pavement management system

Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements

PR-9 Pavement Management System

PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM GOAL Make roadway capital assets last longer and perform better by preserving and maintaining them.

REQUIREMENTS Have asset management systems in effect that include the pavement and critical structural features on a project, such as bridges. Asset management system(s) must serve the roadway project and include, at minimum, these activities:

1. Measure conditions of pavement structure and bridge structures at least once every two years.

2. Possess documented decision criteria for timing preservation actions. 3. Record when preservation efforts occur. 4. Store information from #1‐3 in a retrievable format. 5. Display information from #1‐3 to the roadway user.

Generally, this means the owner‐agency of the roadway should have pavement management systems (PMS) and bridge management systems (BMS) in place for the extent of their roadway network. Projects with both pavements and major structures must demonstrate that both types of asset management systems are in place and operational for all such features.

Details

An “asset management system” is a formal systematic process of maintaining, upgrading and operating a particular structure or network of structures. Asset management systems typically involve the use of one or more decision support tools (often computer‐based) to organize the five activities detailed above. For purposes of this credit, we refer primarily to pavement management systems (PMS) and bridge management systems (BMS). “Preservation” refers to a set of maintenance and rehabilitation practices used to improve roadway condition and extend roadway life and also applies to both pavements and bridges.

Theoretically, any “asset” on a roadway project can be managed using the principles outlined here. While there are also separate asset management systems and tools for site infrastructure, traffic controls, standalone retaining walls and vegetation, for purposes of this Project Requirement such management systems are not required. Projects that have such systems in place should determine if the systems meet the five criteria above and apply for a Greenroads Custom Credit.

DOCUMENTATION A signed letter from an owner’s representative stating the following:

1. A PMS and BMS (where appropriate) is either in‐place or will be put in place for the project pavement and/or bridges.

2. The agency will manage the project pavement(s) and/or bridge(s). 3. The proposed means of accomplishing the five activities (e.g. the names of the

consultant or software system in use).

PR-9

REQUIRED

RELATED CREDITS

PR‐2 Lifecycle Cost Analysis

PR‐10 Site Maintenance Plan

MR‐2 Pavement Reuse

PT‐1 Long Life Pavement

PT‐6 Pavement Performance Tracking

SUSTAINABILITY COMPONENTS

Extent Expectations Experience

BENEFITS

Increases Service Life Improves Human

Health & Safety Reduces Lifecycle

Costs Improves

Accountability Increases Aesthetics

Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5

Pavement Management System PR-9

APPROACHES & STRATEGIES

Ensure that the project roadway is part of a new or existing management system. It is likely that there is already a system in use by the roadway owner, which means that provisions for the project pavement to be included need to be made.

For pavements, adopt a pavement management system that incorporates the project pavement. This is generally not practical unless the pavement management system incorporates other pavements also managed by the owner.

Example: Pavement Management Systems

All 50 states have some form of pavement management program in place (Finn, 1998). Many local pavement owner agencies also have pavement management systems that vary in complexity. While there is no requirement that they be computer‐based, most current systems are. A few examples follow.

Dynatest Pavement Management System. An example of a commercially available product (there are many), this system is integrated with the condition assessment equipment that Dynatest also manufactures.

StreetSaver. A new online program developed by the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for use by local governments. It is used by a number of owner agencies, many of which are in California and Oregon. The interface is web‐based and has been integrated with ArcGIS by Farallon Geographics, Inc. An example is Chula Vista, CA: http://www.chulavistaca.gov/city_Services/Development_Services/engineering/pavementmgmtsystem.asp

MicroPAVER. A desktop pavement management system from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is available for free and is widely used by the U.S. military and other agency owners. Information at: http://owww.cecer.army.mil/paver/Paver.htm.

Example: Case Study – Washington State Pavement Management System (WSPMS)

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) pavement management system (WSPMS) is an example of an internally built system and is one of the oldest systems in the U.S. WSDOT began collecting data in 1963 (Muench et al., 2004) and developed a management system in 1982 (FHWA, 2008). More details are given in the case study example below. A description of the system can be found at:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Research/Reports/300/315.2.htm.

A recent Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) case study (2008) highlighted the Washington State Pavement Management System (WSPMS) and its contribution to overall condition and life cycle costs of pavements managed by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). While the case study does not separate the level of funding from the use of WSPMS, it makes a case that WSPMS has contributed to a marked shift towards pavements in good condition since 1971 (Figure PR‐9.1).



