thickness of each
for a design life or design period calculated in relation to
pavement layer. Constraints (7) represent the M&R costs,
the annual average daily heavy traffic (AADTh), the
which are computed in relation to the pavement condition
annual average growth rate of heavy traffic (gh) and the
and the M&R operation applied to the pavement in a given
average heavy-traffic damage factor or, simply, truck
year. Constraints (8) represent the user cost functions.
factor (a). On the other hand, the pavement foundation
They express the costs for road users as a function of the
class is defined by the California bearing ratio (CBR) value
pavement condition in a given year. Equation (15) was
and the design stiffness modulus (E). The Portuguese
adopted for calculating the user costs because it is already
manual considers 16 different flexible pavement structures
used in some Portuguese PMS for calculating this type of
for different combinations between traffic and pavement
costs (Ferreira et al. 2009b).
foundation. These pavement structures were defined using
the Shell pavement design method (Shell 1978), with
UCt ¼ 0:39904 2 0:03871 £ PSIt þ 0:00709
verification by using the University of Nottingham
£ PSI2t 2 0:00042 £ PSI3t : ð15Þ (Brunton et al. 1987) and Asphalt Institute (AI 2001)
pavement design methods.
UCt are the user costs in year t (e/km/vehicle) and PSIt is In order to compare different solutions in terms of
the PSI in year t. global costs for the final choice of the pavement structure
Constraints (9) represent the residual value functions. for a national road or a highway, the OPTIPAV system
They express the value of the pavement structure at the end was applied to 384 combinations of traffic (six different
of the project analysis period as a function of the values), foundation (four different values of the foundation
construction cost and the pavement condition at that time. stiffness modulus) and pavement structure (16 different
Equation (16) is used for calculating the residual value of flexible pavement structures) using a total cost optimis-
pavement structures, which is also used in Portuguese ation approach. The objective is to select the pavement
PMS for the same purpose. Constraints (10) were included structure that minimises net present value (NPV),
in the model to avoid frequent M&R operations on the calculated by adding the construction costs, the annual
same pavement structure. maintenance costs, the annual user costs and deducting
the residual value of pavements at the end of the project
PSITþ1 2 1:5 analysis period, while always keeping the pavements
RVTþ1 ¼ CC0 £ : ð16Þ PSI value above the warning level of 2.0. In this
4:5 2 1:5
application of the OPTIPAV system the following
RVTþ1 is the residual value for a pavement structure in statistic design values were considered: a ZR value of
 76 J. Santos and A. Ferreira

Table 5. Traffic classes and corresponding values.

Traffic class AADT AADTh gh (%) a ESAL (20 years) Pavement structure for F3
7
T5 3000 300 3 3 0.88 £ 10 P4
T1 20,000 2000 5 5.5 13.28 £ 107 P14

Table 6. Characteristics of pavement structures.

Surface layer Base layer Sub-base layer Sub-grade

Pavement tS E tB E tSb E CBR E
structure Material (cm) (MPa) n Material (cm) (MPa) n Material (cm) (MPa) n (%) (MPa) n SN
P1 AC 4 4000 0.35 AC 6 4000 0.35 G 20 200 0.35 20 100 0.35 2.36228
P2 AC 4 4000 0.35 AC 8 4000 0.35 G 20 200 0.35 20 100 0.35 2.63000
P3 AC 4 4000 0.35 AC 12 4000 0.35 G 20 200 0.35 20 100 0.35 3.16544
P4 AC 4 4000 0.35 AC 14 4000 0.35 G 20 200 0.35 20 100 0.35 3.43316
P5 AC 5 4000 0.35 AC 14 4000 0.35 G 20 200 0.35 20 100 0.35 3.60639
P6 AC 5 4000 0.35 AC 16 4000 0.35 G 20 200 0.35 20 100 0.35 3.87411
Downloaded by [University of Aberdeen] at 15:49 20 July 2013

