Network Strategic Evaluation

Rodrigo Archondo-CallaoSenior Highway Engineer, ETWTR

The World Bank

Applications of HDM-4

• HDM-4 helps decisionmakers with strategic planning of investments or programming of road works• HDM-4 evaluates the entire network managed by a road agency or a partial network of candidate roads typically in fair and poor condition

Common network applications of HDM-4 Table 2 Road classes example for HDM-4 strategic planning evaluationEntire Network Candidate Roads in Fair and Poor Condition

Strategic Planning Typical

Programming of Works Typical

Strategic Planning Entire Network

• define rational allocation of resources among networks, regions, and so forth• calculate approximate quantities, costs, and benefits• estimate outcomes in performance

Road classes example for HDM-4 strategic planning evaluation Table 3 Road classes categories examplesTotal Bituminous Network (2 lane equivalent length, km)

Traffic Range Road Condition Range (Roughness, IRI)

(vehicles/day) < 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 8 >= 8 Total Percent

1 to 200 161 93 143 77 474 1%

201 to 500 290 792 362 163 11 21 1,638 4%

501 to 1000 1,659 2,371 993 92 77 5,191 12%

1001 to 2000 4,040 4,472 952 252 14 9,731 22%

2001 to 4000 5,445 4,060 1,005 21 2 8 10,541 24%

4001 to 6000 3,808 2,050 117 12 9 5,996 14%

6001 to 10000 4,449 1,587 134 10 3 6,183 14%

> 10001 2,552 1,293 88 9 2 3,945 9%

Total 22,404 16,717 3,794 636 114 31 43,697 100%

Percent 51% 38% 9% 1% 0% 0% 100%

Network Evaluation Options

- Evaluate each road section individually

- Evaluate a representative matrix of road classes

As a function of

budget constraints:

- Road works for

each road

and

- Roads sorted by economic

priority

Evaluate RoadSections

Evaluate RoadsClasses

Evaluate Representative Matrix of Road Classes Advantages

• Reduces the number of roads to evaluate• Generates a solution catalog with

recommended road works for each road class

• Makes it easier to define the strategies to be evaluated

• Disadvantage: The road classes are characterized with average values

Definition of Road Classes

• traffic and roughness are common to all evaluations• to define the road condition, roughness is complemented by cracking or deflections or a surface distress index• region, road width, functional classification or percentage of trucks may be considered to better characterize the network• is desirable a limit of 400 road classes with more than 0 km

Road classes categories examples Table 4 Road works costs exampleCountry Road Class Categories Number of Road ClassesThailand Traff ic, Roughness 48Pakistan Surface Type, Traff ic, Roughness, Cracking 120Bangladesh Functional Class, Number of Lanes, Surface Type, Traff ic, Roughness 1,260Brazil (Goias) Surface Type, Traff ic, Roughness, Deflection 80Vietnam Surface Type, Number of Lanes, Traff ic, Condition Class 252Morocco Surface Type, Climate, Traff ic, Roughness, Cracking, Width 648Mexico Surface Type, Traff ic, Roughness, Cracking, Width 360Chile Surface Type, Traff ic, Road Condition, Geographic Region, Functional Class 192Honduras* Surface Type, Traff ic, Roughness, Cracking 120Lebanon* Surface Type, Traff ic, Roughness, Road Width 112Uruguay* Surface Type, Traff ic, Trucks Percent, Roughness, Surface Distress 129* HDM-III evaluation

