Civil, Construction and Environmental Civil, Construction and Environmental

Engineering Publications Engineering

7-2016

Evaluation of pavement life cycle cost analysis: Review and

analysis
Peyman Babashamsi
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Nur Izzi Md Yusoff

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Halil Ceylan
Iowa State University, [email protected]

See next page for additional authors

Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ccee_pubs

Part of the Transportation Engineering Commons

The complete bibliographic information for this item can be found at https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/
ccee_pubs/120. For information on how to cite this item, please visit http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/
howtocite.html.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering at
Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Civil, Construction and Environmental
Engineering Publications by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more
information, please contact [email protected].
Evaluation of pavement life cycle cost analysis: Review and analysis

Abstract
The cost of road construction consists of design expenses, material extraction, construction equipment,
maintenance and rehabilitation strategies, and operations over the entire service life. An economic
analysis process known as Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) is used to evaluate the cost-efficiency of
alternatives based on the Net Present Value (NPV) concept. It is essential to evaluate the above-
mentioned cost aspects in order to obtain optimum pavement life-cycle costs. However, pavement
managers are often unable to consider each important element that may be required for performing
future maintenance tasks. Over the last few decades, several approaches have been developed by
agencies and institutions for pavement Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA). While the transportation
community has increasingly been utilising LCCA as an essential practice, several organisations have even
designed computer programs for their LCCA approaches in order to assist with the analysis. Current
LCCA methods are analysed and LCCA software is introduced in this article. Subsequently, a list of
economic indicators is provided along with their substantial components. Collecting previous literature
will help highlight and study the weakest aspects so as to mitigate the shortcomings of existing LCCA
methods and processes. LCCA research will become more robust if improvements are made, facilitating
private industries and government agencies to accomplish their economic aims.

Keywords
CNDE, Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA), Pavement management, LCCA software, Net Present Value (NPV)

Disciplines
Civil and Environmental Engineering | Transportation Engineering

Comments
This article is published as Babashamsi, Peyman, Nur Izzi Md Yusoff, Halil Ceylan, Nor Ghani Md Nor, and
Hashem Salarzadeh Jenatabadi. "Evaluation of pavement life cycle cost analysis: Review and analysis."
International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 9, no. 4 (2016): 241-254. doi:10.1016/
j.ijprt.2016.08.004. Posted with permission.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0 International
License.

Authors
Peyman Babashamsi, Nur Izzi Md Yusoff, Halil Ceylan, Nor Ghani Md Nor, and Hashem Salarzadeh
Jenatabadi

This article is available at Iowa State University Digital Repository: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ccee_pubs/120

 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 9 (2016) 241–254
www.elsevier.com/locate/IJPRT

Evaluation of pavement life cycle cost analysis: Review and analysis

Peyman Babashamsi a,⇑, Nur Izzi Md Yusoff a, Halil Ceylan b, Nor Ghani Md Nor c,
Hashem Salarzadeh Jenatabadi d
a
Department of Civil & Structural Engineering, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
b
Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
c
Department of Economics and Management, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
d
Department of Science and Technology Studies, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Received 7 February 2016; received in revised form 6 August 2016; accepted 6 August 2016
Available online 10 August 2016

Abstract

The cost of road construction consists of design expenses, material extraction, construction equipment, maintenance and rehabilita-
tion strategies, and operations over the entire service life. An economic analysis process known as Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) is
used to evaluate the cost-efficiency of alternatives based on the Net Present Value (NPV) concept. It is essential to evaluate the above-
mentioned cost aspects in order to obtain optimum pavement life-cycle costs. However, pavement managers are often unable to consider
each important element that may be required for performing future maintenance tasks. Over the last few decades, several approaches
have been developed by agencies and institutions for pavement Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA). While the transportation community
has increasingly been utilising LCCA as an essential practice, several organisations have even designed computer programs for their
LCCA approaches in order to assist with the analysis. Current LCCA methods are analysed and LCCA software is introduced in this
article. Subsequently, a list of economic indicators is provided along with their substantial components. Collecting previous literature will
help highlight and study the weakest aspects so as to mitigate the shortcomings of existing LCCA methods and processes. LCCA
research will become more robust if improvements are made, facilitating private industries and government agencies to accomplish their
economic aims.
Ó 2016 Chinese Society of Pavement Engineering. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA); Pavement management; LCCA software; Net Present Value (NPV)

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
2. Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
2.1. Historical background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
2.2. Obligations and legislative requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
2.3. LCCA models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
2.4. LCCA effectiveness in pavement design, maintenance and rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
2.5. LCCA effectiveness in preservation treatments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

⇑ Corresponding author. Fax: +60 389216147.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Babashamsi), [email protected] (N.I. Md Yusoff), [email protected] (H. Ceylan),
[email protected] (N.G. Md Nor), [email protected] (H. Salarzadeh Jenatabadi).
Peer review under responsibility of Chinese Society of Pavement Engineering.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2016.08.004
1996-6814/Ó 2016 Chinese Society of Pavement Engineering. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
242 P. Babashamsi et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 9 (2016) 241–254

3. Evaluating the benefit and cost-effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

3.1. Maximum ‘‘BENEFIT” approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
3.2. Least Life-Cycle Cost approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
3.3. Combination of cost and benefit approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
4. LCCA approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
4.1. Sensitivity analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
4.2. Risk analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
5. LCCA assessment and methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
5.1. Initial cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
5.2. Determining the performance periods and activity timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
5.3. Maintenance and rehabilitation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
5.4. Salvage value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
5.5. Discount rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
6. Pavement LCCA tools and programmes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
6.1. Existing LCCA packages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
6.2. Merits and limitation of LCCA methodologies and software packages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
7. LCCA state-of-the-practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
7.1. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
7.2. Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
7.3. Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
8. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

1. Introduction infrastructure, the demand for efficient management of old

and new roads is on the rise as well, along with safety
Nowadays, highway pavement construction, mainte- demands, accessibility and the implementation of advanced
nance and rehabilitation costs are rising dramatically. It traffic management systems for decreasing socio-economic
is essential for highway agencies to utilise tools and costs by mitigating maintenance-related environmental
approaches that facilitate proper decision-making by effects, traffic issues, and losses. Maintenance backlogs
applying economics and operations research such as nonetheless increase too [6]. Road authorities thus empha-
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) to achieve economi- sise more on better efficiency and lower expenses due to lim-
cally reasonable long-term investments. LCCA is a ited funds. Since maintenance expenditures normally
method based on principles of economic analysis. It comprise half the annual road infrastructure funds, it is very
improves the estimation of the total long-term economic important to prioritise efficiency in road maintenance [5,7].
viability of different investment options [1]. This method Thus, with respect to road objects, life-cycle costs (LCCs)
finds significant application in pavement design and man- are regarded as having higher priority than simply invest-
agement [2]. A number of agencies employ the LCCA ments. Hence, road authorities are expected to realise the
approach to estimate the economic feasibility of pave- importance of LCCA and maintain a calculation system
ment designs over the long haul. Thus, it is very impor- [8]. LCCs are also deemed to be a restraint in road design
tant for agencies to realistically evaluate pavement selection or the assessment of tenders [9,10]. When calculat-
economics in order to provide suitable input to the ing LCCs, both road authority costs and costs of socio-
LCCA. economic nature should be taken into account. Road agency
As a concept, it was in the 1950s that benefit-cost anal- (authority) costs comprise expenses for planning, construc-
ysis (BCA) was initially applied as a selection factor for tion, design, maintenance, and rehabilitation. All these costs
various pavement design options. Then in the 1970s, are usually the government’s responsibility to cover using
LCCA principles started being implemented in some key tax earnings. Socio-economic costs comprise agency costs,
projects at the local and national state levels for pavement user costs (e.g. delay costs, accident costs and vehicle
design and pavement type selection [3]. As presented in operation costs), and environmental costs [7,11].
Fig. 1, the aim of LCCA represents the extent and details
of the next steps. All managers and stakeholders should 2. Literature review
completely collaborate so that full effectiveness can be
achieved [4]. 2.1. Historical background
Considering the mostly inadequate funding under nor-
mal circumstances, road authorities are consistently chal- The American Association of State Highway Officials
lenged with funding projects due to resource insufficiency (AASHO) introduced the concept of life-cycle cost-benefit
[5]. Moreover, with the increasing demand for new road analysis in its ‘‘Red Book” in 1960. The LCCA was intro-
 P. Babashamsi et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 9 (2016) 241–254 243

