Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 76 – uploaded by Priyanka Singh

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
* Applicable only to warranty pavements after expiration of the warranty period. Table 5-73 Long-Term Agency Costs, Comparison Set 5 74. The costs are indicated in Year 2000 constant dollar.

Table 5 * Applicable only to warranty pavements after expiration of the warranty period. Table 5-73 Long-Term Agency Costs, Comparison Set 5 74. The costs are indicated in Year 2000 constant dollar.

Related Figures (195)

TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE Prepared in cooperation with the Indiana Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration.
TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE Prepared in cooperation with the Indiana Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration.
Table 2-1 Differences between Warranty and Traditional Contracts
Table 2-1 Differences between Warranty and Traditional Contracts
2.3. Historical Background and Legislative Impetus Table 2-2 Typical Cost Items in Traditional and Warranty Contracts
2.3. Historical Background and Legislative Impetus Table 2-2 Typical Cost Items in Traditional and Warranty Contracts
Table 3-1 Warranty Contracts Used in Analysis All the above projects involved hot mix asphalt (HMA) overlays over existing PCC pavements
Table 3-1 Warranty Contracts Used in Analysis All the above projects involved hot mix asphalt (HMA) overlays over existing PCC pavements
Figure 3-1: Common Mathematical Forms of Unit Cost Functions Illustrating Economy of Scale Effects in Figure 3-1 below. dimension increases) can be graphically manifest in a number of ways, depending on the data, as shown Common trend lines for economy of scale effects are as follows:
Figure 3-1: Common Mathematical Forms of Unit Cost Functions Illustrating Economy of Scale Effects in Figure 3-1 below. dimension increases) can be graphically manifest in a number of ways, depending on the data, as shown Common trend lines for economy of scale effects are as follows:
Figure 3-2: Illustration of Unit Costs Relationships among Projects of Small, Large, and Standard unit costs UCx and UCy, respectively.
Figure 3-2: Illustration of Unit Costs Relationships among Projects of Small, Large, and Standard unit costs UCx and UCy, respectively.
Not Lie on Established Cost Function
Not Lie on Established Cost Function
Figure 3-4: Possible Locations of Contract with Respect to Unit Cost Function and Standardized Contract
Figure 3-4: Possible Locations of Contract with Respect to Unit Cost Function and Standardized Contract
Table 3-3 Value of Time A speed limit of 65 mph was assumed for normal operating condition, while a speed of 45 mph associated with the different classification of vehicles are shown in Table 3-3. was assumed when the work zone is in place. All the project sections have two lanes in each direction
Table 3-3 Value of Time A speed limit of 65 mph was assumed for normal operating condition, while a speed of 45 mph associated with the different classification of vehicles are shown in Table 3-3. was assumed when the work zone is in place. All the project sections have two lanes in each direction
Table 3-4 Temporal Scope of Effectiveness Evaluation 3.4.2 Performance Indicators for Assessment of Effectiveness
Table 3-4 Temporal Scope of Effectiveness Evaluation 3.4.2 Performance Indicators for Assessment of Effectiveness
Table 3-5 Distress Indicators The average IRI values at each year were determined from historical records for each project.
Table 3-5 Distress Indicators The average IRI values at each year were determined from historical records for each project.
Figure 3-5 Conceptual Area bounded by the IRI vs. Age Curve for Medium-Term Evaluation Effectiveness was also measured in terms of Pavement Quality Index (PQI). PQI is a function of The threshold value of IRI indicated in the figure is the maximum IRI value as specified by INDOT’s
Figure 3-5 Conceptual Area bounded by the IRI vs. Age Curve for Medium-Term Evaluation Effectiveness was also measured in terms of Pavement Quality Index (PQI). PQI is a function of The threshold value of IRI indicated in the figure is the maximum IRI value as specified by INDOT’s
in 90 to 80 range are good and pavements below 70 are considered to be in poor condition [INDOT Figure 3-6 Conceptual Area under the PQI vs. Age Curve for Medium-Term Evaluation where EUAC = Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost during the warranty period.
in 90 to 80 range are good and pavements below 70 are considered to be in poor condition [INDOT Figure 3-6 Conceptual Area under the PQI vs. Age Curve for Medium-Term Evaluation where EUAC = Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost during the warranty period.
Figure 3-8 Alternative Models for Traditional Pavement Performance Trends
Figure 3-8 Alternative Models for Traditional Pavement Performance Trends
Figure 3-7 Alternative Models for Warranty Pavement Performance Trends
Figure 3-7 Alternative Models for Warranty Pavement Performance Trends
Figure 3-9 Estimated Service Lives of Warranted and Traditional Pavements Based on performance trends developed from observed data, the treatment service life of the all - - re ne varranty project was established at 25 years. For the traditional project, the projected treatment service ife was found as 15 years, which seems to be consistent with the established performance period of the ehabilitation treatments based on the design life of HMA overlay [INDOT, 1998]. The above yerformance trends were established on the assumption that the performance trend of the warranty yavements beyond the warranty period (when the contractor is not responsible for the pavement) will be Onsistent with the nattern exhibited diurine the warranty neriod.
Figure 3-9 Estimated Service Lives of Warranted and Traditional Pavements Based on performance trends developed from observed data, the treatment service life of the all - - re ne varranty project was established at 25 years. For the traditional project, the projected treatment service ife was found as 15 years, which seems to be consistent with the established performance period of the ehabilitation treatments based on the design life of HMA overlay [INDOT, 1998]. The above yerformance trends were established on the assumption that the performance trend of the warranty yavements beyond the warranty period (when the contractor is not responsible for the pavement) will be Onsistent with the nattern exhibited diurine the warranty neriod.
Figure 3-10 Critical Region for t-test for Non-decreasing Distresses (such as IRI and Rutting) the means of IRI or rutting of warranty and traditional projects.
Figure 3-10 Critical Region for t-test for Non-decreasing Distresses (such as IRI and Rutting) the means of IRI or rutting of warranty and traditional projects.