Definition of Condition Categories

Example 4 < 2.5 IRI Roughness and < 5 % Cracks

2.5 - 4.0 IRI Roughness or 5 - 30 %Cracks

>= 4.0 IRI Roughness or >= 30 % Cracks

Example 5 1-Very Good

2-Good

3-Fair

4-Poor

5-Very Poor

Road condition categories examples Table 5 HDM-4 Road Attributes

Example 1 < 3.0 IRI Roughness

3.0 - 4.5 IRI Roughness

4.5 - 6.0 IRI Roughness

6.0 - 9.0 IRI Roughness

>= 9.0 IRI Roughness

Example 2 < 2.5 IRI Roughness and < 0.4 mm Deflection

< 2.5 IRI Roughness and >= 0.4 mm Deflection

2.5 - 3.0 IRI Roughness and < 0.4 mm Deflection

2.5 - 3.0 IRI Roughness and >= 0.4 mm Deflection

3.0 - 4.0 IRI Roughness and < 0.4 mm Deflection

3.0 - 4.0 IRI Roughness and >= 0.4 mm Deflection

>= 4.0 IRI Roughness and < 0.4 mm Deflection

>= 4.0 IRI Roughness and >= 0.4 mm Deflection

Example 3 < 3.5 IRI Roughness and < 2 % Cracks

< 3.5 IRI Roughness and 2 - 20 %Cracks

< 3.5 IRI Roughness and >= 20 % Cracks

3.5 - 5.0 IRI Roughness and < 2 % Cracks

3.5 - 5.0 IRI Roughness and 2 - 20 %Cracks

3.5 - 5.0 IRI Roughness and >= 20 % Cracks

5.0 - 7.0 IRI Roughness and < 2 % Cracks

5.0 - 7.0 IRI Roughness and 2 - 20 %Cracks

5.0 - 7.0 IRI Roughness and >= 20 % Cracks

>= 7.0 IRI Roughness and < 2 % Cracks

>= 7.0 IRI Roughness and 2 - 20 %Cracks

>= 7.0 IRI Roughness and >= 20 % Cracks

Road Classes Characterization

C3C

C1B C1C

C2A

C3A

C2B C2C

C3B

C1A

Good Fair Poor

1500

3000

6000

Condition

Tra

ffic

(A

AD

T)

C - Asphalt Concrete

1,2,3 - Traffic

A,B,C - Condition

Good Fair PoorCondition Condition Condition

Roughness (IRI - m/km) 2 4 6Total area of cracking (%) 0 5 15Ravelled area (%) 0 10 20Number of potholes (No./km) 0 0 5Edge break area (m2/km) 0 10 100Mean rut depth (mm) 0 5 15Texture depth (mm) 0.7 0.5 0.3Skid resistance (SCRIM 50km/h) 0.5 0.4 0.35Road age 1999 1994 1989

Definition of Road Works

• each country identifies the road works to evaluate • each road work has a different design life estimated by the HDM-4 Model and the purpose of the evaluation is to identify for each road class a recommended design life (road work or level of investment) based on network budget constraints

Road works costs exampleFinancial Economic

Work Class Work Type Predominant Work Activity US$/m2 US$/m2

Periodic Preventive Treatment Slurry Seal 4 mm 1.74 1.31

Resurfacing Single Surface Treatment 10 mm 2.07 1.55

Surface Treatment Double Surface Treatment 25 mm 4.22 3.17

Resurfacing Asphalt Overlay 30 mm 7.68 5.76

Asphalt Concrete Asphalt Overlay 50 mm 12.14 9.11

Rehabilitation Strengthening Asphalt Overlay 70 mm 18.02 13.52

Reconstruction Reconstruction 50mm AC/200mm GB 16.71 12.53

AC=Asphalt Concrete, ST=Surface Treatment, GB=Granular Base

Responsive or Scheduled WorksCondition-responsive and scheduled alternatives

Project Project

Alternative Type Alternatives

Condition-Responsive Execute Single Surface Treatment at 5% cracking

Execute Single Surface Treatment at 10% cracking

Execute Single Surface Treatment at 15% cracking

Execute Asphalt Overlay 50 mm at 3.5 IRI

Execute Asphalt Overlay 50 mm at 4.0 IRI

Execute Asphalt Overlay 50 mm at 4.5 IRI

Execute Asphalt Overlay 70 mm at 3.5 IRI

Execute Asphalt Overlay 70 mm at 4.0 IRI

Execute Asphalt Overlay 70 mm at 4.5 IRI

Scheduled Execute Single Surface Treatment every 5 years

Execute Single Surface Treatment every 9 years

Execute Single Surface Treatment every 12 years

Execute Asphalt Overlay 50 mm every 10 years

Execute Asphalt Overlay 50 mm every 15 years

Execute Asphalt Overlay 50 mm every 20 years

Execute Asphalt Overlay 70 mm every 10 years

Execute Asphalt Overlay 70 mm every 15 years

Execute Asphalt Overlay 70 mm every 20 years

Schedule First Road Work

Alternatives are defined so that a road work is scheduled in a given calendar year followed by a condition-responsive maintenance policy that keeps the road in good condition after the road work is executed

Schedule First Intervention AlternativesProject

Road Condition Alternatives

Good Condition Execute Slurry Seal in 2008

Execute Slurry Seal in 2009

Execute Slurry Seal in 2010

Execute Slurry Seal in 2011

Fair Condition Execute Single Surface Treatment in 2008

Execute Single Surface Treatment in 2009

Execute Single Surface Treatment in 2010

Execute Single Surface Treatment in 2011

Execute Asphalt Overlay 50 mm in 2008

Execute Asphalt Overlay 50 mm in 2009

Execute Asphalt Overlay 50 mm in 2010

Execute Asphalt Overlay 50 mm in 2011

Poor Condition Execute Asphalt Overlay 70 mm in 2008

Execute Asphalt Overlay 70 mm in 2009

Execute Asphalt Overlay 70 mm in 2010

Execute Asphalt Overlay 70 mm in 2011

Execute Reconstruction in 2008

Execute Reconstruction in 2009

Execute Reconstruction in 2010

Execute Reconstruction in 2011

First Periodic Road Work

C3C

C1B C1C

C2A

C3A

C2B C2C

C3B

C1A

Good Fair Poor

1500

3000

6000

Condition

Tra

ffic

(A

AD

T)