Fig. 1. Core process of LCCA.

duced for highway investment decisions, and as such, portation to carry out LCCA of all pavement projects hav-
formed the notion of economic evaluation of highway ing costs above US$25 million [18]. As per the National
upgrades during the planning stage. The next progress step Highway System (NHS) Designation Act of 1995, state
was made by Winfrey [12] who combined data available on highway agencies are supposed to perform an LCCA of
the cost of vehicle operations in a system to be utilised every NHS ‘‘high-cost usable project segment” [20]. It is
when highway planners are developing life-cycle costing legislatively presented in section 303 of the NHS Designa-
processes. Moreover, two projects in the 1960s introduced tion Act that LCCA is an approach for analysing the total
the utilisation of LCC principles for pavement type selec- economic value of a feasible project segment by evaluating
tion and pavement design. In the first project, the Centre the initial costs and discounted future costs like mainte-
for Highway Transportation Research and the Texas nance, rehabilitation, reconstruction, resurfacing, and
Transportation Institute (TTI) developed the Flexible restoring costs, over the entire life of the project.
Pavement System (FPS), a computer-based approach for Although LCCA is formally required in certain situa-
analysing and rating alternative flexible pavement designs tions, the FHWA consistently encourages its implementa-
through the overall life-cycle cost [13]. The second project tion when evaluating all key investment decisions. This is
was by the National Cooperative Highway Research because such analysis could improve the efficiency and
Program (NCHRP), which examined the promotion of effectives of investment decisions irrespective of whether
the LCCA concept [14]. Subsequently, the Rigid Pavement particular LCCA-mandated requirements are satisfied or
System (RPS) was developed by Texas DOT, which is iden- not [17]. The requirement for highway agencies to perform
tical to FPS with regard to how Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of LCCA was removed by the 1998 Transportation Equity
rigid pavements is carried out. RPS also ranks alternative Act for the 21st century. Nonetheless, utilising LCCA as
designs according to their total life-cycle costs [15]. a decision support tool is still advocated in the FHWA pol-
The use of LCC concept is supported in the different icy, stressing that the outcomes are not exactly final deci-
AASHTO Pavement Design Guide editions [1,16], which sions. This means that the logical analytical framework
also include detailed discussions regarding costs that of this kind of analysis is as significant as the LCCA results
should be considered in LCCA. The current study presents themselves [21]. It is the objective of TEA-21 to increase
an overview of the basic life-cycle costing theories, with knowledge of LCCA by applying certain notions, as pre-
explanations of the various user and agency costs associ- sented in Fig. 2.
ated with highway pavement projects, as well as the dis- Walls and Smith presented technical instructions and
count rates and economic feasibility of systems [17,18]. suggestions in the FHWA Interim Technical Bulletin
regarding the most suitable method of performing
2.2. Obligations and legislative requirements LCCA in pavement design [21]. The Bulletin is aimed
at state highway agency personnel who perform and/or
In 1991, LCC application during the design and con- evaluate pavement design LCCAs. It is specifically
struction of tunnels, bridges or pavements was mandated related to the technical aspects of continuing economic
by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act efficiency possibilities of other prospective pavement
[19]. The FHWA stimulated state departments of trans- designs. Risk analysis is also included as a probabilistic
244 P. Babashamsi et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 9 (2016) 241–254

Fig. 2. Process of LCCA by TEA-21.

method for understanding unpredictability in the design LCC models are mainly for structural road design as tools
process [18]. for selecting the most economically reasonable solutions in
the context of investment and maintenance. Many of the
2.3. LCCA models models do not consider geometrical road design, although
such design method provides road alignment and road
Huvstig [22] analysed different LCCA calculation mod- restraint systems that affect costs during road life-cycle [27].
els implemented by road authorities. The models were
QUEWZ (Australia), Highway Design and Management 2.4. LCCA effectiveness in pavement design, maintenance
(HDM I to IV) developed by The World Bank, and rehabilitation
COMPARE (Great Britain) and Whole Life Costing
System (USA). These models are basically implemented The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guideli-
for the design and construction of roads and pavement nes are published in order to examine the various cost effec-
types. LCC has been suggested as a factor to consider dur- tiveness of pavement rehabilitation design approaches
ing road design selection or alternatives assessment [23,10]. [21,28]. The model framework applied in Anderson’s study
However, since it is difficult to calculate LCC for road [28] contained four stages: a pavement condition and anal-
objects with the dearth of reliable information and calcula- ysis module, suitable maintenance and rehabilitation
tion approaches, the LCC has less critical importance when approaches, computing the costs and benefits of all
assessing alternatives [24]. The inadequacy of investment approaches and selecting approaches on a network basis.
and maintenance-related data is caused by road authori- The study incorporated relationships that link maintenance
ties’ failure to have organised and systematic processes costs with the pavement serviceability index (PSI) and user
for data collection or follow-up throughout the stages of cost with the PSI according to road classification. Lampty
planning, design, construction and maintenance. These et al. [2] presented beneficial tips regarding the develop-
deficiencies are ultimately due to the scarcity of consensus ment and assessment of maintenance approaches. Their
and comprehensive LCC approaches to correctly compute study report indicated that the model was basically devel-
the user costs and environmental costs as precise as agency oped for rehabilitation strategy analysis, but it can be chan-
costs. In some circumstances, LCCs even result in rising ged to address preventive maintenance practices as well.
investment costs. The bases of current deterioration models Gorvetti and Owusu-Ababio [29] utilised LCCA princi-
are experience and empirical models [25]. Nevertheless, ples in a study that examined possible pavement design
these models could produce satisfactory results only if past alternatives. The LCCA principles served to assess the ben-
and future situations would remain the same. This is quite efits and costs of one particular design for flexible and rigid
a rare situation considering road construction, because a pavements separately over their respective life cycles. They
number of factors like the use of heavier vehicles, traffic indicated that current LCCA processes could comprise
development and new types of tires impact road conditions some pavement designs not taken into account in the initial
[7]. The Sweden Road Administration (SRA) has tested the LCCA development. In 1984, the long-term pavement pro-
minimum annual LCC as an award criterion [26]. The out- gramme (LTPP) and strategic highway research programme
comes of SRA study are signified rising investment costs (SHRP-related) were initiated. The purpose was to provide
that lead to negative budgetary implications. Also, it is tools to better understand pavement behaviour and to aim
indicated that this may be due to the exploitation of cir- for efficient management of highway infrastructure without
cumstances by contractors who emphasise on costly solu- large increases in funds [30–32]. The research involved an
tions with speculative guarantees that cannot be verified extensive and detailed study of numerous real pavement
or rectified until it is too late. It should be understood that and field conditions to find out about maintenance prac-
 P. Babashamsi et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 9 (2016) 241–254 245