Figure 3-11 Critical Region for t test for Non-Increasing Distresses (such as PSI and PCR)
Figure 3-11 Critical Region for t test for Non-Increasing Distresses (such as PSI and PCR)
Table 4-1 Data Types and Sources for Warranty and Control Projects The study methodology outlined for the evaluation process is based on a comparative analysis of
Table 4-1 Data Types and Sources for Warranty and Control Projects The study methodology outlined for the evaluation process is based on a comparative analysis of
Table 4-2 Description of Warranty Contracts
Table 4-2 Description of Warranty Contracts
Table 4-3: Cost of Warranty Projects (Current Dollar for Y ear of letting,
Table 4-3: Cost of Warranty Projects (Current Dollar for Y ear of letting,
Table 4-4: Comparison Sets of Warranty and Traditional Projects 4.4 Data Items C ollected for Each C ontacting Type effectiveness evaluation. Details on the control projects are given in Chapter 5. A comparative analysis was carried out for of each warranty project on one-to-one basis with a previously identified similar traditional (non-warranty) project. Similarity was determined on the basis of FHWA classification, thickness of the new layer, type of work, design traffic (ESALs) and other features. The data for the control projects was acquired from INDOT’s PMS database, INDIPAVE 2000 and INDOT’s Contracts and Construction Division. Table 4-4 shows the comparison sets considered for cost- effectiveness evaluation. Details on the control projects are given in Chapter 5.
Table 4-4: Comparison Sets of Warranty and Traditional Projects 4.4 Data Items C ollected for Each C ontacting Type effectiveness evaluation. Details on the control projects are given in Chapter 5. A comparative analysis was carried out for of each warranty project on one-to-one basis with a previously identified similar traditional (non-warranty) project. Similarity was determined on the basis of FHWA classification, thickness of the new layer, type of work, design traffic (ESALs) and other features. The data for the control projects was acquired from INDOT’s PMS database, INDIPAVE 2000 and INDOT’s Contracts and Construction Division. Table 4-4 shows the comparison sets considered for cost- effectiveness evaluation. Details on the control projects are given in Chapter 5.
Table 5-1 Characteristics of Projects Constituting Comparison Set 1 5.2.2 Medium-term Performance Analysis for Comparison Set 1 Some similarities in the major characteristics of the warranty and control projects are shown in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1 Characteristics of Projects Constituting Comparison Set 1 5.2.2 Medium-term Performance Analysis for Comparison Set 1 Some similarities in the major characteristics of the warranty and control projects are shown in Table 5-1.
lower initial IRI values compared to the traditional pavement. The daily traffic volume and the percentage of trucks directly influence the deterioration of the 1vermnent. The relative performance of the warranty and traditional pavements were also evaluated based on considerably better than the control pavement. Exponential trend lines were fitted and extrapolated to yield m the basis of surface roughness, the warranty asphalt pavements in Comparison Set 1 performed warranty period ended after the pavement reached an age of 5 years. Table 5-2 and Figure 5-1 suggest that threshold value of the warranty pavement for the entire warranty period is 133 in/mi [INDOT, 2002]. The
lower initial IRI values compared to the traditional pavement. The daily traffic volume and the percentage of trucks directly influence the deterioration of the 1vermnent. The relative performance of the warranty and traditional pavements were also evaluated based on considerably better than the control pavement. Exponential trend lines were fitted and extrapolated to yield m the basis of surface roughness, the warranty asphalt pavements in Comparison Set 1 performed warranty period ended after the pavement reached an age of 5 years. Table 5-2 and Figure 5-1 suggest that threshold value of the warranty pavement for the entire warranty period is 133 in/mi [INDOT, 2002]. The
Table 5-3 Results of t-test for IRI, Comparison Set 1
Table 5-3 Results of t-test for IRI, Comparison Set 1
Figure 5-2 Comparison of Load-based Deterioration (IRI) curves, Comparison Set | Trucks and 0.6 for Single Unit Trucks [Gulen et al., 2000].
Figure 5-2 Comparison of Load-based Deterioration (IRI) curves, Comparison Set | Trucks and 0.6 for Single Unit Trucks [Gulen et al., 2000].
Table 5-4 Annual Pavement Condition (PSI), Comparison Set 1 pavement. Figure 5-3 shows pavement present serviceability trends of the warranty and control projects.
Table 5-4 Annual Pavement Condition (PSI), Comparison Set 1 pavement. Figure 5-3 shows pavement present serviceability trends of the warranty and control projects.
Table 5-5 Results of t-test for PSI, Comparison Set 1
Table 5-5 Results of t-test for PSI, Comparison Set 1
clearly evident: the warranty pavement exhibits better performance.
clearly evident: the warranty pavement exhibits better performance.
Table 5-6 Rut Depth of Constituent Pavements, Comparison Set 1
Table 5-6 Rut Depth of Constituent Pavements, Comparison Set 1
Table 5-7 Results of t-test for Rutting Depth for Comparison Set 1
Table 5-7 Results of t-test for Rutting Depth for Comparison Set 1
Figure 5-5 Rutting Trends for Warranty and Control Pavements, Comparison Set 1
Figure 5-5 Rutting Trends for Warranty and Control Pavements, Comparison Set 1
Figure 5-6 Comparison of Load-based Deterioration (Rut) Curves, Comparison Set |
Figure 5-6 Comparison of Load-based Deterioration (Rut) Curves, Comparison Set |
Figure 5-7 PCR Trends of Warranty and Control Pavements, Comparison Set 1 the warranty and control projects.
Figure 5-7 PCR Trends of Warranty and Control Pavements, Comparison Set 1 the warranty and control projects.
Table 5-9 Results of t-test for PCR, Comparison Set 1
Table 5-9 Results of t-test for PCR, Comparison Set 1
Figure 5-8 Comparison of Load-based Deterioration (PCR) Curves, Comparison Set 1
Figure 5-8 Comparison of Load-based Deterioration (PCR) Curves, Comparison Set 1
Table 5-10 Medium-Term Agency Costs, Comparison Set 1 Table 5-10 shows that the agency cost of the warranty project is higher than that of the dollar. Temporal cost adjustments were done on the basis of construction price indices [FHWA, 2001].