WSDOT uses WSPMS to not only track pavement condition but also to choose when and by what means the pavement should be preserved and/or rehabilitated. WSPMS has simple built‐in models that predict future pavement condition based on current and past condition. This way, WSDOT is able to predict with reasonable accuracy when preservation/rehabilitation need to occur. In 1993 WSDOT received legislative mandate that their project selection criteria should be based on lowest life‐cycle cost, which further reinforced their pavement management approach. Overall, Figure PT‐9.2 shows the condition of WSDOT pavements from 1969‐2005 and gives clear evidence that pavement condition has improved markedly over this 36 year stretch.

Figure PR‐9.1: Trends in poor and good pavement condition of Washington State highways, 1971–2005, following adoption of a pavement condition survey in 1969 and a pavement

management system in 1982 (FHWA, 2008).

Figure PR‐9.2: Trends in Washington State pavement structural condition, 1969–2006 (FHWA, 2008).

Data source: Washington State Department of Transportation Materials Laboratory.



Example: Michigan DOT Bridge Management System

Michigan DOT (MDOT) has developed a Bridge Management System (BMS), one of six components of their Transportation Management System. The BMS is the decision‐support tool responsible for managing the inspection, analysis and maintenance of the numerous components that make up a bridge. MDOT utilizes software American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has developed called “Pontis” to aid their BMS. A description of the system can be found at: http://michigan.gov/documents/bridge_16549_7.pdf

Example: Virtis and Opis – Bridge Management System Tools

AASHTO’s BRIDGEWare, a software design system, developed comprehensive bridge rating and design tools called Virtis and Opis. “The Opis bridge design package and the Virtis bridge load–rating package share a detailed database of structure descriptions that is integrated with the database of the Pontis bridge management data” (Thompson, 2004). More information is available at: http://aashto.bakerprojects.com/virtis/VirtisOpisBrochure0303.pdf

POTENTIAL ISSUES

This Project Requirement asks for asset management systems but does not verify execution of that management system. Therefore, the possibility exists that a management system could be presented and then not executed.

RESEARCH Pavement Management Systems The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) defines pavement management as “…the effective and efficient directing of the various activities involved in providing and sustaining pavements in a condition acceptable to the traveling public at the least life cycle cost” (AASHTO, 1985). Pavement management consists of 3 major components (Pavement Management, 2007):

1. Pavement life‐cycle. This includes how pavements are built, how their condition changes over time, and how this process can be affected by different forms of maintenance, rehabilitation and reconstruction.

2. Costs associated with the pavement life‐cycle. This includes the costs of initial construction, maintenance and rehabilitation, assessing end‐of‐life pavement salvage value, and determining user costs incurred throughout the life‐cycle.

3. Pavement management systems. This includes all the different systems used to determine the most appropriate time to rehabilitate pavement, what the most cost‐effective method is, and how many dollars it will take to maintain a roadway system at a desirable condition level (WSDOT, 1994).

The fundamental idea is that pavement management will lead to lower overall life cycle costs for a pavement or network of pavements and thus be a more sustainable approach. This idea has been theoretically shown many times (e.g., Scrivner et al., 1968; Hudson et al., 1979; MAPC, 1986; Kay et al., 1993; Pierce et al., 2001) but has not been shown by direct comparison of a managed system and one that is not. A corollary, that some believe is true but has yet to be shown by empirical evidence, is that pavement management will also lead to lower use of natural resources, less energy input and fewer emissions associated with a pavement network.

A basic asset management system should include the following 5 components (Peterson, 1987):

1. Roadway condition surveys. A survey of the roadway structure to assess current condition and strength 2. Database containing all related roadway structure information. Information about other aspects of each

roadway section including things like location, pavement thickness, ownership, date last constructed, etc. 3. Analysis scheme. Algorithms used to interpret roadway condition and other data in a meaningful way and

produce information such as cost and deterioration models that assist in programming roadway preservation/rehabilitation/maintenance efforts. Recent software can combine the database, analysis scheme



and decision criteria in one package. Recent research has focused on advancing or refining life‐cycle costing analysis, optimization algorithms and performance prediction.