- Reseals 12 mm

- Reseals 12 mm- Overlays 5 cm

- Overlays 5 cm- Overlays 8 cm

Works occur in years 2008, 2009, 2010 or 2011 followed afterwards by 5.0 overlays at 3.5 IRI

Current Network Statistics

<= 3.0 IRI13%

3.0 - 4.5 IRI6%

4.5 - 6.0 IRI15%

6.0 - 9.0 IRI45%

> 9.0 IRI21%

<= 3.0 IRI3.0 - 4.5 IRI4.5 - 6.0 IRI6.0 - 9.0 IRI> 9.0 IRI

Roughness

< 500 35%

500 - 1500 33%

1500 - 2500 18%

2500 - 3500 7%

> 3500 7%

< 500 500 - 1500 1500 - 2500 2500 - 3500 > 3500

Traffic (AAADT)

Optimal Wok Program

25.5

0.6 1.4

2.0

3.5

2.2 10.3

29.4

0

Good Fair Poor

1500

3000

6000

NPV / Investment (M$)

109

25 32

26

41

40 61

76

NA

Good Fair Poor

1500

3000

6000

IRR (%)

250

4 14

4

7

15 101

206

0

Good Fair Poor

1500

3000

6000

NPV (M $)

O800

O503 O800

ST03

ST03

O501 O800

O500

Base

Good Fair Poor

1500

3000

6000

Alternative

Comparison of Budget Scenarios

Economic comparison of budget scenarios examples Table 12 Road works allocation of resources exampleScenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario

100% 75% 50% 25% 5%

61 M US$/year 50 M US$/year 34 M US$/year 17 M US$/year 3 M US$/year

Net Present Value of Economic Society Benefits, NPV (M US$)

NPV 292 284 245 190 55

Agency 289 269 265 250 226

Road Users 4,755 4,783 4,826 4,895 5,055

Total Society 5,044 5,052 5,091 5,145 5,281

Present Value of Total Society Costs Losses Compared with 100% Scenario (M US$)

Losses 0 8 47 101 237

Present Value of Costs and Benefits Compared with Do-nothing Scenario (M US$)

Cost 70 50 46 31 7

Benefit 362 334 290 221 62

Benefit Cost Ratio 5.1 6.7 6.4 7.2 8.6

Consequences to Society Benefits

Present Value of Society Net Benefits (Billion US$)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

Capital Expenditures per Year (Billion US$ per Year)

Allocation of ResourcesRoad works allocation of resources example

Recommended Road Works Alocation for 50% Budget Scenario (M US$) Expenditures (Million US$)

Network 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Percent

International 34.75 24.88 0.33 12.07 30.19 102.22 61%

National 0.23 10.10 20.47 19.77 0.93 51.50 31%

Local 11.75 2.82 14.57

Grand Total 34.98 34.98 32.54 34.67 31.12 168.28 100%

Road works planning program example Table 14 Road condition and utilization exampleExpenditures (Million US$) Network Condition (km) - Without Project Budget Scenario

Road Work Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total

Slurry Seal 66.68 30.36 132.20 5.73

Overlay 25 mm 97.64 98.12 4.89

Overlay 50 mm 95.52 70.88 85.72 306.44 13.96

Overlay 80 mm 3.92 1.72 0.14

Rehabilitation ST 2.68 1.88 0.11

Total 4.15 5.02 7.97 7.71 24.84

Road Works (km)

Road Work Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total

Slurry Seal 3402 1548 6746 11696

Overlay 25 mm 2051 2061 4112

Overlay 50 mm 1177 873 1056 3774 6880

Overlay 80 mm 32 14 46

Rehabilitation ST 30 21 51

Total 4611 4486 9893 3795 22785

Consequences to Road Agency

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

61 MUS$/year

50 MUS$/year

34 MUS$/year

23 MUS$/year

17 MUS$/year

3 MUS$/year

Scenario

Roa

d A

genc

y T

otal

Cap

ital E

xpen

ditu

res

(M U

S$)

2006-2010

2011-2025

Network Length Distributionand Average Roughness

With Project Scenario - Network Length

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Actual2006

Predicted2007

Predicted2008

Predicted2009

Predicted2010

Predicted2011

Predicted2012

Year

Net

wor

k K

m (

%)

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Net

wor

k R

ough

ness

(IR

I)

