4.3 Article

Evaluation of Work Zone Road User Cost of Pavements Based on Rehabilitation Strategy Approach

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/JPEODX.0000268

关键词

Work zone road user cost (WZ RUC); Rehabilitation strategy; Program evaluation and review technique (PERT); Fuzzy logic; Life cycle cost analysis (LCCA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study focuses on estimating work zone road user costs (WZ RUC) based on pavement rehabilitation strategies to determine the lowest user costs and implement the best alternative in selecting road pavement type.
Life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) is a common tool to select road pavement type. In the pavement type selection process, most government agencies consider the costs of initial construction, maintenance, and rehabilitation; however, user costs are rarely considered. In this paper, work zone road user costs (WZ RUC) are estimated based on the rehabilitation strategies of the pavement types. Also, the implementation timing of the rehabilitation activities, which lead to the lowest user costs, is determined as the lowest WZ RUC strategy. Due to uncertainty in timing of the rehabilitation activities, the program evaluation and review technique (PERT) and fuzzy logic are used to evaluate WZ RUC in rehabilitation strategies. The service life of pavement types is used to determine the probability of occurrence and membership degree of the lowest WZ RUC strategy. According to the proposed methodology and using the rehabilitation strategies, WZ RUC of a project with four types of pavements, including hot mix asphalt (HMA), stone mastic asphalt (SMA), jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP), and continuous reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP), are evaluated and the best alternative is proposed. Due to the importance of uncertainty in the rehabilitation strategy to estimate the user costs, the proposed method may be employed to select the best pavement type, especially when the agency life cycle costs of pavement types are almost equal.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据