tices, the impact of climate, construction practices, material used for the long-term evaluation of the effectiveness of
variations and long-term load effects. One segment of the preservation treatment (usually over the entire treatment
LTPP study included specific pavement studies #4 (SPS-4) duration).
experiments, which were particularly developed to analyse Effectiveness can be measured by forecasting how much
the success of common preventive maintenance treatments extension is available in the remaining service life through
of rigid pavements. It was anticipated that quantifying the the preservation treatment. This means the time remaining
ability of various maintenance treatments to prolong the till the pavement weakens to a specific threshold level,
service life or decrease distress rates would be facilitated which is also stated as the treatment service life or treat-
by analysing the pavement performance data achieved from ment life. Treatment life can be measured through perfor-
the sites or the family sites [30]. The purpose of the experi- mance curves (made from past data), or by using expert
ment was also to investigate how different environmental opinion and a treatment performance threshold. Compared
regions, traffic rates, pavement types (plain or reinforced), to these two methods, the area-under-the-curve method is
subgrade types (course-grained or fine-grained) and base much more data intensive but is based on simple logic.
types (stabilised or dense granular) impact the preventive There are numerous benefits of a well-kept pavement; how-
maintenance of rigid pavements. ever, it is quite difficult to quantify the benefits in monetary
The FHWA stated that the lowest LCC option might terms. The area under the performance curve can serve as a
not exactly be the most ideal, since there are other factors substitute for user benefits. Kher and Cook [40] employed
that must also be taken into account, such as available the area under the performance curve for the Ontario
budget, risk, and political and environmental concerns Ministry of Transportation and Communications’
[33–35]. Moreover, the LCCA provides information that Program Analysis of Rehabilitation System as a substitute
is critical to the total decision-making process but it does for user benefits. Also, the area under the condition-time
not offer the final answer [36]. According to the FHWA, curve was utilised as a measure of performance when devel-
as per a recent survey of state practices, some type of oping budget optimisation methods for PAVER (U.S
LCCA is utilised by 28 of 38 responding states in their Army Corps of Engineers’ Pavement Management System)
pavement investment decision-making [37]. It was also [41]. Joseph [42] also applied this curve in combination
indicated that less than half of these 28 states included user with road section length and average annual daily traffic
costs in their LCCA. In comparing the survey outcomes (AADT) in order to compare the cost-effectiveness of pre-
with a similar attempt made in the past, Peterson [38] ventive maintenance strategies. The area under the pave-
showed that the states are gradually accepting and imple- ment performance curve was employed by the New York
menting LCCA concepts during pavement design. State Department of Transportation for comparing the
Road authorities are required to focus on decreasing cost-effectiveness of alternative preventive maintenance
costs and improving efficiency, since maintenance costs approaches [43]. In the PSI-ESAL loss concept (where
constitute a large portion of annual road infrastructure the performance measure is Pavement Surface Index
expenditure. Universally, road authorities can only carry (PSI) and the ‘‘time” scale is signified by cumulative load-
out new road projects and adequately maintain current ings applied to the pavement), benefits are denoted by the
roads by lowering costs and enhancing efficiency, as area under the PSI-load curve [44]. A funding allocation
funds for road infrastructure have been continually process for the San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan
declining [5]. Transportation Commission was developed using the area
under the performance-time curve concept [32].
2.5. LCCA effectiveness in preservation treatments
3. Evaluating the benefit and cost-effectiveness
In LCCA, the effectiveness of pavement maintenance or
rehabilitation is a major input. Short-term analysis of treat- Cost-effectiveness evaluation is a method of economic
ment effectiveness may be done, for instance the decline in evaluation. It involves comparing what is sacrificed (i.e.
deterioration rate or performance improvement [39], or the cost) to what has been gained (effectiveness) so the
there could be long-term assessments. Such assessments alternatives can be evaluated. Measuring cost-
of preservation effectiveness are more pertinent to LCCA. effectiveness may be done for the short or long term.
One of the three approaches presented in Fig. 3 is mainly Between long-term and short-term evaluation, the cost-

Fig. 3. Three different methods to measure assessment of preservation treatment effectiveness.

246 P. Babashamsi et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 9 (2016) 241–254

effectiveness concept might be regarded as more suitable applied either as the least annualised life-cycle return that
for long-term evaluation. From the view of the economist, is calculated in perpetuity [44], or as the least present
effectiveness evaluation can be performed in two ways: worth of the life-cycle cost and benefit [47]. To evaluate
first, to attain maximum benefits from a certain level of the cost-effectiveness of network level maintenance and
investment (the maximum benefit approach), and second, rehabilitation processes, a basic type of LCCA approach
to determine the minimum cost for the effective treatment was used [48]. Moreover, the effect of deferring the main-
of problems (least cost approach). The first method is tenance and rehabilitation of pavements as per data
applied very frequently in capital investment decision- received from U.S military installations was measured
making, while the second method is more suitable for via life-cycle costing [46].
maintenance cost assessment.
4. LCCA approaches
3.1. Maximum ‘‘BENEFIT” approach
LCCA entails two approaches that may be used, which
This method is typically applied for the assessment of are the probabilistic and deterministic approaches. Input
capital investment projects, since these activities usually variables are considered discrete fixed variables in the
comprise a single big investment that is linked with consid- deterministic approach (for instance, design life =
erable unpredictableness and where each alternative’s cost 20 years). However, it is observed that a certain level of
is the same. Hence, it is quite difficult to evaluate the exact uncertainty lies within the input values of any LCCA. If
benefits. It is also usually hard to determine measures of prediction is present with engineering analysis, there will
effectiveness for such projects and quite complex to be some level of uncertainty, which is mainly due to four
describe because of the long duration of the activities and reasons [49]:
spillover effects [45,46]. Many research works have been
conducted over the past two decades to describe the mea-
First, uncertainty is caused by randomness, meaning
sures for assessing capital improvement benefits. Several that the measured or observed values would have differ-
benefits include: tort liability, decrease in travel time, ent frequencies of occurrence and variation.
improved motorist comfort and safety, decreased or
Regional construction variation is the second reason for
deferred capital expenditures through capital preservation, uncertainty. For instance, the data collected for location
vehicle operating and maintenance costs, and reduced ‘‘A” cannot be used to assess any condition in location
pavement deterioration rate [43]. ‘‘B.”