P7 AC 4 4000 0.35 AC 18 4000 0.35 G 20 200 0.35 20 100 0.35 3.96860

P8 AC 5 4000 0.35 AC 17 4000 0.35 G 20 200 0.35 20 100 0.35 4.00797
P9 AC 5 4000 0.35 AC 19 4000 0.35 G 20 200 0.35 20 100 0.35 4.27569
P10 AC 6 4000 0.35 AC 18 4000 0.35 G 20 200 0.35 20 100 0.35 4.31506
P11 AC 5 4000 0.35 AC 20 4000 0.35 G 20 200 0.35 20 100 0.35 4.40955
P12 AC 6 4000 0.35 AC 20 4000 0.35 G 20 200 0.35 20 100 0.35 4.58278
P13 AC 5 4000 0.35 AC 23 4000 0.35 G 20 200 0.35 20 100 0.35 4.81113
P14 AC 6 4000 0.35 AC 22 4000 0.35 G 20 200 0.35 20 100 0.35 4.85050
P15 AC 6 4000 0.35 AC 24 4000 0.35 G 20 200 0.35 20 100 0.35 5.11822
P16 AC 6 4000 0.35 AC 26 4000 0.35 G 20 200 0.35 20 100 0.35 5.38594

Notes: AC – asphalt concrete; G – granular material; tS – thickness of surface layer; tB – thickness of base layer; tSb – thickness of sub-base layer; E – stiffness modulus;
n – Poisson’s ratio; CBR – California bearing ratio; SN – structural number.

2 1.282 and a S0 value of 0.45. The economic analysis was Figure 4 presents the M&R costs during the entire
done by using a discount rate equal to 3%. project analysis period for the 16 pavement structures and
for the traffic classes T5 and T1. As expected, the M&R
costs decrease with the pavement structural capacity, and
3.2 Results of the application of the OPTIPAV system
The results presented in this paper were obtained by using AC – Asphalt concrete – Surface layer tS
the following data and conditions: two traffic classes (T1 AC – Asphalt concrete – Base layer tB
and T5) characterised in Table 5, one type of pavement
foundation (F3 with CBR equal to 20% and design G – Granular material – sub–base layer tSb
stiffness modulus equal to 100 MPa), 16 different
pavement structures with the characteristics presented in
Table 6 and a project analysis period of 40 years. Table 5
also shows the pavement structure recommended in the
Portuguese manual for traffic class T5 and pavement
foundation F3 (P4) and for traffic class T1 and pavement
foundation F3 (P14). Pavement foundation
(Thickness >100
_ cm)
Table 6 and Figure 2 present the characteristics of the CBR
pavement structures (type of material, thickness, stiffness E
modulus; Poisson’s ratio, CBR, etc.) that were considered
in the pavement design process using the Shell and the
other two pavement design methods to define the
Portuguese manual of pavement structures.
Figure 3 shows the construction costs of each
pavement structure. We can see that their values increase
with the pavement structural capacity defined by the SN
considered in the AASHTO pavement design method. Figure 2. Flexible pavement structure.
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering 77

Figure 3. Construction costs of pavement structures.

Downloaded by [University of Aberdeen] at 15:49 20 July 2013

Figure 4. M&R costs throughout the project analysis period.

for traffic class T1 the least-M&R-costs pavement value, i.e. 2.0. By analysing Table 8 and Figure 6 one can
structure is P16. For traffic class T5 there are several see that, for pavement structure P9, the first and only
pavement structures (P6 – P16) with no M&R costs during rehabilitation operation will be applied in year 14 when the
the 40 years of the project analysis period. For traffic class PSI value is 1.73. For pavement structure P10, the first
T1, pavement structure P9 presents fewer M&R costs than rehabilitation will be applied in year 15 when the PSI value
pavement structures P10 and P11, which would not be is only 1.35, and a second rehabilitation operation will be
expected. The explanation for this can be detected by needed in year 38. The application of the rehabilitation
analysing the rehabilitation operations and the evolution of
operation when the PSI value is higher permits the PSI
the PSI value.
degradation rate to remain inferior for pavement structure
Tables 7 and 8 present the rehabilitation operations to
P9 than for pavement structure P10 (Figure 6). Never-
be applied in the 16 pavement structures during the entire
project analysis period, considering traffic class T5 and theless, for pavement structure P9 a rehabilitation
T1, respectively. Figures 5 and 6 represent the predicted operation will be needed one year after the end of the
PSI value over the years of the project analysis period, for project analysis period. The PSI value in year 40 is 1.77.
each pavement structure and traffic classes T5 and T1, as a This is an exceptional situation because the project
consequence of the execution of the rehabilitation analysis period (from years 0 to 39, corresponding to 40
operations. It can be seen that the rehabilitation operation years) ends immediately before the year in which a
is applied when the PSI value reaches its minimum quality rehabilitation operation is necessary. That is why
 78 J. Santos and A. Ferreira

