BRI Presentation 6 June 2005
This research study is undertaken by the Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation (CRC CI).
Research partners:RMIT University Queensland University of Technology (QUT)
Organisations Partners:Queensland Department of Main Roads (QDMR)Queensland Department of Public Works (QDMP)
Background
Objective of Research Study
• To improve reliability in budget/cost estimates for road asset management (Maintenance and rehabilitation)
• Department of Main Roads has 34,000km of road network consist various pavement types, soils, traffic, environment
• Queensland have well developed Asset Management practices– Comprehensive, relevant, quality asset data
ARMIS (A Road Management Information System) Database
– Investment modelling tools: (SCENARIO)• Improve reliability in budget estimates for road
asset management
Background
Background (Cont.)
Background (Cont.)
Background (Cont.)
• Developed a probability-based method for assessing variability in budget estimates for highway asset management
Outline of Presentation
• Identification of critical parameters
• Demonstrate a method in assessing variation in budget estimates for road maintenance and rehabilitation
Part One
Identification of critical parameters
Identification of Critical Input Parameters
The variability of Input parameters
• Pavement strength • Rut depth• Annual equivalent number of axles• Initial roughness for the analysis year• Pavement thickness• Cracking
The variability of out parameters
• Annual change in pavement roughness
Identification of Critical Input Parameters
ΔRI = Kgp (ΔRIs + ΔRIc + ΔRIr + ΔRIt) + m Kgm RIa
ΔRIs = change in roughness due to pavement strength deterioration due to vehicles
SNPKb = Modified Structural numberYE4 = Equivalent standard number of axles AGE3 = Pavement ageKgp = calibration factor, Default value = 1.0ΔRI = total change in roughnessΔRIc = change in roughness due to crackingΔRIr = change in roughness due to ruttingΔRIt = change in roughness due to pothole(m kgm RIa = ΔRIe) = change in roughness due to climatic condition
Identification of Critical Input Parameters
COV of Input Parameters Compared with COV of output Variable
Note: COV is coefficient of variation (σ/μ)
Identification of Critical Input Parameters
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1 2 3 4 5
Pavement Thickness (mm)
Co
eff
icie
nt
of
Va
ria
tio
n (
Co
v)
Cov of SNPKb
Cov of AnnualChange inRoughness
200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600
Identification of Critical Input Parameters
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5
Pavement Thickness (mm)
Co
eff
icie
nt
of
Va
ria
tio
n (
Co
v)
StandardDeviation of RutDepth
Annual Changein Roughness
200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600
Identification of Critical Input Parameters
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 1 2 3 4 5
Pavement Thickness (mm)
Co
effi
cien
t o
f V
aria
tio
n (
Co
v)
Cov of AnnualEquivalentStandard Axles(YE4)
Cov of AnnualChange inRoughness
200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600
Identification of Critical Input Parameters
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5
Pavement Thickness (mm)
Co
eff
icie
nt
of
Va
ria
tio
n (
Co
v)
Cov of InitialRoughness at theStart of theAnalysis Year
Cov of AnnualChange inRoughness
200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600
Identification of Critical Input Parameters
00.10.20.30.40.5
0.60.70.80.9
1
0 1 2 3 4 5
Pavement Thickness (mm)
Co
effi
cien
t o
f V
aria
tio
n (
Co
v)
Cov of PavementAge (AGE3)
Cov of AnnualChange inRoughness
200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600
Identification of Critical Input Parameters
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1 2 3 4 5
Pavement Thickness (mm)
Co
eff
icie
nt
of
Va
ria
tio
n (
Co
v)
Cov of % ofCracking of TotalCarriageway
Cov of AnnualChange inRoughness
200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600
Identification of Critical Input Parameters
Critical input parameters
• Pavement strength• Rut depth• Annual equivalent number of axles• Initial roughness• Unit costs
Case studyAssessment of Variation in Budget Estimates for Road
Maintenance and Rehabilitation
92 km Bruce highway•Pavement strength•Rut depth•Annual average daily traffic (AADT)•Initial roughness
Case studyAssessment of Variation in Budget Estimates for Road
Maintenance and Rehabilitation
0
2
4
6
8
0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance (km)
Mea
n V
alu
es o
f S
tru
ctu
ral
Nu
mb
er
Mean Values
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance (km)
Sta
nd
ard
Dev
iati
on
of
Str
uct
ura
l N
um
ber
Standard Deviations
Case studyAssessment of Variation in Budget Estimates for Road
Maintenance and Rehabilitation
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance (km)
Ave
rag
e R
ut
Dep
th (
mm
)
Mean Values
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance (km)
Sta
nd
ard
Dev
iati
on
of
Ave
rag
e R
ut
Dep
th (
mm
)
Standard Deviations
Case studyAssessment of Variation in Budget Estimates for Road
Maintenance and Rehabilitation
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance (km)
Mea
n V
alu
es o
f A
AD
T
Mean Values
0
200
400
600
8001000
1200
1400
1600
1800
0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance (km)
Sta
nd
ard
Dev
iati
on
of
AA
DT
Standard Deviations
Case studyAssessment of Variation in Budget Estimates for Road
Maintenance and Rehabilitation
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance (km)
Mea
n V
alu
es o
f In
itia
l R
ou
gh
nes
s (I
RI)
Mean Values
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance (km)
Sta
nd
ard
Dev
iati
on
of
Init
ial
Ro
ug
hn
ess
(IR
I)
Standard Deviations
Case studyAssessment of Variation in Budget Estimates for Road
Maintenance and Rehabilitation
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Years
Co
st E
stim
ate
($ M
illi
on
)
Mean of CumulativeCosts
Mean+SD ofCumulative Costs
95th Percentile ofCumulative Costs