Uncertainty across human factors is another reason for
3.2. Least Life-Cycle Cost approach uncertainty. Factors include imperfect estimation or
modelling.
Pavement maintenance investments normally have
Finally, a lack of data may be a reason behind uncer-
lower values and take comparatively less time to complete tainty, whereby it is possible to omit a variable due to
capital improvements. Moreover, their effects are observed limited data.
soon after completion. The least cost method can be
regarded as the most adequate when short-term assessment Uncertainties can be managed with various methods,
of corrective maintenance ‘‘investments” is to be carried including risk analysis (the probabilistic approach) or sen-
out, because all alternatives are believed to lead to the same sitivity analysis [50]. Sensitivity analysis is used during
benefits. model development, when the effects of several input
parameters need to be analysed. Several areas of uncer-
3.3. Combination of cost and benefit approaches tainty must be known during the decision-making process,
which may not be known as part of this type of analysis
When assessing pavement preservation, maintenance [51]. The probabilistic approach is utilised with input vari-
and reconstruction, using a combination of least cost ables and computer simulation for the characterisation of
and maximum benefit is advocated. NCHRP Synthesis risk with the outcome in the case of risk analysis. If all
223 indicates that both gains accrued by users and the inputs are analysed probabilistically, the LCCA system is
costs spent for the provision of those benefits should be deemed much more powerful and valid [52].
taken into account [43]. According to the study, a
benefit-cost analysis could be done when the costs and 4.1. Sensitivity analysis
benefits are quantifiable in monetary terms. Among the
best tools for measuring the effectiveness of different In order to understand the variables affecting the final
maintenance activities are the LCC and benefit analysis, outcome at the largest level, the sensitivity analysis method
whereby all factors are converted into economically mea- is used. Christensen et al. [53] reported that by using this
surable units [38]. It is claimed that cost reduction is the process, the model variables can be identified and also
benefit, which is implied in the term ‘‘Life-Cycle Cost the ranking of the considered options can be changed by
Analysis.” In pavement management, LCCA has been determining the breakeven points. Rehabilitation timing,
 P. Babashamsi et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 9 (2016) 241–254 247

discount rate and unit cost of materials are some of the fac- possible for the analyst to assign probability distributions
tors that have significant influence [54]. If a change occurs to specific input variables when using risk analysis. To
in a model variable like the discount rate, it would have an check how close the data set distribution is to the
effect on the ranking of feasible design options, but no hypothesised theoretical distribution, the goodness-of-fit
dominant alternative design options would emerge. Also, test can be performed once sufficient data is present [56].
the effect of a single model variable on the analysis out- The construction variables can best be described by the log-
comes can be judged through sensitivity analysis, but it is normal distribution as compared to the generally presumed
not possible for engineers to attain the simultaneous and normal distribution. The lognormal distribution is fol-
combined influence of several model variables on LCC lowed by pavement thickness and pavement material costs.
results and rankings. Lastly, there is no exploration of The results may be altered if normal distribution is used
the presence of particular values, as probability distribu- instead of lognormal distribution. For instance, a cost dif-
tions are not assigned to variables. Hence, risk analysis ference of $62,000/km was observed when normal distribu-
facilitates addressing these issues [53]. tion was applied rather than lognormal [56].

4.2. Risk analysis 5. LCCA assessment and methodology

Probability values have been used to describe variables In the long term, the economic viability of pavement
instead of point values, ensuring that no variables are left designs is calculated with LCCA. This method is utilised
unexplored. A simultaneous effect of several model vari- by several agencies because it is essential to realistically
ables on the outcome is also observed, as the sampling analyse pavement economics in order to state an objective
techniques take into account the variability effect present input to the LCCA [57]. The comprehensive LCCA
in the input parameters. Lastly, it is still possible that a methodology is shown in Fig. 4.
dominant outcome may not be observed. A descriptive For the economic evaluation of projects, many eco-
and clearer image of the associated outcome is presented nomic indices are available. The internal rate of return
by assigning a probabilistic distribution to the variables (IRR), equivalent uniform annual cost (EUAC), benefit/-
[53]. Many sources have presented information regarding cost ratio (B/C) and Net Present Value (NPV) are the most
risk analysis introduction, sampling concepts, relevant commonly used indices. Within the analysis environment,
probability and comparison-related measures [49,55]. It is the level and context of analysis determine the kind of indi-

Fig. 4. Methodology for conducting airport/highway pavement LCCA.

248 P. Babashamsi et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 9 (2016) 241–254

cator to be used by a transportation agency. In developing nK = number of years from the initial construction to
nations, the IRR is the preferred economic indicator as the the K th expenditure,
discount rate is very uncertain [58]. ne = analysis period in years.
The selected analysis period needs to be compared in
terms of performance period establishment, costs of each Present and future expenditures are converted to a uni-
alternative and activity timing. The equivalent uniform form annual cost in order to present the equivalent uniform
annual costs (EUAC) or the Net Present Value (NPV) is annual costs (EUAC). When budgeting is carried out annu-
used for this purpose [21]. NPV and EUAC are the most ally, this is a preferred indicator. Eq. (2) states the formula
common indicators used today [52]. The projected value for EUAC [60]:
in terms of the present value of money is used for the initial  n 
ð1 þ iÞ
costs, maintenance and rehabilitation costs and salvage EUAC ¼ NPV n ð2Þ
value being used, as shown by the expenditure stream dia- ð1 þ iÞ  1
gram in Fig. 5. The discount rate factor is then applied to where:
calculate the time value of money. i = discount rate,
Eq. (1) can be applied for a pavement case, as NPV is n = years of expenditure.
considered a popular economic computation [3,59,60].
XN   As shown in Fig. 6, costs are divided into two basic cat-
1 egories: direct/owner costs and indirect/user costs, both of
NPV ¼ Initial Cons:Cost þ Future CostK
K¼1
ð1 þ iÞnk which are subdivided again.
 
1
 Salvage Value n ð1Þ 5.1. Initial cost
ð1 þ iÞ e
where: The initial construction cost is presented in unit prices
N = number of future costs incurred over the analysis from bid records of projects constructed in previous years
period, and only representative prices must be used. Unit prices
i = discount rate in percent, may be taken out from the overall cost of previous projects
if the representative costs are not available. The start-up

Fig. 5. Example of expenditure stream diagram.

Cost Factors

Direct/ Owner Indirect/ User

Costs Costs

Initial Airlines/
Sequence for Highway/
Construction/ Drivers/
future M&R Salvage Value Airport Lost
Rehabilitation Passengers
events Revenue costs
Cost delay costs

Fig. 6. LCCA cost factors in highway/airport.

 P. Babashamsi et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 9 (2016) 241–254 249

cost can be taken into consideration as well as part of the increase in LCC would take place if there were unsuitable
LCCA. Hence, the annual budget limits an agency and and frequent maintenance activities like rehabilitation
there is a need to investigate the expenditures’ [57]. Lamptey et al. used a threshold to recommend a set
short-term implications and the long-term influence of of rehabilitation and pavement maintenance strategies [2].
pavement type decision [57].
5.4. Salvage value
5.2. Determining the performance periods and activity timing
Beyond the analysis period, some pavement structure
LCCA outcomes are very much affected by activity tim- can still be serviced; however, if the condition is beyond
ing and performance period. Both user and agency costs maintenance, action needs to be taken. If the assets still
are impacted. Historical experience and analysis of pave- have a useful life at the end of the life analysis period,
ment management systems (PMS) help present pavement the salvage value or residual value must be determined
performance design-life [60]. The performance must be [58]. There are two components to the salvage value. One
recorded at regular intervals from initial construction until part is the residual value, which refers to the net value from
reconstruction. By applying the concept of Perpetual pavement recycling [21]. The second part is the serviceable
Pavement, it is observed that reconstruction takes place life, which is the pavement alternative remaining life when
longer (30–50 years) than normal time period. The analysis the analysis period expires. During LCCA, salvage value is
period proposed by the Asphalt Pavement Alliance (APA) the term normally used, but in the case of FHWA, the term
is 40 years or more and it also requires for each pavement ‘‘remaining service life” (RSL) is preferred. This helps dif-
option to have at least 1 rehabilitation activity [61]. The ferentiate the fact that the pavement will remain in service
Alliance follows the 35-year minimum policy brought for- after the analysis period has expired. The salvage value can
ward by the FHWA. Judgement or actual construction also be taken as the percentage of initial pavement con-
and pavement management data set must be used in fore- struction cost [57].
casting the magnitude of the first rehabilitation. According
to the APA [61], information was collected from 50 state
5.5. Discount rate
highway agencies and the result clearly showed that the
first overlay was required after 20 years from initial con-
When long-term public investments are being analysed,
struction and during the performance period. The average
costs are compared at several points of time for which dis-
observed period for the same interval was 15.7 years. The
count is necessary [67]. A dollar spent in the future is con-
average performance period observed from the first to the
sidered of lesser worth than a dollar spent today, which is
second overlay for 50 US states was another 12 years.
why it is said that time, has money value. Hence, it is essen-
Hence, the average time from the first construction to the
tial to convert the costs and benefits stated at different
second overlay was 27.7 years. The figures were extracted
points of time to the costs and benefits that would happen
for asphalt overlay performance from a long-term pave-
at a common time [68]. Discount rate is the rough differ-
ment performance study by the FHWA. It indicated that
ence between the interest and inflation rates and it indicates
the overlays lasted 15 years and some lasted 20 years until
the real value of money over time [3]. The mathematical
significant distress signs were noted [57,62]. In the mid-
relationships between interest rate, inflation rate and PW
1990s Superpave was implemented and in the 1990s some
are presented in Eqs. (3) and (4).
of the agencies were using the Stone Mastic Asphalt  n
(SMA), which is why a number of performance enhance- ð1 þ iinf Þ
PW ¼ C  ð3Þ
ments have not been completely realised [63]. ð1 þ iint Þ