Table 7. M&R operations to be applied in pavements structures for traffic class T5.

Pavement structure
Years P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Downloaded by [University of Aberdeen] at 15:49 20 July 2013

15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
21 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
22 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
23 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
24 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
25 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
27 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
28 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
29 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
30 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
31 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
32 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
33 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
34 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
35 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
36 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
37 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
38 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
39 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
PSI final 3.23 3.54 4.10 4.34 4.47 2.51 2.66 2.71 2.97 2.99 3.06 3.17 3.29 3.31 3.43 3.54

Notes: 1 – do nothing; 2 – rehabilitation.

pavement structure P9 has lower M&R costs – there is For traffic class T5, if pavement structure P4
only one rehabilitation operation. recommended by the Portuguese manual is adopted then
Figures 5 and 6 show, as expected, that for the lowest only one rehabilitation operation will be needed in the 34th
traffic class (T5) and for all pavement structures the year of the project analysis period (Table 7). For traffic
degradation of the PSI value during the project analysis class T1, if pavement structure P14 recommended by the
period is slower than for the highest traffic class (T1). They Portuguese manual is adopted then again only one
also show that by using weak pavement structures (with a rehabilitation operation will be needed, but in this case
small SN value) the PSI value decreases quickly in the first in the 20th year of the project analysis period (Table 8).
years of the project analysis period. Then with the This pavement structure will not require any rehabilitation
application of M&R operations the PSI value decreases operation during 20 years, the design period considered in
slowly in the remaining years of the project analysis period the Portuguese manual.
because the SN increases, making these pavement Figure 7 presents the total user costs during the project
structures stronger. analysis period corresponding to traffic classes T5 and T1.
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering 79

Table 8. M&R operations to be applied in pavements structures for traffic class T1.

Pavement structure
Years P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
11 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Downloaded by [University of Aberdeen] at 15:49 20 July 2013

15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1
18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
20 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1
21 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
22 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
23 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1
24 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
25 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
26 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
27 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
28 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
29 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
30 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
31 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
32 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
33 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
34 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
35 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
36 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
37 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
38 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
39 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
PSI final 2.92 3.09 3.23 3.50 4.08 4.19 4.25 4.38 1.77 4.43 4.50 2.64 2.78 2.99 3.28 3.56

Notes: 1 – do nothing; 2 – rehabilitation.

It shows that the total user costs are much higher for traffic classes T5 and T1. The results show that the optimum
class T1 than for traffic class T5, but for the same traffic pavement structure for traffic class T5 (P13) is different
class all the pavement structures have relatively close from the pavement structure recommended by the
values. The difference between the maximum and the Portuguese manual of pavement structures (P4), although
minimum user costs is 0.68% and 0.60% for T5 and T1 for traffic class T1 the OPTIPAV system and the
traffic classes, respectively. Taking the traffic class T5 and Portuguese manual recommend the same pavement
pavement structure P4 as a reference, the total user costs structure (P14). Considering traffic class T5, P13 is the
are approximately 915% higher when the traffic category least-total-discounted costs pavement structure, allowing
is T1. This happens because the difference between traffic savings of e4.81/m2 (approximately 0.32%) compared to
volumes is enormous and the degradation of the PSI value P4, which is the pavement structure recommended by the
is higher for traffic class T1. Portuguese manual. For example, for a road that is 100 km
Figure 8 presents the residual value while Figure 9 long and 10 m wide, it corresponds to a saving of
presents the NPV of all pavement structures for both traffic e4,810,000.00.
 80 J. Santos and A. Ferreira
Downloaded by [University of Aberdeen] at 15:49 20 July 2013

Figure 5. Evolution of PSI for each pavement structure and traffic class T5.