4. Decision criteria. Rules developed to guide asset management decisions. As asset management systems have evolved, decision criteria have become more complex and now account for items such as user delay, vehicle operating costs and, in limited cases, environmental effects. For bridges, this would include optimization and analysis models.

5. Implementation procedures. Methods used to apply management decisions to roadway sections. Implementation is a political, budgetary or procedural issue.

Pavement Management Leads to Lower Life Cycle Costs Choosing the optimal timing of preservation efforts can lead to lower life cycle costs. In turn, lower life cycle costs can be one of the outputs of a more sustainable roadway. Thus, there is an indirect relationship between a pavement management system, which can help in determining the best timing of preservation efforts, and sustainability.

In general, pavement deteriorates as pictured in Figure PR‐9.3. Deterioration is slow at first and then increases at an increasing rate. Preservation efforts provide a step increase in pavement condition and essentially reset the deterioration process. Preservation efforts applied too soon do not achieve much improvement in condition for their cost while those applied too late (Figure PR‐9.4) achieve an improvement in condition at substantial cost (Stevens, 1985; FHWA, 2008).

Figure PR‐9.3: Pavement condition illustration.

Figure PR‐9.4: Rehabilitation time vs. cost (based on an illustration in Stevens, 1985).



Bridge Management Systems The Federal Highway Administration recognizes the importance of maintenance and preservation of bridge sturctures too. For roadways, bridges are considered critical points or “nodes” along an otherwise continuous network of pavements. However, similar to pavement management systems, agencies usually develop a BMS that is tailored to their organizational, financial, managerial, political, and technical modes of operation.

Currently, all state DOTs have a bridge management system (Özbay et al., 2004). Each BMS may vary due to (Markow & Hyman, 2009):

1. Different philosophies of bridge management; 2. Different approaches to planning, programming, and budgeting; 3. the characteristics of each agency’s transportation system and its infrastructures; and 4. The policy, financial, technical, and institutional environment in which each agency operates.

A study by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in 1994, found that only 6 of 33 states responding to a survey said they were satisfied with the cost data they had available to provide to their bridge management systems (Thompson, 2004). This may suggest that agencies consider the accuracy and availability of cost and management data and other information required to develop a comprehensive asset management system to be inadequate.

In 1994, a 20‐page questionnaire was distributed to 52 departments of transportation (DOT) in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (Thompson & Markow, 1996). A total of 33 state DOTs provided usable responses.

76% (25 of 33) of the agencies use Pontis as part of their bridge management system;

12% (4 of 33) are developing their own system; and

10% (3 of 33) are undecided.

The percentage of those using Pontis is decreasing as new technologies emerge and become more accurate and reliable. More recent studies show that an increasing number of agencies are resorting to developing their own system in conjunction with current design software.

In 2009, Markow and Hyman prepared a detailed synthesis report on BMS for the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Report 397. Currently, this is the most up to date and comprehensive information on the state of the practice of bridge management systems and the need, utility, level of implementation and cost implications at various state agencies. It also includes a survey of DOTs for prevalence of use of BMS, but there were similar results to the 1994 study mentioned above and fewer respondents to the survey.

Bridge Management Software During the early 1990s, FHWA and Cambridge Systematics and Optima, Inc. developed a bridge management system called Pontis. Cambridge Systematics and Optima, Inc. (2010) describe Pontis as a decision‐support software tool that includes a structural inventory for use in preservation and maintenance activities. Pontis provides a way for bridge managers to document inspections by structural element and develop cost‐effective plans for maintenance activities in an existing bridge network. Newer software suites like AASHTO’s BridgeWARE line of products incorporate additional tools like Virtis and Opis which can assist in load‐rating and design that utilize the Pontis database (Transportation Research Board, Committee on Bridge Management Systems, 2003; Thompson, 2004).