5.3. Maintenance and rehabilitation costs or:

 n
1
Maintenance and Rehabilitation (M&R) is another mat- PW ¼ C  ð4Þ
ð1 þ idis Þ
ter that requires attention. Preventive maintenance strate-
gies appear to be much more cost effective compared to where:
conventional maintenance strategies [64]. It is difficult to PW = present-worth cost ($),
determine maintenance costs because there is usually an C = future cost in present-day terms ($),
absence of efficient record keeping and differentiation iinf = annual inflation rate (decimal),
between maintenance actions cannot be achieved. Hence, iint = annual interest rate (decimal),
tools to help users define the effects of preventive mainte- n = time until cost C is incurred (years),
nance are required [65]. Compared to the initial construc- idis = annual discount rate (decimal).
tion and rehabilitation costs, the maintenance cost of an
LCCA has limited effect. Historical records of the actual Research has shown that if data are collected over a long
pavement costs and activities must be utilised if these costs period of time, the real time value of money would only be
are present in the LCCA procedure [66]. An artificial 2–4% [49,69,70]. It has also been stated that the OMB
250 P. Babashamsi et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 9 (2016) 241–254

Circular A-94 discount rates should be used when possible, option consists of the lowest true LCC [21]. The uncer-
especially with a probabilistic LCCA. To determine the tainty problem can be managed by LCCA through the risk
LCCA and the mean value of probabilistic normal- analysis procedure. This would allow decision makers to
distribution LCCA, the most current annual real discount weigh the probability of any potential outcome. In contrast
rate based on a long-term (10, 20 or 30 years) treasury rate to most LCCA packages, the current FHWA package
must be used [3]. includes LCCA probabilistic approaches.

6. Pavement LCCA tools and programmes 7. LCCA state-of-the-practice

6.1. Existing LCCA packages 7.1. United States

Approaches for pavement Life-Cycle Cost Analysis For the pavement type selection process, most states use
have been developed in the last few decades by various the LCCA. The level of implementation, however, varies to
organisations, agencies and other intuitions. Some have a large extent. The state-of-the-practice in the US needs to
even developed computer programmes for their LCCA be captured along with documenting the degree of LCCA
approaches in order to further extend the analysis. This usage. For this purpose, several efforts have been made
section includes a description of the nominated LCCA soft- by Peterson [37], AASHTO [16] and Zimmerman et al.
ware for pavement design and management (Table 1). [52]. LCCA methodologies and principles have been anal-
Other pavement companies use different LCCA com- ysed by DOTs and research institutions in order to enhance
puter software and methodologies, including methods for knowledge and research, the same as Ozbay et al. [58], Beg
Alabama [46], Pennsylvania [71], and non-automated et al. [77], Jung et al. [78], Cross and Parson [79] and Tem-
methodologies for Ohio [72], Australia [73] and Egypt ple et al. [80]. The current state-of-the-practice has been
[74]. Highway work zone lane closures are evaluated using analysed and several reports have been presented by state
the QUEWZ model (Queue and User Cost Evaluation of DOTs at the US government level (e.g. Goldbuam [81],
Work Zones) [75,76]. VDOT [82], PENNDOT [83] and West et al. [84]). User
costs, rehabilitation data, agency determination and unit
6.2. Merits and limitation of LCCA methodologies and costs as part of the analysis along with other aspects are
software packages mentioned in the reports. Enhancement of LCCA knowl-
edge levels has mostly been contributed by the University
LCCA models are subject to certain limitations. User Transportation Centre for Alabama, the University of
cost exclusion is one of the limitations in analysis. Highway Texas at Austin [85], Southwest Region University
users incur these costs, which include delay costs, vehicle Transportation Centre, the Kentucky Transportation
operating costs (such as fuel, tires, engine oil, and vehicle Centre and University of Kentucky, and the University
maintenance) and any other accident costs. User cost is of Alabama [86]. The FHWA and the American Concrete
excluded in several LCCA methods and software as quan- Pavement Association (ACPA) also have a vital role. The
tification is difficult and there are disputed values associ- LCCA guidelines can be observed in the LCCA bulletin
ated with user cost. Pavement LCCA models suffer from presented by the ACPA [87] and FHWA [88].
the limitation of not considering preventive maintenance
treatment within strategy formulation. LCCA researchers 7.2. Europe
and practitioners argue that preventive maintenance is a
new preservation strategy for pavements and data on Economic model development for evaluating LCCA of
long-term benefits still need to be collected. Presently, only pavements was officially researched by the Forum of
certain models are able to quantify the long-term effective- European National Highway Laboratories in October
ness of preventive maintenance treatment. This is done in 1997. It was known as the PAV-ECO (Economic Evalu-
the form of service life extension or a performance jump. ation of Pavement Maintenance – Life-cycle Cost at the
Hence, it is seemingly challenging to include preventive Project and Network Levels) and it ceased in October
maintenance in LCCA. It is also observed that users find 1999. A consortium of partners including the Technical
the accounting of LCCA input parameters complicated, Research Centre of Finland (Finland), University of
which is why they do not consider it during the process. Cologne (Germany), Laboratoires Central des Ponts et
The LCCA models treat the input variables discretely Chaussées (France), Danish Road Institute (Denmark),
and the single deterministic result is computed through Anders Nyvig A/S (Denmark), Via-group SA (Switzer-
the best-guess process of the fixed values for each input land), Transport Research Laboratory (United Kingdom)
parameter. The various input parameters affect the model and the Laboratoires des Voies de Circulation LAVOC-
results, which is why evaluation is done with sensitivity EPFL (Switzerland) undertook the PAV-ECO Project.
analysis. The uncertain areas that may be crucially affecting The project was managed by the Danish Road Institute
the decision-making process are not shown as part of the [89]. Comparisons of the life-cycle costs at the project
sensitivity analysis. Hence, it is difficult to observe which level for different maintenance strategies can be carried
 P. Babashamsi et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 9 (2016) 241–254
Table 1
Comprehensive LCCA packages.
Software Package Year Producer Life-cycle Costs Descriptions
Initial Rehabilitation User Salvage
Construction Cost Value
DARWin N/A AASHTO