Table 5-10 Medium-Term Agency Costs, Comparison Set 1 Table 5-10 shows that the agency cost of the warranty project is higher than that of the dollar. Temporal cost adjustments were done on the basis of construction price indices [FHWA, 2001].
Table 5-11 Medium-Term User Costs, Comparison Set 1 Cost-effectiveness evaluation was carried out using performance measures as discussed below. Figures -9 and 5-10 present IRI-Age curves for the warranty and control pavements in Comparison Set 1,
Table 5-11 Medium-Term User Costs, Comparison Set 1 Cost-effectiveness evaluation was carried out using performance measures as discussed below. Figures -9 and 5-10 present IRI-Age curves for the warranty and control pavements in Comparison Set 1,
Figure 5-9 Area Bounded by IRI-Age Curve of Warranty Pavement, Comparison Set
Figure 5-9 Area Bounded by IRI-Age Curve of Warranty Pavement, Comparison Set
Figure 5-10 Area Bounded by IRI-Age Curve of Control Pavement, Comparison Set 1
Figure 5-10 Area Bounded by IRI-Age Curve of Control Pavement, Comparison Set 1
Figure 5-11 Area Bounded by IRI-ESAL Curve of Warranty Pavement, Comparison Set 1
Figure 5-11 Area Bounded by IRI-ESAL Curve of Warranty Pavement, Comparison Set 1
Figure 5-12 Area Bounded by IRI-ESAL Curve of Control Pavement, Comparison Set 1
Figure 5-12 Area Bounded by IRI-ESAL Curve of Control Pavement, Comparison Set 1
Figure 5-13 Area Bounded by PQI-Age Curve of Warranty Pavement in Comparison Set 1
Figure 5-13 Area Bounded by PQI-Age Curve of Warranty Pavement in Comparison Set 1
The PQI-ESAL trends are shown in Figures 5-15 and 5-16. The effectiveness was represented by the
The PQI-ESAL trends are shown in Figures 5-15 and 5-16. The effectiveness was represented by the
Figure 5-15 Area Bounded by PQI-ESAL Curve of Warranty Pavement, Comparison Set 1
Figure 5-15 Area Bounded by PQI-ESAL Curve of Warranty Pavement, Comparison Set 1
Figure 5-16 Area Bounded by PQI-ESAL Curve of Control Pavement, Comparison Set 1
Figure 5-16 Area Bounded by PQI-ESAL Curve of Control Pavement, Comparison Set 1
Table 5-12 Medium Term Cost-effectiveness Evaluation, Comparison Set | Table 5-12 shows that the control project is more cost-effective than the warranty project. All four measures of cost-effectiveness gave consistent results. The difference in the cost-effectiveness of the
Table 5-12 Medium Term Cost-effectiveness Evaluation, Comparison Set | Table 5-12 shows that the control project is more cost-effective than the warranty project. All four measures of cost-effectiveness gave consistent results. The difference in the cost-effectiveness of the
Figure 5-17 Medium-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Time, Comparison Set 1
Figure 5-17 Medium-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Time, Comparison Set 1
Figure 5-18 Medium-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Loading, Comparison Set 1
Figure 5-18 Medium-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Loading, Comparison Set 1
Table 5-13 Long-Term Agency Costs (Y2000$) for Comparison Set 1 The total agency cost of the warranty project exceeds that of the control project. The long-term user
Table 5-13 Long-Term Agency Costs (Y2000$) for Comparison Set 1 The total agency cost of the warranty project exceeds that of the control project. The long-term user
Table 5-14 Long-Term User Costs (Y2000$) for Comparison Set 1 Table 5-14 shows the user costs over the projected treatment lives. The overall cost-effectiveness of
Table 5-14 Long-Term User Costs (Y2000$) for Comparison Set 1 Table 5-14 shows the user costs over the projected treatment lives. The overall cost-effectiveness of
Table 5-15 Long-Term Cost-effectiveness of Constituent Pavements, Comparison Set |
Table 5-15 Long-Term Cost-effectiveness of Constituent Pavements, Comparison Set |
Figure 5-19 Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Treatment Life Only, Comparison Set 1 long-term and medium-term evaluations.
Figure 5-19 Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Treatment Life Only, Comparison Set 1 long-term and medium-term evaluations.
Figure 5-20 Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Time, Comparison Set 1
Figure 5-20 Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Time, Comparison Set 1
Table 5-16 Characteristics of Projects Constituting Comparison Set 2
Table 5-16 Characteristics of Projects Constituting Comparison Set 2
Table 5-17 IRI of Constituent Pavements, Comparison Set 2 The IRI values for the warranty project pavement were relatively low throughout the entire warranty INDOT, as shown in Table 5-17.
Table 5-17 IRI of Constituent Pavements, Comparison Set 2 The IRI values for the warranty project pavement were relatively low throughout the entire warranty INDOT, as shown in Table 5-17.
in/mi at Age | to 82 in/mi at Age 5. Figure 5-21 shows the trend of IRI with age for both pavements. period, ranging from 32 in/mi to 42 in/mi, while that for the control project were higher — varying from 52
in/mi at Age | to 82 in/mi at Age 5. Figure 5-21 shows the trend of IRI with age for both pavements. period, ranging from 32 in/mi to 42 in/mi, while that for the control project were higher — varying from 52
Table 5-18 Results of t-test for IRI, Comparison Set 2
Table 5-18 Results of t-test for IRI, Comparison Set 2
higher volume of trucks, it exhibited a performance that is superior to that of the control pavement.
higher volume of trucks, it exhibited a performance that is superior to that of the control pavement.