Bridge Management Systems and Lifecycle Cost Analysis Bridge management systems and lifecycle cost analysis (see PR‐2 Lifecycle Cost Analysis) are complementary tools for long term decision‐making in bridge maintenance, preservation and operation. Much of the current literature overlaps at optimization models for integrating lifecycle costing into network level BMS as well as at the project level (Morcous, 2007; Frangopol & Liu, 2007; Estes & Frangopol, 2001; Frangopol, 2004; Hegazy, Elbeltagi, & El‐Behairy, 2004; Okasha & Frangopol, 2009) as well as for preservation and maintenance decisions



(List, 2007; Strauss et al. 2007; Naus & Johnston, 2001). More recent research has been in the area of reliability and risk analysis for lifetime weathering and other hazards, (Lee, Cho, & Cha, 2006; Hosser et al. 2008; Padgett, Dennemann, & Ghosh, 2010). For a comprehensive review of bridge life cycle cost analysis (BLCCA) and its potential applications at project and network‐level BMS, the reader is referred to NCHRP Report 483 (Hawk, 2003), which provides the most comprehensive information on integrative lifecycle thinking for bridges.

Other Types of Asset Management Systems Ancillary structures. Currently, the Federal Highway Administration is investigating development of decision‐support tools for data management and preservation efforts for ancillary structures such as luminares, sign trusses, and other non‐bridge and non‐pavement features. The current program effort is led by the Office of Bridge Technology, which provides a free helpful guidance manual for these features called Guidelines for the Installation, Inspection, Maintenance and Repair of Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals (FHWA, 2005).

Tunnels and retaining wall structures. Tunnel and wall structures are a very small percentage of structural roadway features. Much of the research on tunnel maintenance and preservation is managed under the purview of the Federal Highway Administration’s Office of Bridge Technology and integrates with highway and rail transit in their web‐based guidance document from the 2005 Highway & Rail Transit Tunnel Maintenance & Rehabilitation Manual (FHWA, 2007).

Vegetation. Additionally, there is a wealth of information available on vegetation management practices such as street trees, native vegetation, pesticide and herbicide use, and maintenance of other landscaping features, especially with regard to management of above and below ground utilities. However, a consensus does not appear to exist on computerized tools for systematic implementation of such vegetation management strategies and practices. AASHTO’s Center on Environmental Excellence provides some guidance on management of these types of living assets on roadsides at this link under “Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management:” http://environment.transportation.org/environmental_issues/invasive_species (AASHTO, 2011).

GLOSSARY

REFERENCES American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (1985). Guidelines on Pavement

Management, AASHTO Joint Task Force on Pavements, AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 1985.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (2011). Center for Environmental Excellence by AASHTO: Invasive Species/Vegetation Management. Available at: http://environment.transportation.org/environmental_issues/invasive_species/ Accessed January 31, 2011.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (2010). Pontis Bridge Management System Version 4.4. Available at http://www.camsys.com/pro_inframan_pontis.htm. Accessed May 26, 2010.

Estes, A. C., and Frangopol, D. M. 2001. “Minimum expected costoriented optimal maintenance planning for deteriorating structures: Application to concrete bridge decks.” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 73, 281–291.

Federal Highway Administration. (2008). Pavement Management Systems: The Washington State Experience. Transportation Asset Management Case Studies. FHWA, U.S. DOT. Available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/if08010/index.cfm.

Asset management system a formal systematic process of maintaining, upgrading and operating a particular asset or network of assets, such as pavements and bridges

Preservation a set of maintenance and rehabilitation practices used to improve condition and extend life of a structure(s)



Federal Highway Administration. (2010). More About Pontis. Available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/pontmore.cfm. Accessed May 26, 2010.

Federal Highway Administration. (2005). Guidelines for the Installation, Inspection, Maintenance and Repair of Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals.[FHWA‐NHI‐05‐036]. Federal Highway Administration. U.S. DOT. Available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/signinspection.pdf

Federal Highway Administration. (2007, June 7). Highway and Rail Transit Tunnel Maintenance and Rehabilitation Manual: 2005 Edition. U.S. Department of Transportation. Available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/tunnel/maintman00.cfm. Accessed June 5, 2010.

Finn, F. (1998). Pavement Management Systems – Past, Present, and Future. Public Roads, Vol. 62, No. 1. Available at http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/julaug98/pavement.htm.

Frangopol, D. M., & American Society of Civil Engineers. (2004). Life‐cycle performance of deteriorating structures: Assessment, design, and management. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Frangopol, D. M., & Liu, M. (January 01, 2007). Maintenance and management of civil infrastructure based on condition, safety, optimization, and life‐cycle cost. Structure & Infrastructure Engineering: Maintenance, Management, Life‐Cycle Design & Performance, 3, 1, 29‐41.