Project level assessment
TEXAS DOT RPS/FPS 1968 Centre of Highway Research of Texas


Latest version consists of user cost
Transportation
HDM 1977 World Bank


The HDM updated new versions
LCCP/LCCPR1 1987 University of Maryland
The programs comprise of user operating costs associated with
pavement roughness
EXPEAR 1989 University of Illinois2

Project level assessment
PRLEAM 1991 University of Waterloo



Most focus on cost-effective rehabilitation improvement approach
LCCOST 1991 Asphalt Institute



Routine maintenance (optional) is also considered
MicroBENCOST 1993 Texas Transportation Institute

Under the NCHRP Project 7-12
ACPA LCCA3 1993 ACPA



Risk analysis is used to make sure a 90% confidence level
CAL-B/C 2000 California Department of Transportation


A first spreadsheet format (MS Excel)
REALCOST 2004 FHWA



First Probabilistic and comprehensive software
D-TIMS 2006 Indiana Department of Transportation


Provides the recommendations for the treatment for the specific
distresses
IDAHO DOT LCCA 2008 Idaho Transportation Department

Units across the English and metric system can also be converted
APA LCCA 2011 APA



The software using the work zone duration and the hourly traffic
distribution
1
The rigid and flexible pavements were analysed through the programs.
2
The EXPEAR computer program was developed by the University of Illinois under a FHWA project.
3
The Winfrey’s Economic Analysis for Highways (1969) and NCHRP Report 133 are used by the ACPA spread sheet to extract the user costs employing values.

251
252 P. Babashamsi et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 9 (2016) 241–254

out within the PAV-ECO Project framework. This variables when LCCA results were analysed (for instance
includes user and agency cost calculations spread over discount rate).
the selected analysis period. The PAV-ECO project also
provides network and project-level traffic simulation 8. Conclusions
models as well as the factors affecting traffic forecasts.
To establish an effective maintenance strategy, user, Use of LCCA must be carried out appropriately and
agency and social costs are all considered. Crash, vehicle data utilised must be from existing records that are accu-
operation and user lost time costs are part of user costs. rate in terms of initial costs, salvage value, rehabilitation
CO2 emissions and air pollution comprise social costs. timing and costs as well as discount rates. Data are avail-
The European VOC model range was analysed during able for some aspects, but other data need to be analysed
the project in order to check the suitability of life-cycle and documented by the agencies themselves. It is essential
cost model inclusion for European roads. to understand that LCCA is only a tool and the results
must not be taken as decisions. Several other factors apart
7.3. Canada from LCCA must be taken into account when deciding
which kind of pavement should be considered. The LCCA
The University of Saskatchewan Civil Engineering process comprises several assessments, predictions and
Professor Dr. Gordon Sparks conducted an LCCA survey assumptions. Differences in inputs can considerably impact
in Canada. There is also extensive use in Alberta for analysts’ confidence with the LCCA results. Input accuracy
pavement type selection and different reconstruction alter- is essential for all aspects. The precise estimation of pave-
native evaluation as well as material selection. Alberta ment performance, traffic for more than 30 years in the
addresses uncertainty through risk and sensitivity analy- future and future costs by analysts determines the reliabil-
sis. Rehabilitation, reconstruction and asset management ity of LCCA results. In managing forecast uncertainties,
applications are carried out by Saskatchewan LCCA the probabilistic risk analysis approach is gaining popular-
methods. Vehicle operating cost is the only user cost com- ity. It allows to quantitatively capturing input parameters,
ponent being used. Deterministic and probabilistic helping to provide LCCA results. A large part of literature
approaches are both employed by Saskatchewan. For 8 also states that LCCA implementation is as complicated as
years, Manitoba used the LCC method for its asset man- selecting the correct discount rate and agency costs, quan-
agement system. Pavement construction project planning tifying non-agency costs as user costs, securing credible
and design was done via LCCA (for instance pavement supporting data including traffic data, estimating the sal-
type selection) along with asset management. An alterna- vage value and useful life, modelling asset deterioration,
tive bid process is presently applied in Manitoba. and estimating maintenance costs, effectiveness and travel
Passenger and driver value of time, delay and vehicle demand throughout the analysis period. During major
operation costs are the user costs present in the analysis. rehabilitation and construction activities, the vast majority
Right-of-way costs, environmental/emissions costs and of LCCA only use delay costs as part of user costs.
socio-economic costs (for instance improved infrastruc-
ture benefits) are also included in the analysis as external Acknowledgements
costs. LCC methods have been used in Ontario for over
25 years. The LCCA has been applied to 90% of pave- The authors express their gratitude to the University
ment designs. Analysis is carried out to include user costs Kebangsaan Malaysia (DLP-2013-028) and Ministry of
in the LCCA. Risk and sensitivity analyses are both used Education Malaysia (FRGS/2/2013/SG06/UKM/02/8)
in Ontario [90]. for the financial support of this work.
For many years, LCC methods have been extensively
used in Quebec. LCC has been applied for pavement References
selection type since the year 2000. User delay costs and
[1] AASHTO, Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, American
agency costs are factors used in the analysis. The analysis Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
also addresses uncertainties using the FHWA RealCost Washington, DC, 1986.
program. A uniform system for all construction and [2] G. Lamptey, S. Labi, K.C. Sinha, Development of Alternative
rehabilitation projects along with VOC are to be Pavement Rehabilitation and Maintenance Strategies for Pavement
Management, 83rd Annual TRB Meeting, Washington, DC, 2004.
included as part of future plans. By the year 2007, an
[3] AAPTP (Airfield Asphalt pavement Technology program), Final
asset management system was to be implemented by Report, 277 Technology Parkway, Auburn. AL.36830, Applied
New Brunswick. Initial costs and on-going preservation Research Associates Inc. 100 Trade Centre Drive, Suite, 200 Cham-
costs are criteria used for New Brunswick. Uncertainty paign, H.61820, 2006.
is addressed with risk and sensitivity analysis. For pave- [4] D. Langdon, Life Cycle Costing (LCC) as a contribution to
sustainable construction: a common methodology Literature Review,
ment type selection, LCC methods are used in Nova
Davis Langdon Management Consulting, 2007.
Scotia. It was shown there is high sensitivity to some
 P. Babashamsi et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 9 (2016) 241–254 253