first five years after construction, while Figure 5-23 shows the plot of IRI versus pavement age. The time-based trends show that the warranty project indicated PSI values that are higher than those of Table 5-19 shows the average PSI values of the Comparison Set 1 warranty and the control projects for the
first five years after construction, while Figure 5-23 shows the plot of IRI versus pavement age. The time-based trends show that the warranty project indicated PSI values that are higher than those of Table 5-19 shows the average PSI values of the Comparison Set 1 warranty and the control projects for the
Table 5-20 Results of t-test for PSI of Comparison Set 2
Table 5-20 Results of t-test for PSI of Comparison Set 2
Figure 5-24 Comparison of Load-based Deterioration (PSI) Curves, Comparison Set 2
Figure 5-24 Comparison of Load-based Deterioration (PSI) Curves, Comparison Set 2
Table 5-21 Rut Depth of Constituent Pavements, Comparison Set 2
Table 5-21 Rut Depth of Constituent Pavements, Comparison Set 2
Table 5-22 Results of t-test for Rutting depth, Comparison Set 2 Table 5-22 shows the t-test results for rut depth, performed at level of significance 0.10. (An earlier test
Table 5-22 Results of t-test for Rutting depth, Comparison Set 2 Table 5-22 shows the t-test results for rut depth, performed at level of significance 0.10. (An earlier test
Figure 5-26 Comparison of Load-based Deterioration (Rut) Curves, Comparison Set 2
Figure 5-26 Comparison of Load-based Deterioration (Rut) Curves, Comparison Set 2
Table 5-23 PCR of Constituent Pavements, Comparison Set 2
Table 5-23 PCR of Constituent Pavements, Comparison Set 2
5-23 and the graphical representation is shown in Figure 5-27. The increase in the PCR value of the warranty pavement at Age 3 may have been due to measurement errors. The warranty pavement showed excellent condition with high PCR values throughout the warranty period. The control project demonstrated considerable deterioration as shown by the decreasing values of
5-23 and the graphical representation is shown in Figure 5-27. The increase in the PCR value of the warranty pavement at Age 3 may have been due to measurement errors. The warranty pavement showed excellent condition with high PCR values throughout the warranty period. The control project demonstrated considerable deterioration as shown by the decreasing values of
Table 5-24 Results of t-test for PCR, Comparison Set 2 Table 5-24 shows the t-test results of PCR at 5% significance level. The results show that the calculatec t statistic 3.9615 is greater than the critical t value of 2.1318. Thus there is enough evidence to reject the null
Table 5-24 Results of t-test for PCR, Comparison Set 2 Table 5-24 shows the t-test results of PCR at 5% significance level. The results show that the calculatec t statistic 3.9615 is greater than the critical t value of 2.1318. Thus there is enough evidence to reject the null
Figure 5-28 Comparison of Load-based Deterioration (PCR), Comparison Set 2
Figure 5-28 Comparison of Load-based Deterioration (PCR), Comparison Set 2
Table 5-25 Medium-Term Agency Costs, Comparison Set 2 As indicated in Table 5-25, the cost of the warranty project is much higher than the control project. To
Table 5-25 Medium-Term Agency Costs, Comparison Set 2 As indicated in Table 5-25, the cost of the warranty project is much higher than the control project. To
Table 5-26 Medium-Term User Costs, Comparison Set 2 Based on these formulations, the IRI values of the warranty and the control projects were plotted Total user cost per day per lane-mile
Table 5-26 Medium-Term User Costs, Comparison Set 2 Based on these formulations, the IRI values of the warranty and the control projects were plotted Total user cost per day per lane-mile
areas bounded by the fitted curves were estimated (Figures 5-29 and 5-30). against pavement age, appropriate mathematical equations were used to represent the data trends, and the
areas bounded by the fitted curves were estimated (Figures 5-29 and 5-30). against pavement age, appropriate mathematical equations were used to represent the data trends, and the
Figure 5-30 Area bounded by IRI-Age curves of Control Pavement, Comparison Set 2
Figure 5-30 Area bounded by IRI-Age curves of Control Pavement, Comparison Set 2
Figure 5-31 Area bounded by IRI-ESAL curve of Warranty Pavement, Comparison Set 2 best fit the warranty pavement trend while an exponential form seem best for the control pavement.
Figure 5-31 Area bounded by IRI-ESAL curve of Warranty Pavement, Comparison Set 2 best fit the warranty pavement trend while an exponential form seem best for the control pavement.
Figure 5-32 Area bounded by IRI-ESAL curve of Control Pavement, Comparison Set 2
Figure 5-32 Area bounded by IRI-ESAL curve of Control Pavement, Comparison Set 2
Figure 5-33 Area bounded by PQI-Age curve of Warranty Pavement, Comparison Set 2 integrated over the age of the pavements to determine the treatment effectiveness.
Figure 5-33 Area bounded by PQI-Age curve of Warranty Pavement, Comparison Set 2 integrated over the age of the pavements to determine the treatment effectiveness.
Figure 5-35 Area bounded by PQI-ESAL curve of Warranty Pavement, Comparison Set 2 two pavement categories. Exponential trend lines were fitted determine the area bounded by the curves The PQI trends with respect to the cumulative ESALs are shown in Figures 5-35 and 5-36, for the
Figure 5-35 Area bounded by PQI-ESAL curve of Warranty Pavement, Comparison Set 2 two pavement categories. Exponential trend lines were fitted determine the area bounded by the curves The PQI trends with respect to the cumulative ESALs are shown in Figures 5-35 and 5-36, for the
Table 5-27 Medium Term Cost-effectiveness Evaluation, Comparison Set 2 The results indicated a higher cost-effectiveness of the control project relative to the warranty project
Table 5-27 Medium Term Cost-effectiveness Evaluation, Comparison Set 2 The results indicated a higher cost-effectiveness of the control project relative to the warranty project
Figure 5-36 Area bounded by PQI-ESAL curve of Control Pavement, Comparison Set 2
Figure 5-36 Area bounded by PQI-ESAL curve of Control Pavement, Comparison Set 2
Figure 5-37 Medium-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Time, Comparison Set 2
Figure 5-37 Medium-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Time, Comparison Set 2
Figure 5-38 Medium-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Load, Comparison Set 2
Figure 5-38 Medium-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Load, Comparison Set 2
* Applicable only to warranty pavements after expiration of the warranty period. Table 5-28 Long-Term Agency Costs, Comparison Set 2 Table 5-29 Long-Term User Costs, Comparison Set 2
* Applicable only to warranty pavements after expiration of the warranty period. Table 5-28 Long-Term Agency Costs, Comparison Set 2 Table 5-29 Long-Term User Costs, Comparison Set 2
Table 5-30 indicates the overall cost-effectiveness of the warranty and control projects based on agency
Table 5-30 indicates the overall cost-effectiveness of the warranty and control projects based on agency
Figure 5-40 Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Time, Comparison Set 2 Figure 5-39 Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Treatment Life Only, Comparison Set 2
Figure 5-40 Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Time, Comparison Set 2 Figure 5-39 Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Treatment Life Only, Comparison Set 2
Table 5-31 Characteristics of Projects Constituting Comparison Set 3 watranty project and the control project are summarized below in Table 5-31.
