scholarly journals LIFE-CYCLE COST BASED MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION STRATEGIES FOR CABLE SUPPORTED BRIDGES

2015 ◽  
pp. 395-410
Author(s):  
Chun-sheng Wang ◽  
◽  
Mu-sai Zhai ◽  
Hai-ting Li ◽  
Yi-qing Ni ◽  
...  
2012 ◽  
Vol 138 (5) ◽  
pp. 625-633 ◽  
Author(s):  
Venkata Mandapaka ◽  
Imad Basheer ◽  
Khushminder Sahasi ◽  
Per Ullidtz ◽  
John T. Harvey ◽  
...  

2000 ◽  
Vol 1740 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Gary Hicks ◽  
Ian J. Dussek ◽  
Charles Seim

A variety of materials have been used for wearing surfaces on steel bridge decks. The requirements for these paving materials are identified, the various asphalt-based materials that have been used are described, a description of the construction process is provided, and the expected field performance and maintenance requirements for the most common materials used are discussed. The selection of the wearing surface should be based on life-cycle costs, not just initial construction costs. Life-cycle-cost calculations must include consideration of initial construction costs, expected life, maintenance and rehabilitation costs, and user delay costs associated with the removal and replacement of failed surfaces. The reliability, durability, and skid resistance of the wearing surface are very important to prolongation of the life of the surfacing and minimization of delays to users caused by frequent replacements.


Author(s):  
Sampat Kedarisetty ◽  
Changmo Kim ◽  
John T. Harvey

Road user costs (RUCs) have been studied for the past few decades and still need to be considered to obtain a complete picture of the impact of road construction, maintenance, and rehabilitation. RUCs comprise delay costs (value of time), vehicle operating costs, and accident costs. Federal Highway Administration’s Life Cycle Cost Analysis software RealCost has been adapted, customized, and enhanced by California’s Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for California’s traffic patterns and maintenance practices in RealCostCA. However, the different types of roadways, traffic distributions, and work zone types have not been analyzed. In addition, RealCostCA works for selecting the most cost-effective pavement alternative under a project-specific basis and does not address network-level integration of RUCs. This study aimed to build easy-to-use look-up tables to obtain RUCs for a factorial of different work zone and traffic conditions. Different combinations of three roadway types (freeways, state highways, county roads), four representative hourly traffic distributions, three typical work zone closures (10-hour nighttime, 24-hour, 55-hour weekend closure), the numbers of lanes available in normal conditions (no work zone), and the numbers of lanes open during work zones were included in the factorial to calculate RUCs for specific traffic demand ranges at an interval of 5,000 vehicles per day per direction. The data obtained were subsequently used to combine into mixed regression models. These models enable calculation of RUC at any traffic level customized to the location of the project. Future work will be undertaken to combine the models into Caltrans’ network-level pavement management system.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document