Hawk, H. (2003). National Cooperative Highway Research Program. NCHRP Report 483: Bridge life‐cycle cost analysis. Washington, D.C: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council.

Hegazy, T., Elbeltagi, E. and El‐Behairy, H. (2004). Bridge Deck Management System with Integrated Life‐Cycle Cost Optimization. Transportation Research Record, 1866, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 44–50.

Hosser, D., Klinzmann, C., & Schnetgoke, R. (2008). A framework for reliability‐based system assessment based on structural health monitoring. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 4, 4, 271‐285.

Hudson, W.R.; Haas, R. and Pedigo, R.D. (1979). National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 215: Pavement Management System Development. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

Kay, R.K.; Mahoney, J.P. and Jackson, N.C. (1993). The WSDOT Pavement Management System – A 1993 Update. Report No. WA‐RD 274.1. Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA.

Lee, K. M., Cho, H. N., & Cha, C. J. (July 01, 2006). Life‐cycle cost‐effective optimum design of steel bridges considering environmental stressors. Engineering Structures, 28, 9, 1252‐1265.

List, G. (2007). A model for life cycle evaluation of highway investments. Structure & Infrastructure Engineering: Maintenance, Management, Life‐Cycle Design & Performance, 3, 2, 95‐101.

Markow, M.J. & Hyman, W.A. (2009). Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. NCHRP Synthesis 397. Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington D.C.

Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC). (1986). Pavement Management: A Manual for Communities. Contract number MDPW 23892. Federal Highway Administration and the Massachusetts Department of Public Works. Available at http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/pave.html.



Morcous, G. (2007) Pareto Analysis for Multicriteria Optimization of Bridge Preservation Decisions Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1991, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 62–68

Naus, D.J. and Johnston, M.W. (2001, October). International RILEM Workshop on Life Prediction and Aging Management of Concrete Structures. Proceedings of the International RILEM Workshop Technical Committees, Cannes, France, 16‐17, October 2000. Materials and Structures, RILEM, 34, 458‐466.

Okasha, N. M., & Frangopol, D. M. (January 01, 2009). Lifetime‐oriented multi‐objective optimization of structural maintenance considering system reliability, redundancy and life‐cycle cost using GA. Structural Safety, 31, 6, 460.

Ozbay, K. (2004). Life‐cycle cost analysis: State of the practice versus state of the art. Transportation Research Record, 1864, 62‐70.

Padgett, J. E., Dennemann, K., & Ghosh, J. (2010). Risk‐based seismic life‐cycle costbenefit (LCC‐B) analysis for bridge retrofit assessment. Structural Safety, 32, 3, 165.

Pavement Management. (2007, August 16). Pavement Interactive. Available at http://pavementinteractive.org/index.php?title=Pavement_Management&oldid=11444.

Peterson, D.E. (1987). National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis of Highway Practice 135: Pavement Management Practices. NCHRP, TRB, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.

Pierce, L.M., Mahoney, J.P., & Sivaneswaran, N. (2001). An Assessment of the Benefits of the Washington State Pavement Management System. Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on Managing Pavements, Seattle, Washington, August 11–14, 2001.

Scrivner, F.H.; McFarland, W.F. and Carey, G.R. (1968). A Systems Approach to the Flexible Pavement Design Problem. Research Report 132‐11. Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University.

Stevens, L.B. (1985). Road Surface Management for Local Governments ‐ Resource Notebook. Publication No. DOT‐I‐85‐37. Federal Highway Administration. Washington, D.C.

Strauss, A., Bergmeister, K., Hoffmann, S., Pukl, R., & Novak, D. (January 01, 2008). Advanced Life‐Cycle Analysis of Existing Concrete Bridges. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 20, 1, 9.

Thompson, P.D. & Markow, M.J. (1996). Collecting and Managing Cost Data for Bridge Management Systems. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, National Research Council (U.S.). Transportation Research Board, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Thompson, P.D. (2004). Bridge Life‐Cycle Costing in Integrated Environment of Design, Rating, and Management. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1866, 51–58.

Transportation Research Board, Committee on Bridge Management Systems. (2003). Integration of AASHTO’S BridgeWARE Products. Transportation Research Circular Number E‐C049. 9th International Bridge Management Conference, Orlando Airport Marriott Orlando, Florida April 28–30, 2003. Available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec049.pdf.

pavement management system

Documents