Table 5-31 Characteristics of Projects Constituting Comparison Set 3 watranty project and the control project are summarized below in Table 5-31.
Table 5-32 IRI of Constituent Pavements, Comparison Set 3 The warranty pavement had lower IRI throughout the warranty period; however the difference
Table 5-32 IRI of Constituent Pavements, Comparison Set 3 The warranty pavement had lower IRI throughout the warranty period; however the difference
Figure 5-41 IRI Trends of Warranty and Control Pavements, Comparison Set 3 -2.1318. Hence the null hypothesis is rejected implying that the warranty project had lower IRI value.
Figure 5-41 IRI Trends of Warranty and Control Pavements, Comparison Set 3 -2.1318. Hence the null hypothesis is rejected implying that the warranty project had lower IRI value.
Figure 5-42 Comparison of Load-based Deterioration (IRI) Curves, Comparison Set 3 Table 5.33 Results of t-test for IRI, Comparison Set 3
Figure 5-42 Comparison of Load-based Deterioration (IRI) Curves, Comparison Set 3 Table 5.33 Results of t-test for IRI, Comparison Set 3
Figure 5-43 PSI Trends of Warranty and Control Pavements, Comparison Set 3
Figure 5-43 PSI Trends of Warranty and Control Pavements, Comparison Set 3
Figure 5-44 Comparison of Load-based Deterioration (PSI), Comparison Set 3
Figure 5-44 Comparison of Load-based Deterioration (PSI), Comparison Set 3
Table 5-35 Results of t-test for PSI, Comparison Set 3
Table 5-35 Results of t-test for PSI, Comparison Set 3
Table 5-36 Rut Depth of Constituent Pavements in Comparison Set 3
Table 5-36 Rut Depth of Constituent Pavements in Comparison Set 3
Figure 5-45 Rutting Trends of Warranty and Control Pavements, Comparison Set 3
Figure 5-45 Rutting Trends of Warranty and Control Pavements, Comparison Set 3
Figure 5-46 Comparison of Load-based Deterioration (Rut) Curves, Comparison Set 3
Figure 5-46 Comparison of Load-based Deterioration (Rut) Curves, Comparison Set 3
Table 5-37 Results of t-test for Rutting depth of Comparison 3
Table 5-37 Results of t-test for Rutting depth of Comparison 3
Table 5-38 PCR of Constituent Pavements, Comparison Set 3
Table 5-38 PCR of Constituent Pavements, Comparison Set 3
Table 5-39 Results of t-test for PCR, Comparison Set 3
Table 5-39 Results of t-test for PCR, Comparison Set 3
Figure 5-47 PCR Trends of Warranty and Control Pavements, Comparison Set 3
Figure 5-47 PCR Trends of Warranty and Control Pavements, Comparison Set 3
Figure 5-48 Comparison of Load-based Deterioration (PCR) Curves, Comparison Set 3
Figure 5-48 Comparison of Load-based Deterioration (PCR) Curves, Comparison Set 3
Table 5-40 Medium-Term Agency Costs, Comparison Set 3 Table 5-40 summarizes the various agency costs for the warranty and the control project, and finally addressing all pavement defects within that period.
Table 5-40 Medium-Term Agency Costs, Comparison Set 3 Table 5-40 summarizes the various agency costs for the warranty and the control project, and finally addressing all pavement defects within that period.
Table 5-41 Medium-Term User Costs, Comparison Set 3 The IRI values were plotted against pavement age and the areas bounded by the fitted exponentia The warranty project has a smaller work-zone duration resulting in lower user costs. Table 5-41 shows the user costs in Year 2000 constant dollar for the warranty and control pavements.
Table 5-41 Medium-Term User Costs, Comparison Set 3 The IRI values were plotted against pavement age and the areas bounded by the fitted exponentia The warranty project has a smaller work-zone duration resulting in lower user costs. Table 5-41 shows the user costs in Year 2000 constant dollar for the warranty and control pavements.
Figure 5-49 Area bounded by IRI-Age curves of Warranty Pavement, Comparison Set 3
Figure 5-49 Area bounded by IRI-Age curves of Warranty Pavement, Comparison Set 3
Figure 5-50 Area bounded by IRI-Age curves of Control Pavement, Comparison Set 3
Figure 5-50 Area bounded by IRI-Age curves of Control Pavement, Comparison Set 3
Figure 5-51 Area bounded by IRI-ESAL curve of Warranty Pavement, Comparison Set 3
Figure 5-51 Area bounded by IRI-ESAL curve of Warranty Pavement, Comparison Set 3
Figure 5-52 Area bounded by IRI-ESAL curve of Control Pavement, Comparison Set :
Figure 5-52 Area bounded by IRI-ESAL curve of Control Pavement, Comparison Set :
Figure 5-53 Area Bounded by PQI-Age curve of Warranty Pavement, Comparison Set 3 5-54 show the PQI values with respect to the age of the pavements. Exponential models were fitted for both
Figure 5-53 Area Bounded by PQI-Age curve of Warranty Pavement, Comparison Set 3 5-54 show the PQI values with respect to the age of the pavements. Exponential models were fitted for both
Figure 5-54Area Bounded by PQI-Age curve of Control Pavement, Comparison Set 3
Figure 5-54Area Bounded by PQI-Age curve of Control Pavement, Comparison Set 3
Figure 5-55 Area Bounded by PQI-ESAL curve of Warranty Pavement, Comparison Set 3 lines were drawn to determine the area bounded by the curves.
Figure 5-55 Area Bounded by PQI-ESAL curve of Warranty Pavement, Comparison Set 3 lines were drawn to determine the area bounded by the curves.