Figure 6. Evolution of PSI for each pavement structure and traffic class T1.

Considering only costs directly related to a highway for traffic class T1. For example, pavement structure P5
operator or a highway agency (Figure 10), i.e. construction has the following values: construction costs (e27.59/m2),
costs, M&R costs and the residual pavement of pavement maintenance costs (e6.92/m 2 ) and residual value
structures, we can conclude that pavement structure P5 is (e8.62/m2). Pavement structure P4 has the following
the optimum pavement structure for traffic class T5, while values: construction costs (e26.25/m2), maintenance costs
pavement structure P16 is the optimum pavement structure (e7.79/m2) and residual value (e7.85/m2). We can see that
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering 81

Figure 7. User costs throughout the project analysis period.

Downloaded by [University of Aberdeen] at 15:49 20 July 2013

Figure 8. Residual value at the end of the project analysis period.

P5 has higher construction costs (more e1.34/m2) but Considering only the highway agency costs, one can see
lower maintenance costs (less e0.87/m2) and a higher that in 13 cases the optimum pavement structure defined by
residual value (more e0.77/m2). Considering these costs, using the OPTIPAV system has more structural capacity, in
P5 allows savings of e0.3/m2. For a road that is 100 km five cases it has the same structural capacity and in no case
long and 10 m wide it corresponds to a saving of does it have lesser structural capacity. In most cases,
e300,000.00. pavement structures with more structural capacity allow for
Table 9 presents the pavement structures recommended savings in terms of highway agency costs.
by the Portuguese manual and the optimum pavement
structures defined by using the OPTIPAV system
considering all the costs and considering only the highway 4. Conclusions
agency costs. Considering all the costs, one can see that in The LCCA system for pavement management at the
eight cases the optimum pavement structure, defined by project level proposed in this paper, called OPTIPAV, can
using the OPTIPAV system, has more structural capacity, solve the problem of making LCCA for typical design
in four cases it has the same structural capacity and in six periods (20 years) but also for longer periods (40 years or
cases it has lesser structural capacity. The pavement more), in order to compare different pavement solutions in
structures recommended by the Portuguese manual and by terms of global costs for the final choice of the pavement
the OPTIPAV system are different in 78% of the cases. structure for a national road or a highway. Additionally,
 82 J. Santos and A. Ferreira

Figure 9. NPV for each pavement structure.

Downloaded by [University of Aberdeen] at 15:49 20 July 2013

Figure 10. Highway agency costs for each pavement structure.

the OPTIPAV system provides a good solution to the choice of the optimum pavement structure for a national
pavement design problem considering not only road or a highway.
design criteria but also construction costs, maintenance In the future, because the OPTIPAV system has an
costs, user costs and the residual value of pavement open formulation, some modifications could be made to
structures. better serve the needs of pavement design engineers. In the
The application of the OPTIPAV system to the case near future, our research in the field of pavement design
study allows us to conclude that the pavement structures will follow in four main directions. First, the OPTIPAV
recommended by the Portuguese manual are not always system will be applied taking into account not only
the optimum solutions. The pavement structures rec- corrective rehabilitation operations but also considering
ommended by the Portuguese manual and by the preventive M&R operations. In this case, the moment to
OPTIPAV system are different in 78% of the cases. apply the M&R operations will be defined by also using
The OPTIPAV system already constitutes a useful tool optimisation instead of only using a minimum quality
to help road engineers in their task of pavement design. level.
They can now carry out LCCA taking into account any Second, the OPTIPAV system will be applied
combination of construction costs, maintenance costs, user considering other pavement performance models, such as,
costs and the residual value of pavement structures, in for example, the cracking and rutting models considered in
order to compare different pavement solutions for the final the Shell and University of Nottingham pavement design
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering 83

Table 9. Optimum pavement structures.

Pavement
(OPTIPAV)
gh ESAL Pavement Min Min
Traffic class AADT AADTh (%) a (20 years) Pavement foundation (manual) (NPV) (agency costs)
T6 1500 150 3 2 0.29 £ 107 F1 NAF P14 P16
T5 3000 300 3 3 0.88 £ 107 F1 NAF P16 P16
T4 5000 500 4 4 2.17 £ 107 F1 NAF P6 P16
T3 8000 800 4 4.5 3.91 £ 107 F1 NAF P15 P16
T2 12,000 1200 5 5 7.24 £ 107 F1 NAF P16 P16
T1 20,000 2000 5 5.5 13.28 £ 107 F1 NAF P9 P16
T6 1500 150 3 2 0.29 £ 107 F2 P3 P13 P7
T5 3000 300 3 3 0.88 £ 107 F2 P7 P7 P15
T4 5000 500 4 4 2.17 £ 107 F2 P11 P13 P16
T3 8000 800 4 4.5 3.91 £ 107 F2 P13 P16 P16
T2 12,000 1200 5 5 7.24 £ 107 F2 P15 P7 P15
T1 20,000 2000 5 5.5 13.28 £ 107 F2 P16 P14 P16
T6 1500 150 3 2 0.29 £ 107 F3 P2 P3 P3
0.88 £ 107
Downloaded by [University of Aberdeen] at 15:49 20 July 2013

T5 3000 300 3 3 F3 P4 P13 P5

T4 5000 500 4 4 2.17 £ 107 F3 P6 P16 P11
T3 8000 800 4 4.5 3.91 £ 107 F3 P9 P6 P15
T2 12,000 1200 5 5 7.24 £ 107 F3 P12 P11 P16
T1 20,000 2000 5 5.5 13.28 £ 107 F3 P14 P14 P16
T6 1500 150 3 2 0.29 £ 107 F4 P1 P1 P1
T5 3000 300 3 3 0.88 £ 107 F4 P3 P3 P3
T4 5000 500 4 4 2.17 £ 107 F4 P5 P16 P5
T3 8000 800 4 4.5 3.91 £ 107 F4 P8 P16 P10
T2 12,000 1200 5 5 7.24 £ 107 F4 P10 P7 P13
T1 20,000 2000 5 5.5 13.28 £ 107 F4 P12 P9 P16

Note: NAF – not an adequate foundation for a flexible pavement with an asphalt base layer (according to the Portuguese manual).

methods, or even the pavement performance models References

considered in the new AASHTO Mechanistic –Empirical AASHTO, 1993. Guide for design of pavement structures. 4th ed.
Pavement Design Guide (AASHTO 2008). Third, specific Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway
pavement performance models and user cost models will and Transportation Officials, 1 – 640.
AASHTO, 2008. Mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide
be developed using data already available in some
– a manual of practice. Interim ed. Washington, DC:
Portuguese PMS and will be incorporated into the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
OPTIPAV system for future applications to road pave- Officials, 1 – 204.
ments. Fourth, environmental costs will be included in the Abaza, K., 2004. Deterministic performance prediction model for
objective function, such as environmental costs related to rehabilitation and management of flexible pavement. The
the production of new pavement materials, materials International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 5 (2),
111– 121.
deposited in landfills associated with construction, Abaza, K., 2005. Performance-based models for flexible
maintenance, rehabilitation and reconstruction, and also pavement structural overlay design. Journal of Transpor-
pavement materials recycling. tation Engineering, 131 (2), 149– 159.
AI, 2001. Thickness design: asphalt pavements for highways and
streets. Lexington, KY: Asphalt Institute, 1– 98.
Acknowledgements Brunton, J., Brown, S. and Pell, P., 1987. Developments to the
Nottingham analytical design method for asphalt pavements.
The authors are grateful to the Portuguese Foundation of Science
and Technology for the financial support provided to this study Proceedings of the 6th International conference on structural
through Grant PTDC/ECM/112775/2009 – MODAT – Multi- design of asphalt pavements. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Objective Decision-Aid Tool for Highway Asset Management, Michigan, Vol. 1, 366– 377.
financed by the European Community Fund FEDER. The authors Chan, A., Keoleian, G. and Gabler, E., 2008. Evaluation of life-
wish to acknowledge the reviewers for their valuable comments cycle cost analysis practices used by the Michigan
and suggestions. Department of Transportation. Journal of Transportation
Engineering, 134 (6), 236– 245.
C-SHRP, 2002. Pavement structural design practices across
Canada, C-SHRP Technical Brief #23, Canadian Strategic
Highway Research Program, Canada, pp. 1 – 10.
Note David, J., et al., 2006. Professional visual studio 2005 team
1. Email: [email protected] system. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley Publishing, Inc., 1 –660.
 84 J. Santos and A. Ferreira