[5] S. Prarche, Infrastructure management and the use of public private DOT, Government Publications Clearinghouse, Springfield, VA,
partnerships, in: CSCE annual general meeting and conference, 2007. 1979.
[6] Gahm G. (2008). Blir bevarandet av vagkapitalet nedprioriterat? (Is the [29] J.A. Gorvetti, S. Owusu-Ababio, Investigation of Feasible Pavement
preservation of road assessment low prioritized?), Via Nordica, Helsinki. Design Alternatives for WISDOT, Report No. WI/SPR 15-99,
[7] K. Hawzheen, Road design for future maintenance-life cycle cost Madison, WI, 1999.
analysis for road barriers (PhD thesis), Department of Civil and [30] W.O. Hadley, SHRP-LTPP General Pavement Studies: Five Year
Architectural Engineering, Division of Highway and Railway Engi- Report, Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research
neering, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), 2001. Council, Washington, DC, 1998.
[8] A. Bajaj, D.D. Gransberg, M.D. Grenz, Parametric estimating for [31] A.N. Hanna, SHRP-LTPP Specific Pavement Studies: Five Year
design costs, AACE Int. Trans. (2002) ES81 Report, Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research
[9] T.M. Adams, M. Kang, Considerations for establishing a pavement Council, Washington, DC, 1994.
preservation program, Transportation Research Board 85th annual [32] R. Smith, T. Freeman, O. Pendleton, Pavement Maintenance
meeting, No. 06-2490, 2006. Effectiveness, Strategic Highway Research Program, National
[10] T. Stenbeck, Incentives to Innovation in Road and Rail Maintenance Research Council, Washington, DC, 1993.
(PhD thesis), Royal institute of Technology, Sweden, Stockholm, [33] FHWA, Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Primer, US Department of
2004. Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
[11] N. Holmvik, H. Wallin, The use life-cycle analyses and life-cycle costs DC, 2002.
for road infrastructure in the Nordic countries (M.Sc. thesis), Lund [34] P. Babashamsi, N.I. Md Yusoff, H. Ceylan, N.G. Md Nor, H.
Institute of Technology, Sweden, Lund, 2007. Salarzadeh Jenatabadi, Sustainable development factors in pavement
[12] R. Winfrey, Economic Analysis for Highways, International Text- life-cycle: highway/airport review, Sustainability 8 (3) (2016) 248.
book Co., Scranton, PA, 1969, No. 923. [35] R. Liu, B. Smartz, B. Descheneaux, LCCA and environmental LCA
[13] W.E. Hudson, B.F. MeCullough, Systems Approach Applied to for highway pavement selection in Colorado, Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 8
Pavement Design and Research, Research Report 123-1, Centre for (2) (2015) 102–110.
Transportation Research, The University of Texas, Austin, TX, 1970. [36] S. Meneses, A. Ferreira, A. Collop, Multi-objective decision-aid tool
[14] R.L. Lytton, W.F. McFarland, System Approach to Pavement for pavement management, Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. Transp., Inst. Civil
Design – Implementation Phase, Final Report, Project 1-10A, Eng. 166 (2) (2013) 79–94.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program, National [37] FHWA, Life Cycle Cost Analysis – Summary of Proceedings-FHWA
Research Council, Washington, DC, 1974. Life Cycle Cost Symposium, Searching for Solutions: A Policy
[15] R.K. Kher, W.E. Hudson, B.F. MeCullough, A Systems Analysis of Discussion Series, No. 12, Federal Highway Administration, Wash-
Rigid pavement Design, Research Report 123-5, Centre for Trans- ington, DC, 1994.
portation Research, The University of Texas, Austin, TX, 1971. [38] D.E. Peterson, NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 122: Life
[16] AASHTO, Guide for Design of pavement Structures Part 1, Chapter Cycle Cost Analysis of Pavement, Transportation Research Board,
3, Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Pavements, American Association of National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1985.
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 1993. [39] S. Labi, K.C. Sinha, Measures of short-term effectiveness of highway
[17] FHWA, Pavement Management System Participant’s Manual, pavement maintenance, ASCE J. Transp. Eng. 129 (6) (2003), Reston,
Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Institute, VA.
Washington, DC, 1998. [40] R.K. Kher, W.D. Cook, PARS, the MTC Model for Program and
[18] FHWA, Life cycle cost analysis for INDOT pavement design Financial Planning in Pavement Rehabilitation, Proceedings of the
procedure, FHWA/IN/JTRP-2004/28, Joint Transportation North American Pavement Management Conference, Toronto, ON,
Research Program, Project No. C-36-63Q, File No. 9-7-18, SPR- 1985.
2712, 2004. [41] M.Y. Shahin, S.D. Kohn, R.L. Lytton, M. McFarland, Pavement
[19] ISTEA, Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, 1991. M&R Budget Optimization Using the Incremental Benefit-Cost
[20] A.R. Kane, National Highway System Designation Act; Life-Cycle Technique, Proceedings of the North American Pavement Manage-
Cost Analysis Requirements Federal Highway Administration Inter- ment Conference, Toronto, ON, 1985.
net Site, Washington, DC, 1996. [42] P. Joseph, Crack Sealing in Flexible Pavements: A Life Cycle Cost
[21] J. Walls, M.R. Smith, Life-Cycle Cost Analysis in Pavement Design- Analysis, Report PAV-92-04, Research and Development Branch,
Interim Technical Bulletin, Report No. FHWA-SA-98-079, Federal Ministry of Transportation, Downsville, ON, 1992.
Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 1998. [43] D.N. Geoffroy, Synthesis of Highway Practice 223: Cost-effective
[22] A. Huvstig, Whole life costing, The World Road Association Preventive Pavement Maintenance, Transportation Research Board,
(PIARC), Concrete Roads Committee, Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1996.
1998. [44] T.F. Fwa, K.C. Sinha, Pavement Performance and Life-Cycle Cost
[23] T. Adams, M. Kang, Considerations for Establishing Pavement Analysis, ASCE J. Transp. Eng. 117 (1991), Reston, VA.
Preservation Program, Transportation Research Board 85th annual [45] I.M. Mouaket, K.C. Sinha, Cost Effectiveness of Routine Mainte-
meeting, Washington DC, 2006. nance on Rigid Pavements, FHWA/JHRP-91-11, Joint Highway
[24] H. Karim, Improved Road Design for Future Maintenance – Research Project, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University,
Analysis of Road Barrier Repair Costs (Licentiate thesis), Royal West Lafayette, IN, 1991.
Institute of Technology, Sweden, Stockholm, 2008. [46] C.L. Saraf, J.C. Kennedy, K. Majidzadeh, S.W. Dudley, Life-cycle
[25] A. Huvstig, Economic Models as Basis for Investment Decision, 10th cost analysis of Ohio pavement rehabilitation demonstration Projects,
International Symposium on Concrete Roads, Turkey, Istanbul, Transportation Research Record, 1307, Washington, DC, 1991.
2004. [47] G. Chong, W.A. Phang, Improved Preventive Maintenance. Sealing
[26] T. Stenbeck, Promoting Innovation in Transportation Infrastructure Cracks in Flexible Pavements in Cold Regions, Transportation
Maintenance (Ph.D. thesis), Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden, Research Board, National Research Council, 1205 Washington,
Stockholm, 2007. DC, 1988.
[27] R.J. Freer-Hewish, How design, Construction and maintenance inter- [48] M.I. Darter, R.E. Smith, M.Y. Shahin, Use of Life-Cycle Costing
relationship affect total life performance of roads, 15th ARRB Analysis as a Basis for Determining the Cost-Effectiveness of
Conference, Part 3, 1986, pp. 293–313. Maintenance and Rehabilitation Treatments for Developing a Net-
[28] D.I. Anderson, D. Peterson, L.W. Sheppard, C.C. Sy, Pavement work Level Assignment Procedure, Proceedings of North American
Design Rehabilitation Strategies, Project FHWA/UT-79-6, Utah Pavement Management Conference, Toronto, ON, 1987.
254 P. Babashamsi et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 9 (2016) 241–254