Table 5-42 Medium Term Cost-effectiveness Evaluation, Comparison Set 3 It is seen that even though the warranty pavement exhibited superior condition throughout the warranty period, the control project is more cost-effective than the warranty project. This could be largely attributed
Table 5-42 Medium Term Cost-effectiveness Evaluation, Comparison Set 3 It is seen that even though the warranty pavement exhibited superior condition throughout the warranty period, the control project is more cost-effective than the warranty project. This could be largely attributed
Figure 5-57 Medium-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Time, Comparison Set 3
Figure 5-57 Medium-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Time, Comparison Set 3
* Applicable only to warranty pavements after expiration of the warranty period. Table 5-43 Long-Term Agency Costs, Comparison Set 3
* Applicable only to warranty pavements after expiration of the warranty period. Table 5-43 Long-Term Agency Costs, Comparison Set 3
Figure 5-58 Medium-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Load, Comparison Set 3
Figure 5-58 Medium-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Load, Comparison Set 3
Table 5-44 Long-Term User Costs, Comparison Set 3 The overall cost-effectiveness of the pavements were then determined The effectiveness in terms of
Table 5-44 Long-Term User Costs, Comparison Set 3 The overall cost-effectiveness of the pavements were then determined The effectiveness in terms of
Figure 5-59 Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Treatment Life Only, Comparison Set 3 Table 5-45 Long Term Cost-effectiveness Evaluation, Comparison Set 3
Figure 5-59 Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Treatment Life Only, Comparison Set 3 Table 5-45 Long Term Cost-effectiveness Evaluation, Comparison Set 3
Figure 5-60 Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Time, Comparison Set 3
Figure 5-60 Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Time, Comparison Set 3
Table 5-46 Characteristics of Projects Constituting Comparison Set 4 5.0.2 Medium-term Performance Analysis for Comparison Set 4 for a length of 11.01 miles had similar treatment (work activity), and functional class (Table 5-46)
Table 5-46 Characteristics of Projects Constituting Comparison Set 4 5.0.2 Medium-term Performance Analysis for Comparison Set 4 for a length of 11.01 miles had similar treatment (work activity), and functional class (Table 5-46)
Table 5-47 IRI of Constituent Pavements, Comparison Set 4
Table 5-47 IRI of Constituent Pavements, Comparison Set 4
Figure 5-62 shows the deterioration of the pavements with respect to the accumulate traffic loading on the pavements. The figure shows that the difference in the pavement condition of the warranty and contro! project appeared to be more perceptible in the first three years of the pavement life.
Figure 5-62 shows the deterioration of the pavements with respect to the accumulate traffic loading on the pavements. The figure shows that the difference in the pavement condition of the warranty and contro! project appeared to be more perceptible in the first three years of the pavement life.
Table 5-48 Results of t-test for IRI of Comparison Set 4 Table 5-48 shows the results of the one-tailed t-test at 5% significance level. As seen from the table, the
Table 5-48 Results of t-test for IRI of Comparison Set 4 Table 5-48 shows the results of the one-tailed t-test at 5% significance level. As seen from the table, the
Table 5-49 PSI of Constituent Pavements in Comparison Set 4
Table 5-49 PSI of Constituent Pavements in Comparison Set 4
Figure 5-63 PSI Trends of Warranty and Control Pavements in Comparison Set 4 control project, as the t statistic was greater than the critical value.
Figure 5-63 PSI Trends of Warranty and Control Pavements in Comparison Set 4 control project, as the t statistic was greater than the critical value.
Table 5-50 Results of t-test for PSI of Comparison Set 4
Table 5-50 Results of t-test for PSI of Comparison Set 4
Table 5-51 Rut Depth of Constituent Pavements, Comparison Set 4
Table 5-51 Rut Depth of Constituent Pavements, Comparison Set 4
The rut depths of the warranty and control pavements were also analyzed with respect to the volume of
The rut depths of the warranty and control pavements were also analyzed with respect to the volume of
Figure 5-66 Load-based Rutting Trends of Warranty and Control Pavements, Comparison Set 4 respect to the percentage of trucks carried by the pavements over the period. The results of the t-test are shown in Table 5-52. The calculated t statistic was lower than its critical
Figure 5-66 Load-based Rutting Trends of Warranty and Control Pavements, Comparison Set 4 respect to the percentage of trucks carried by the pavements over the period. The results of the t-test are shown in Table 5-52. The calculated t statistic was lower than its critical
Table 5-52 Results of t-test for Rutting depth, Comparison 4
Table 5-52 Results of t-test for Rutting depth, Comparison 4
Table 5-53 PCR of Constituent Pavements, Comparison Set 4 Figure 5-67 suggests that the warranty project had superior pavement condition compared to the control error and was not included in the graph.
Table 5-53 PCR of Constituent Pavements, Comparison Set 4 Figure 5-67 suggests that the warranty project had superior pavement condition compared to the control error and was not included in the graph.
Figure 5-67 PCR Trends of Warranty and Control Pavements, Comparison Set 4
Figure 5-67 PCR Trends of Warranty and Control Pavements, Comparison Set 4
Table 5-54 Results of t-test for PCR of Constituent Pavements, Comparison Set 4
Table 5-54 Results of t-test for PCR of Constituent Pavements, Comparison Set 4
Table 5-55 Medium-Term Agency Costs, Comparison Set 4 To determine the user costs, the same AADT and the percentage trucks were used for both warranty anc control projects. The various user cost components for the warranty and control pavements are hereir presented.
Table 5-55 Medium-Term Agency Costs, Comparison Set 4 To determine the user costs, the same AADT and the percentage trucks were used for both warranty anc control projects. The various user cost components for the warranty and control pavements are hereir presented.
Figure 5-69 Area bounded by IRI-Age Curve of Warranty Pavement, Comparison Set 4
Figure 5-69 Area bounded by IRI-Age Curve of Warranty Pavement, Comparison Set 4
Figure 5-71 Area bounded by IRI-ESAL Curve of Warranty Pavement, Comparison Set 4 treatments.