Good < 3.5IRI Fair 3.5 < IRI < 5.5 Poor > 5.5 IRI Network Roughness (IRI)

Without Project Scenario - Network Length

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Actual2006

Predicted2007

Predicted2008

Predicted2009

Predicted2010

Predicted2011

Predicted2012

Year

Net

wor

k K

m (

%)

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Net

wor

k R

ough

ness

(IR

I)

Good < 3.5IRI Fair 3.5 < IRI < 5.5 Poor > 5.5 IRI Network Roughness (IRI)

Similar Charts for Network Utilization Distribution

Network on Stable Condition

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

61 MUS$/year

50 MUS$/year

34 MUS$/year

23 MUS$/year

17 MUS$/year

3 M US$/year

Scenario

Per

cent

age

of t

he N

etw

ork

on S

tabl

e C

ondi

tion

in 2

010

(IR

<4.

5)

Percent of the Network on Stable Condition in 2006 (19%)

Average Network Roughness

• average network roughness weighted by length or utilization (vehicle-km) is presented for each budget scenario

Average Network Roughness (IRI)

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Year

Rou

ghne

ss (

IRI)

US$ 7 Billion per YearUS$ 6 Billion per YearUS$ 5 Billion per YearUS$ 4 Billion per YearUS$ 3 Billion per YearUS$ 0 Billion per Year

Capital Expenditures

Solution Catalog

• a solution catalog is found for each budget level, which presents a recommended road work and timing for its application• the solution maximizes the net present value of the network

Solution catalog example for a given budget Table 11 Programming of works exampleTotal Bituminous Network (2 lane equivalent length, km)

Traffic Range Road Condition Range (Roughness, IRI)

(vehicles/day) < 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 8 >= 8

1 to 200 Base Base Base Base

201 to 500 Base Base O3 Y5 O3 Y5 O5 Y5 O5 Y4

501 to 1000 O1 Y6 O2 Y5 O3 Y2 O3 Y4 O5 Y3

1001 to 2000 O1 Y6 O1 Y3 O3 Y3 O3 Y3 O4 Y2

2001 to 4000 O1 Y3 O3 Y4 O3 Y1 O3 Y1 O4 Y1 O4 Y1

4001 to 6000 O1 Y2 O2 Y2 O3 Y1 O3 Y1 O4 Y1

6001 to 10000 O2 Y6 O3 Y4 O3 Y1 O4 Y1

> 10001 O3 Y5 O3 Y2 O4 Y1 O4 Y1

Base: Base alternative O3: Overlay 50 mm Y1: Work in 2004

O1: Slurry Seal O4: Overlay 80 mm Y2: Work in 2005

O2: Overlay 25 mm O5: Reconstruction Y3: Work in 2006

Support for Programming: Recommended Road Works

Sorted by PriorityProgramming of works example

Section Length Width Traffic Roughness Road Work Cost NPV NPV/

ID (km) (m) (AADT) (IRI) Class Type Period (m US$) (m US$) Cost

Villanueva - San Manuel 9.3 7.9 1333 3.2 O2AY Reseal 12 mm 2001-2002 0.08 0.4 4.73

Ocotep. - Agua Caliente 21.5 7.2 1367 2.6 O2AY Reseal 12 mm 2001-2002 0.2 0.92 4.73

.

Occidente – El Portillo 35.4 7.3 1521 2.9 O2AY Reseal 12 mm 2001-2002 0.32 1.52 4.73

Chamelecon – Villanue. 15.1 9.3 5131 3.8 O5BX Overlay 80 mm 2001-2002 1.64 6.63 4.05

Acceso a Guaimaca 1 6.7 2772 4.2 O3BY Overlay 80 mm 2001-2002 0.08 0.3 3.82

.

Alto Verde – Coyolito 30.9 7.3 1256 5.8 T3CX Overlay 50 mm 2001-2002 1.96 5.45 2.78

Las Tapias – Mateo 5 7.3 1384 5.3 O2CZ Overlay 80 mm 2001-2002 0.43 1.11 2.6

.

Siguatepe. - Intibucca 10.7 7.5 2028 5 T4BX Overlay 80 mm 2003-2004 0.94 3.1 3.31

Acceso a Morazan 0.8 8.5 960 3.5 T2AZ Reseal 12 mm 2003-2004 0.01 0.02 2.73

Acceso a Trujillo 4.6 7.2 1437 4.9 O2BY Overlay 80 mm 2003-2004 0.27 0.74 2.71

.

.

Map with Recommended Solution

CONCRETO ASFALTICO Y DOBLE TRATAMIENTO

REPUBLICA DE HONDURAS

INVERSION VIAL PERIODO 2001 - 2002