[49] A.H. Ang, W.H. Tang, Probability Concepts in Engineering Planning [71] W. Uddin, R.F. Carmichael, W.R. Hudson, Life Cycle Analysis for
and Design, Volume 1-Basic Principles, John Wiley & Sons, Toronto, Pavement Management Decision Making, Final Report, Report No.
Canada, 1975. FHWA-PA-85-028, Texas Research and Development Foundation,
[50] K. Ozbay, D. Jawad, N. Parker, S. Hussain, Life-cycle cost analysis: 1986.
State of the practice versus state of the art, J. Transp. Res. Board 1864 [72] K. Miller, Life Cycle Costing Considerations for Pavements: ODOT’s
(2004) 62–70. Approach to Life Cycle Costing, Proceedings of the 38th Annual
[51] K. Herbold, Using Monte Carlo simulation for pavement cost Ohio Transportation Engineering Conference, Ohio State University,
analysis, Public Roads 64 (3) (2000) 2–5. Columbus, OH, 1984.
[52] K.A. Zimmerman, K.D. Smith, M.G. Grogg, Applying Economic [73] A. Ockwell, Pavement Management: Development of a Life Cycle
Concepts from Life-Cycle Cost Analysis to Pavement Management Costing Technique, Australian Publishing Service, Canberra, Aus-
Analysis, J. Transp. Res. Board Natl. Res. Council 1699 (2000), tralia, 1990.
Washington, DC. [74] A.O. El-Farouk, E.A. Sharaf, A Life Cycle Cost Based Computer
[53] P.N. Christensen, G.A. Sparks, K.J. Kostuk, A method-based survey Program for Selection of Optimal Design and Maintenance Alterna-
of life cycle costing literature pertinent to infrastructure design and tives, Pre-Conference Proceedings, 3rd International Road Federa-
renewal, Can. J. Civil Eng. 32 (2005) 250–259. tion Middle East Regional Meeting, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 1988.
[54] D. Mrawira, W.J. Welch, M. Schonlau, R. Haas, Sensitivity analysis [75] J.P. Zaniewski, B.C. Butler Jr., G. Cunningham, G.E. Elkins, M.
of computer models: World Bank HDM-III model, J. Transp. Eng. Paggi, R. Machemehl, Vehicle Operating Costs, Fuel Consumption,
125 (5) (1999) 421–428. and Pavement Type and Condition Factors, Federal Highway
[55] G.K. Chacko, Decision-making Under Uncertainty: An Applied Adminstration-RD80, Washington, DC, 1981.
Statistics Approach, Praeger Publishers, 1991. [76] J.L. Memmott, C.L. Dudek, Queue and User Cost Evaluation of
[56] S. Tighe, Guidelines for Probabilistic Pavement Life Cycle Cost Work Zones, vol. 979, Transportation Research Record, Washington,
Analysis, Transp. Res. Rec. 1769 (2001) 28–38. DC, 1984.
[57] APA, American rides on us asphalt. Life – Cycle Cost Analysis: A [77] M.A. Beg, Z. Zhang, W.R. Hudson, A Rational Pavement Type
Position Paper, APA. IM 53-SEP 2011, 2011. Selection Procedure, Report No: FHWA/TX-04/0-1734-S, Austin,
[58] K. Ozbay, N.A. Parker, D. Jawad, S. Hussain, Guidelines for Life TX, 1998.
Cycle Cost Analysis, Final Report, Report No FHWA-NJ-2003-012, [78] J. Jung, K.E. Kabush, G.B. Way, Life Cycle Cost Analysis:
Trenton, NJ, 2003. Conventional Versus Asphalt-Rubber Pavements, Rubber Pavements
[59] F.L. Robers, P.S. Kandhal, E.R. Brown, T.W. Kennedy, Hot Mix Association, Tempe, AZ, 2002.
Asphalt Materials, Mixture Design, and Construction, National [79] S.A. Cross, R.L. Parsons, Evaluation of Expenditures on Rural
Asphalt Pavement Association Education Foundation, Lanham, Interstate Pavements in Kansas, 81th Annual TRB Meeting, Wash-
MD, 1996. ington, DC, 2002.
[60] R. Prasada, S.A. Rangaraju, Z. Guven, Life Cycle Cost Analysis [80] W. Temple, Z. Zhang, J. Lambert, K. Zeringue, Agency process for
Pavement Type Selection, Final Report, Report No.FHWA-SC-08- alternate design and alternate bid of pavements, J. Transp. Res.
01, SCDOT, 2008. Board 1900 (2004) 122–131.
[61] APA, Pavement Type Selection, IM-45, Asphalt Pavement Alliance, [81] J. Goldbaum, Life Cycle Cost Analysis State-of-the-Practice, Report
Lanham, MD, 2010. No. CDOT-R1-R-00-3, Aurora, CO, 2000.
[62] FHWA, Performance Trends of Rehabilitated AC Pavements, Tech [82] VDOT, Life Cycle Cost Analysis Pavement Options, Virginia
Brief No.FHWA-RD-00-165, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, Materials Division/ Virginia Trans-
Washington, DC, 2000. portation Research Council, Virginia, 2002.
[63] H. Von Quintus, Performance Characteristics of the Ideal Asphalt [83] PENNDOT, Pavement Policy Manual, Publication No. 242,
Pavement, Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, White Bear Harrisburg, PA, 2003.
Lake, MN, 2009, pp. 941–968. [84] R. West, N. Tran, M. Musselman, J. Skolink, M. Brooks, A Review
[64] C. Wei, S. Tighe, Development of Preventive Maintenance Decision of the Alabama Department of Transportation’s Policies and
Trees Based on Cost-Effectiveness Analysis an Ontario Case Study, Procedures for Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Pavement Type selection,
83rd Annual TRB Meeting, Washington, DC, 2004. NCAT, Report 13-06. Auburn. AL, 2013.
[65] Flintsch, Kuttesch, Application of Engineering Economic Analysis [85] W.J. Wilde, S. Waalkes, R. Harrison, Life Cycle Cost Analysis of
Tools for Pavement Management, 83rd Annual TRB Meeting, Portland Cement Concrete Pavements, Research Report 167205-1,
Washington, DC, 2004. Austin, Texas, 2001.
[66] S. Meneses, A. Ferreira, Pavement maintenance programming [86] J.K. Lindley, P.R. Clark, Adjustments to Pavement Life-Cycle Cost
considering two objectives: maintenance costs and user costs, Int. J. Analysis Procedures, UTCA Report 02409, University Transporta-
Pavement Eng. 14 (2) (2013) 206–221. tion Centre for Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, 2003.
[67] D. Jawad, K. Ozbay, The Discount Rate in Life Cycle Cost Analysis [87] ACPA, Life Cycle Cost Analysis: A Guide for Alternate Pavement
of Transportation Projects, 85th Annual TRB Meeting, Washington, Designs, American Concrete Pavement Association, Skokie, IL, 2002.
DC, 2006. [88] FHWA, Toward sustainable pavement systems: a reference docu-
[68] A. Ferreira, J. Santos, Life-cycle cost analysis system for pavement ment, FHWA-HIF-15-002, Federal Highway Administration, Wash-
management at project level: sensitivity analysis to the discount rate, ington, DC, 2015.
Int. J. Pavement Eng. 14 (7) (2013) 655–673. [89] Danish Road Institute, Economic Evaluation of Pavement Mainte-
[69] WSDOT, Pavement Type Selection Protocol, Washington State nance, PAV-ECO, Report 114, Denmark, 2002.
Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA, 2005. [90] B. Lane, T. Kazmierowski, Guidelines for the use of Life Cycle Cost
[70] Florida DOT, Pavement Type Selection Manual, Document No. 625- Analysis on MTO Freeway Projects, Ontario, Canada, 2005.
010-0005-d, Tallahassee, FL, 2005.