Figure 5-71 Area bounded by IRI-ESAL Curve of Warranty Pavement, Comparison Set 4 treatments.
Figure 5-72 Area bounded by IRI-ESAL Curve of Control Pavement, Comparison Set 4
Figure 5-72 Area bounded by IRI-ESAL Curve of Control Pavement, Comparison Set 4
Figure 5-73 Area Bounded by PQI-Age Curve of Warranty Pavement, Comparison Set 4
Figure 5-73 Area Bounded by PQI-Age Curve of Warranty Pavement, Comparison Set 4
Figure 5-74 Area Bounded by PQI-Age Curve of Control Pavement, Comparison Set 4
Figure 5-74 Area Bounded by PQI-Age Curve of Control Pavement, Comparison Set 4
Figure 5-75 Area Bounded by PQI-ESAL Curve of Warranty Pavement, Comparison Set 4
Figure 5-75 Area Bounded by PQI-ESAL Curve of Warranty Pavement, Comparison Set 4
Figure 5-76 Area Bounded by PQI-ESAL Curve of Control Pavement, Comparison Set 4 The results of the overall analysis are shown in Table 5-57. The values for cost-effectiveness of the
Figure 5-76 Area Bounded by PQI-ESAL Curve of Control Pavement, Comparison Set 4 The results of the overall analysis are shown in Table 5-57. The values for cost-effectiveness of the
Table 5-57 Medium Term Cost-effectiveness Evaluation, Comparison Set 4 Figure 5-77 Medium-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Time, Comparison Set 4
Table 5-57 Medium Term Cost-effectiveness Evaluation, Comparison Set 4 Figure 5-77 Medium-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Time, Comparison Set 4
Figure 5-78 Medium-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Load , Comparison Set 4
Figure 5-78 Medium-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Load , Comparison Set 4
* Applicable only to warranty pavements after expiration of the warranty period. Table 5-58 Long-Term Agency Costs, Comparison Set 4
* Applicable only to warranty pavements after expiration of the warranty period. Table 5-58 Long-Term Agency Costs, Comparison Set 4
Table 5-59 Long-Term User Costs, Comparison Set 4
Table 5-59 Long-Term User Costs, Comparison Set 4
Table 5-60 Long Term Cost-effectiveness Evaluation, Comparison Set 4
Table 5-60 Long Term Cost-effectiveness Evaluation, Comparison Set 4
Figure 5-80 Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Time, Comparison Set 4
Figure 5-80 Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Time, Comparison Set 4
Figure 5-79 Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Treatment Life Only, Comparison Set 4
Figure 5-79 Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Treatment Life Only, Comparison Set 4
Table 5-61 Characteristics of Projects Constituting Comparison Set 5 analysis.
Table 5-61 Characteristics of Projects Constituting Comparison Set 5 analysis.
Figure 5-81 IRI Trends of Warranty and Control Pavements, Comparison Set 5 the entire contract segments. Data for only 3 years was available for analysis.
Figure 5-81 IRI Trends of Warranty and Control Pavements, Comparison Set 5 the entire contract segments. Data for only 3 years was available for analysis.
Table 5-63 Results of t-test for IRI, Comparison Set 5 Table 5-63 shows the results of the one-tailed t-test for mean IRI values. The t statistic -4.1976 was less than the negative critical value of 2.9200, clearly indicating the null hypothesis can be rejected. Thus, we
Table 5-63 Results of t-test for IRI, Comparison Set 5 Table 5-63 shows the results of the one-tailed t-test for mean IRI values. The t statistic -4.1976 was less than the negative critical value of 2.9200, clearly indicating the null hypothesis can be rejected. Thus, we
Figure 5-82 Comparison of Load-based Deterioration (IRI) curves, Comparison Set 5
Figure 5-82 Comparison of Load-based Deterioration (IRI) curves, Comparison Set 5
Figure 5-83 PSI Trends of Warranty and Control Pavements, Comparison Set 5
Figure 5-83 PSI Trends of Warranty and Control Pavements, Comparison Set 5
Figure 5-84 Comparison of Load-based Deterioration (PSI) curves, Comparison Set 5 cumulative ESALs, established by the declining trend lines.
Figure 5-84 Comparison of Load-based Deterioration (PSI) curves, Comparison Set 5 cumulative ESALs, established by the declining trend lines.
Table 5-65 Results of t-test for PSI, Comparison Set 5 Comparison of Performance on basis of Rutting
Table 5-65 Results of t-test for PSI, Comparison Set 5 Comparison of Performance on basis of Rutting
Table 5-66 Rut Depth of Constituent Pavements in Comparison Set 5
Table 5-66 Rut Depth of Constituent Pavements in Comparison Set 5
‘igure 5-85 shows the comparison of the rutting depths of the warranty and control projects. The
‘igure 5-85 shows the comparison of the rutting depths of the warranty and control projects. The
project shows a decrease which may be due to measurement errors. The results of the one-tailed t-test for rut depths are shown in Table 5-67 where the t statistic is lower
project shows a decrease which may be due to measurement errors. The results of the one-tailed t-test for rut depths are shown in Table 5-67 where the t statistic is lower
Table 5-67 Results of t-test for Rutting depth, Comparison 5
Table 5-67 Results of t-test for Rutting depth, Comparison 5
Table 5-68 PCR of Constituent Pavements, Comparison Set 5 Figure 5-87 and 5-88 show evidence of the warranty project yielding a higher quality pavement when compared to the performance of control project. Linear trend lines were fitted for both projects.
Table 5-68 PCR of Constituent Pavements, Comparison Set 5 Figure 5-87 and 5-88 show evidence of the warranty project yielding a higher quality pavement when compared to the performance of control project. Linear trend lines were fitted for both projects.