Ferreira, A., 2001. Pavement maintenance optimization of road record. Vol. 1864. Washington, DC: Transportation Research
networks, Thesis (PhD). Coimbra University, Coimbra, (in Board, 62 – 70.
Portuguese) pp. 1 – 383. Peterson, D., 1985. Life-cycle cost analysis of pavements.
Ferreira, A., Meneses, S. and Vicente, F., 2009a. Pavement NCHRP synthesis of highway practice. Vol. 12. Washington,
management system for Oliveira do Hospital, Portugal. DC: Transportation Research Board, 1 – 136.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Picado-Santos, L. and Ferreira, A., 2008. Contributions to the
Transport, 162 (3), 157– 169. development of the Portuguese road administration’s
Ferreira, A., Meneses, S. and Vicente, F., 2009b. Alternative pavement management system. Proceedings of the 3rd
decision-aid tool for pavement management. Proceedings of European pavement and asset management conference,
the Institution of Civil Engineers – Transport, 162 (1), 3 –17. Coimbra, Portugal, CD: University of Coimbra, Ed., paper
Ferreira, A., Picado-Santos, L. and Antunes, A., 2002. A 1138.pdf, 1 –10.
segment-linked optimization model for deterministic pave- Randolph, N. and Gardner, D., 2008. Professional visual studio
ment management systems. The International Journal of 2008. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley Publishing, Inc., 1 – 946.
Pavement Engineering, 3 (2), 95 –105. Salem, O., Abourizk, S. and Ariaratnam, S., 2003. Risk-based
life-cycle costing of infrastructure rehabilitation and
Ferreira, A., et al., 2011. Selection of pavement performance
construction alternatives. Journal of Infrastructure Systems,
models for use in the Portuguese PMS. International Journal
9 (1), 6 – 15.
of Pavement Engineering, 12 (1), 87 –97.
Shell, 1978. Shell pavement design manual – asphalt pavements
Fwa, T. and Sinha, K., 1991. Pavement performance and life- and overlays for road traffic. London: Shell International
cycle cost analysis. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Petroleum Company Ltd.
117 (1), 33 – 46. Thoft-Christensen, P., 2009. Life-cycle cost-benefit (LCCB)
Downloaded by [University of Aberdeen] at 15:49 20 July 2013

Gransberg, D. and Molenaar, K., 2004. Life-cycle cost award analysis of bridges from a user and social point of view.
algorithms for design/build highway pavement projects. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering: Maintenance,
Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 10 (4), 167– 175. Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance, 5 (1),
JAE, 1995. Manual of pavement structures for the Portuguese 49 – 57.
road network. Lisboa: Junta Autónoma de Estradas, 1 – 54 (in Thoft-Christensen, P., 2010. Infrastructures and life-cycle cost-
Portuguese). benefit analysis. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering:
Li, Z. and Madanu, S., 2009. Highway project level life-cycle Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and Perform-
benefit/cost analysis under certainty, risk, and uncertainty: ance, First published on: 23 December 2010 (iFirst). DOI:
methodology with case study. Journal of Transportation 10.1080/15732479.2010.539070.
Engineering, 135 (8), 516– 526. Walls, J. and Smith, M., 1998. Life-cycle cost analysis in
Ozbay, K., et al., 2004. Life-cycle cost analysis: state of the pavement design – in search of better investment decisions.
practice versus state of the art. Transportation research Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, 1 – 107.