Figure 5-87 PCR Trends of Warranty and Control Pavements, Comparison Set 5
Figure 5-87 PCR Trends of Warranty and Control Pavements, Comparison Set 5
Figure 5-88 Comparison of Load-based Deterioration (PCR), Comparison Set 5 Table 5-69 indicates the results of the t-test for PCR values at 5% significance level. The t statistic 1
Figure 5-88 Comparison of Load-based Deterioration (PCR), Comparison Set 5 Table 5-69 indicates the results of the t-test for PCR values at 5% significance level. The t statistic 1
Table 5.69 Results of t-test for PCR of Constituent Pavements, Comparison Set 5 9.6.3 Evaluation of Cost-Effectiveness for Comparison Set 5
Table 5.69 Results of t-test for PCR of Constituent Pavements, Comparison Set 5 9.6.3 Evaluation of Cost-Effectiveness for Comparison Set 5
Table 5-70 Medium-Term Agency Costs, Comparison Set 5
Table 5-70 Medium-Term Agency Costs, Comparison Set 5
Table 5-71 Medium-Term User Costs, Comparison Set 5
Table 5-71 Medium-Term User Costs, Comparison Set 5
Figure 5-89 Area bounded by IRI-Age Curve of Warranty Pavement in Comparison Set 5 were fitted to determine the effectiveness (area enclosed by the curves).
Figure 5-89 Area bounded by IRI-Age Curve of Warranty Pavement in Comparison Set 5 were fitted to determine the effectiveness (area enclosed by the curves).
Figure 5-90 Area bounded by IRI-Age Curve of Control Pavement in Comparison Set 5
Figure 5-90 Area bounded by IRI-Age Curve of Control Pavement in Comparison Set 5
Figure 5-91 Area Bounded by IRI-ESAL Curve of Warranty Pavement in Comparison Set 5
Figure 5-91 Area Bounded by IRI-ESAL Curve of Warranty Pavement in Comparison Set 5
Figure 5-92 Area Bounded by IRI-ESAL Curve of Control Pavement in Comparison Set 5
Figure 5-92 Area Bounded by IRI-ESAL Curve of Control Pavement in Comparison Set 5
Figure 5-93 Area Bounded by PQI-Age Curve of Warranty Pavement in Comparison Set 5 the cumulative ESALs on the pavements as shown in Figures 5-95 and 5-96.
Figure 5-93 Area Bounded by PQI-Age Curve of Warranty Pavement in Comparison Set 5 the cumulative ESALs on the pavements as shown in Figures 5-95 and 5-96.
Figure 5-95 Area Bounded by PQI-ESAL Curve of Warranty Pavement in Comparison Set 5
Figure 5-95 Area Bounded by PQI-ESAL Curve of Warranty Pavement in Comparison Set 5
Figure 5-96 Area Bounded by PQI-ESAL Curve of Control Pavement in Comparison Set 5 After determining the effectiveness of the treatments, the overall cost-effectiveness was determined.
Figure 5-96 Area Bounded by PQI-ESAL Curve of Control Pavement in Comparison Set 5 After determining the effectiveness of the treatments, the overall cost-effectiveness was determined.
Table 5-72 Medium-Term Cost-effectiveness Evaluation, Comparison Set 5 Figures 5-97 and 5-98 show the comparison of cost-effectiveness of warranty and control projects
Table 5-72 Medium-Term Cost-effectiveness Evaluation, Comparison Set 5 Figures 5-97 and 5-98 show the comparison of cost-effectiveness of warranty and control projects
Figure 5-97 Medium-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Time, Comparison Set 5
Figure 5-97 Medium-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Time, Comparison Set 5
Figure 5-98 Medium-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Load, Comparison Set 5
Figure 5-98 Medium-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Load, Comparison Set 5
Table 5-74 Long-Term User Costs, Comparison Set 5 The agency and user cost of the warranty project were lower than that of the control project. After the agency and the user costs were computed, the overall cost-effectiveness of the pavements was determined. Table 5-75 indicates the overall cost-effectiveness of the warranty and control projects based on agency costs only, and then both agency and user costs. The agency and user cost of the warranty project were lower than that of the control project. After the
Table 5-74 Long-Term User Costs, Comparison Set 5 The agency and user cost of the warranty project were lower than that of the control project. After the agency and the user costs were computed, the overall cost-effectiveness of the pavements was determined. Table 5-75 indicates the overall cost-effectiveness of the warranty and control projects based on agency costs only, and then both agency and user costs. The agency and user cost of the warranty project were lower than that of the control project. After the
Table 5-75 Long Term Cost-effectiveness Evaluation, Comparison Set 5 Figures 5-99 and 5-100 compare the cost-effectiveness of warranty and control projects based on costs only, and then both agency and user costs.
Table 5-75 Long Term Cost-effectiveness Evaluation, Comparison Set 5 Figures 5-99 and 5-100 compare the cost-effectiveness of warranty and control projects based on costs only, and then both agency and user costs.
Figure 5-99 Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Treatment Life Only, Comparison Set 5
Figure 5-99 Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Treatment Life Only, Comparison Set 5
Figure 5-100 Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Time, Comparison Set 5
Figure 5-100 Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness based on Performance and Time, Comparison Set 5
Table 7-1 Summary of Medium-Term Cost-effectiveness Evaluation Table 7-2 Summary of Long-Term Cost-effectiveness Evaluation
Table 7-1 Summary of Medium-Term Cost-effectiveness Evaluation Table 7-2 Summary of Long-Term Cost-effectiveness Evaluation
Areas are expressed in units of IRI-years/$1000, per lane-mile It was seen that when the comparative analysis is carried out over a relatively short period of 5-years, the
Areas are expressed in units of IRI-years/$1000, per lane-mile It was seen that when the comparative analysis is carried out over a relatively short period of 5-years, the
Warranty Contracts in Indiana as of January 2003
Warranty Contracts in Indiana as of January 2003
2. PURPO SE O F THIS Q UESTIO NNA IRE The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain information on your experiences, observations anc 3. QUESTIONNA
2. PURPO SE O F THIS Q UESTIO NNA IRE The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain information on your experiences, observations anc 3. QUESTIONNA
2. PURPO SE OF THIS Q UESTIO NNA IRE The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain information on your experiences, observations and 3. QUESTIONNAIRE
2. PURPO SE OF THIS Q UESTIO NNA IRE The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain information on your experiences, observations and 3. QUESTIONNAIRE
Related topics:
Construction CostAgency CostsLife Cycle CostProduction performance
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved