Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Purdue e-Pubs
JTRP Technical Reports Joint Transportation Research Program
1988
Priority Assessment of Routine Maintenance Needs and Optimal Programming : Interim Report
Tien Fang Fwa John Daniel Riverson Kumares C. Sinha
Recommended Citation Fwa, T. F., J. D. Riverson, and K. C. Sinha. Priority Assessment of Routine Maintenance Needs and Optimal Programming : Interim Report. Publication FHWA/IN/JHRP-88/01. Joint Highway Research Project, Indiana Department of Transportation and Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, 1988. doi: 10.5703/1288284314136.
This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact epubs@purdue.edu for additional information.
Interim Report
PROGRAMMING
Tien F. Fwa John D. N. Riverson Kumar es C. Sinha
http://www.archive.org/details/priorityassessmeOOfwat
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Interim Report
Tien F. Fwa Post-Doctoral Research Associate John D. N. Rlverson Post-Doctoral Research Associate
and
Kuraares C. Slnha Professor of Civil Engineering
C-36-63K
Q-7-11
File No.:
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessary reflect the official views or policies of This report does not constitute a the Federal Highway Administration. standard, specification, or a regulation. Purdue University West Lafayette, IN A7907 January 28, 1988 Revised June 6, 1988
ANT)
OPTIMAL PROGRAMMING
TO:
H.
FROM:
9-7-11
Attached is the third Interim Report on the HPR Part II Study entitled, "Assessment of Routine Maintenance Needs and Optimal Use of Maintenance Funds". This interim report covers the Tasks E and F dealing with model development and testing. This phase was conducted by Tien-Fang Fwa and John D. N. Riverson under the direction of Kumares C. Sinha.
This report is forwarded for review, comment and acceptance by the IDOH and FHWA as partial fulfillment of the objectives of the research.
Respectfully submitted,
K.
KCS/rrp
A.G. J.M. M.F. W.F. W.L. R.L. J.D.
Isenbarger
Eskew Fricker
Report No.
"i,
3.
FHWA/lN/JHRP-88/l
TitU ond
Subtitle
5.
R.poriDot.
6.
8.
Tien- Fang Fwa, John D.N. River son and Kumar es C. Sinha
9.
JHRP-88/1
10.
Perlorminp Organization
Joint Highway Research Project School of Civil Engineering Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47907
12.
11.
HPR-1(24) Part II
13.
Type
of Report
Sponsoring Agency
Indiana Department of Highways State Office Building 100 North Senate Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46204
f:
IPrepared
16.
Supplementary Notes
in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Study title is "Assessment of Routine Maintenance Needs and Optimal Jse of Maintenance Needs."
Abstract
(This
report presents the findings of the research work that was undertaken to determine the priorities of maintenance work as perceived by unit foremen as well as to develop an optimization routine that can be used to develop periodic work schedules. The model uses an integer programming formulation for application at the network level. The model parameters were developed on the basis of a survey of various subdistrict personnel in Indiana.
17.
Highway Routine Maintenance; Maintenance Management; Priority Assessment; Optimization; Work Schedules
Key Words
18.
Distribution Statement
This document is No restrictions. available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161
21. No. of
19.
tliis
report)
20.
Pages
22.
Price
Unclassified
Form
Unclassified
DOT
F 1700.7
(e-es)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction
Priority Ratings of Routine Maintenance Activities
Rehabilitation Constraints
The Optimization Model for Routine Maintenance Programming
3 A
5
Introduction
has
Initiated
several
Joint
Highway
Research
in the past.
entitled
"Assessment
research
[3].
study
have been presented by Montenegro and Sinha [2] and Feighan, et al.
Monpro-
assessment
and
work
quantity
standards
maintenance activities.
lives
optimization
programming
model
for
scheduling
management
system
of
Indiana.
and results obtained from the two earlier studies mentioned above, information
on (a) priority ratings of various routine maintenance activities, and
(b) the
This
presents
the
results
of
the
develop-
routine
of
maintenance
field
activities
surveyed
were
developed
from
survey
IDOH
personnel
The relative
priority
ratings
determined
Volume
The
203,
Other
State
Highways.
201, 202,
fourteen
204, 205,
207,
208,
210,
211, 212,
213,
Part
one
dealt
with
assigning
priority
scores
to
individual
desired
level.
relative
urgency
need
for
maintenance
work.
procedure.
Raters
were
procedure
was
well
process.
by
highway
class and pavement condition were computed by combining the priority scores of
the two parts.
These priority
ratings
could
then
be
entered
as
routine
Rehabilitation Constraints
account
ming.
during
which
given
routine
maintenance
activity
would
be
maintenance
activity
to maintenance activity.
the importance of the highway section concerned, as well as the pavement distress that needs to be corrected.
the
severity
of
activities,
by
highway
class
and
distress
[A]
at
an
optimal
combination
of
routine
maintenance
activities
for
achieving
The
the goal of
constraints
Most of the necessary input data for the model operation are already
available
ness of the output Information depend much on the accuracy and completeness of
the
acquired
data.
and
processed
in
Indiana.
numerical
efficiency
and
It
effectiveness
is
of
The
following
are
Indiana.
1.
activities
can
more
2.
the
Uniformity and consistency across the state at the subdistrlct level can
greatly
help planning, monitoring and evaluation of routine maintenance
3.
other
network
levels.
A.
be
analyzed.
The
possible
benefits
of
re-allocating
parameters
might
have
examining
their
consequences
on
what
can
be achieved.
adjusted
to
achieve
better
instance,
the
References
1.
Fwa, T. F. and Sinha, K. C. , "Assessment of Routine Maintenance Needs Optimal Use of Routine Maintenance Funds," Proposed for Research and Study, Joint Highway Research Project, Project No.: C-36-63K, File No.: 9-7-11, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN, January 1984.
2.
Montenegro, F. and Sinha, K. C. "Development of a Procedure to Assess Highway Routine Maintenance Needs," Joint Highway Research Project, Purdue School of Civil Engineering, Report No. FHWA/IN/JHRP-86/4, University, 1986.
,
3.
Service "An Estimation of Felghan, K. Sinha, K. C. and White, T. D. Life and Cost of Routine Maintenance Activities," Joint Highway Research Project, Report No. FHWA/IN/JHRP-86/9, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, 1986.
, ,
A.
Cohen C. and Stein, J., "Multi-Purpose Optimization Scheme," Version A, Manual No. Vogelback Computing Center, Northwestern University, 320,
1978.
Interim Report
Tien F. Fwa Post-Doctoral Research Associate John D. N. Rlverson Post-Doctoral Research Associate
and
Project No.:
File:
C-36-63K
9-7-11
Conducted by
Joint Highway Research Project Engineering Experiment Station Purdue University
in cooperation with the
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessary reflect the official views or policies of This report does not constitute a the Federal Highway Administration. standard, specification, or a regulation.
Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47907 January 28, 1988 Revised June 6, 1988
TO:
FROM:
9-7-11
Attached is the third Interim Report on the HPR Part II Study entitled, "Assessment of Routine Maintenance Needs and Optimal Use of Maintenance Funds". This interim report covers the Tasks E and F dealing with model development and testing. This phase was conducted by Tien-Fang Fwa and John D. N. Riverson under the direction of Kumares C. Sinha.
This report is forwarded for review, comment and acceptance by the IDOH and FHWA as partial fulfillment of the obiectives of the research.
Respectfully submitted,
K.
KCS/rrp
A.O. J.M. M.E. M.F. W.L. R.L. J.D.
Eskew Fricker
Report No.
1.
3.
FHWA/IN/JHRP-88/1
4.
TitU and
SubtitI*
5.
R.portDot.
6.
Auther(s)
8.
C.
Sinha
JHRP-88/1
10.
Joint Highway Research Project School of Civil Engineering Purdue University West Lafayette, IN A7907
12.
11.
HPR-1(2A) Part II
13.
Typ*
Sponsoring Agoncy
Indiana Department of Highways State Office Building 100 North Senate Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46204
15.
14.
Supplomantory Netas
Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Study title is "Assessment of Routine Maintenance Needs and Optimal Use of Maintenance Needs."
16.
Abstract
This report presents the findings of the research work that was undertaken to determine the priorities of maintenance work as perceived by unit foremen as well as to develop an optimization routine that can be used to develop periodic work schedules. The model uses an integer programming formulation for application at the network level. The model parameters were developed on the basis of a survey of various subdistrict personnel in Indiana.
17.
Highway Routine Maintenance; Maintenance Management; Priority Assessment; Optimization; Work Schedules
Koy Words
16.
Distribution Statamont
No restrictions. This document is available, to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161
21. No. of
19.
20.
Pages
22.
Price
Unclassified
Form
Unclassified
100
DOT
F 1700.7 )
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables
Page Ill
Iv
1
List of Figures
CHAPTER
- INTRODUCTION - SURVEY OF ROUTINE MAINTENANCE NEEDS PRIORITY AND INFLUENCE OF REHABILITATION SCHEDULE
CHAPTER
3
3 5
2.1
2.2
Introduction
The Survey
2.2.1 2.2.2
10 lA
2.3
Priority Ratings of Routine Maintenance Activities Further Analysis on Priority Rating Data Influence of Rehabilitation Schedule Further Analysis on Rehabilitation Constraint Data
14 19
28
32
2. A
Summary
3
38
CHAPTER
MAINTENANCE PROGRAMMING
3.1
41
41
Background
3.2
42
42 45 48 48 49
51
3.3
Data Requirements
3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5
Performance Standards Unit Cost Data Resource Inventory Data Maintenance Needs Assessment Priority Ranking of Routine Maintenance Work ....
52 53 53 54 54
3.3.6
3.4
55
56
CHAPTER
4.1 4.2
63 63 64
Rehabilitation Constraints
The Optimization Model for Routine Maintenance
4.3
Programming
4.4
64
66 68
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A - Histogram Presentation of Survey Data on Ranking and Priority Scores APPENDIX B - Histogram Presentation of Survey Data on Routine Maintenance Activity Suspension Period APPENDIX C - Computation Procedures for Final Priority Ratings of Routine Maintenance Activities APPENDIX D - Guide to Using the Proposed Optimization Model ....
70
77
91
97
LIST OF TABLES
Page
2.1
6
7
2.2
2.3
2. A
15
16
17
..
2.5
2.6
18
2.7
Priority Ratings of Routine Maintenance Activities by Highway Class and Distress Severity Level
20
2.8
Coefficients of Correlation Between Priority Scores of Routine Maintenance Activities Obtained for the North and South Regions of Indiana
Average Suspension Periods for Various Maintenance Activities by Highway Class and Distress Condition North Region
27
2.9
29
2.10 Average Suspension Periods for Various Maintenance Activities by Highway Class and Distress Condition South Region
2.11 Suspension Period Distribution by Length for Maintenance Activity-Severity Level Combination by Highway Class
3.1
30
33
A6
57
57
3.2
3.3
3.4
58 58
3.5
3.6
59
3.7
60
61
3.8
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
2.1
2.2
9
11
2.3
2. A
13
2.5
Comparison of North and South Region Priority Ratings for Routine Maintenance Activities on Interstate Comparison of North and South Region Priority Ratings for Routine Maintenance Activities on OSH with High Traffic Volume Comparison of North and South Region Priority Ratings for Routine Maintenance Activities on OSH with Low Traffic Volume
22
2.6
23
2.7
24
2.8
Comparison of Routine Maintenance Activity Suspension Periods on Interstate for North and South Regions Comparison of Routine Maintenance Activity Suspension Periods on High Volume OSH for North and South Regions
34
2.9
35
2.10 Comparison of Routine Maintenance Activity Suspension Periods on Low Volume OSH for North and South Regions
3.1
36
Y. .^ 1
for
50
CHAPTER
INTRODUCTION
most
highway
agencies
today
is
routine
maintenance.
the last decade owing because routine maintenance has become a major
of
limited highway funds, and that timing, frequency, extent and type of rou-
highway
pavements
[1,2].
tool
formulate
has
initiated
several
Joint
Highway
Research
[3,4].
in the past
HPR
II
Proposal
on
the
[7].
Montenegro and Sinha recommended a procedure for condition assessment and provided
work
quantity
standards
maintenance activities.
and
lives
an
optimization
model
for
of
Indiana.
To
routine
maintenance
needs
priority
and
ranking.
In
addition,
survey,
describes
an
programming
requirements.
the
unit,
subdistrict,
maintenance information obtained from the IDOH is worked out to illustrate the
salient features of the programming procedure.
CHAPTER
^.J^
Introduction
In Indiana,
of
semi-monthly
schedules
of
routine
district Superintendents
2.1.
Figure
Each activity is also assigned to ope of four work control categories The work control
category
guides
work
schedulers
on
Cleaning
activities
to.
are those for which quantities can be estimated and firmly adhered
a
fixed
number
times
yearly,
and so on.
Overhead activities
are necessary work like Rest Area Attendant Training, and so on, not
directly
Though the
related
to
maintenance
[8,9].
for
under-
taking
routine
maintenance
activities.
assess
rou-
r^ 00
^
a>
o
U-
1:
u
I
H
<
"1
tf)
Q
=>
<r-
sp
t
tL
1
X X X
> o
> ^
i
J
^
::::'
CP
u.
w
a.
c*^
I,
w ^
3 O I u M
M ><
c
(U
3
t
z u
a z
-< a.
E u
s:
< O 1-
Q
%
CO
(U
c
CO
1^ * o
<
o
T
in
LT)
o
""
CD
o
r-
w
r-j
ro
o
i m = u s
v3
CJ
o ^
n
CSJ
CVJ
r^
to
w
z UJ UJ z UJ
a: _i L3
O *"
CM
S? So
3
CM CM
'
o
a.
o U2 o 1
^-^
o 3 UJ
> UJ UJ
0)
^ o < u
oo z :3 3
1/1
1/1
2
ijo
-J
^5
UJ a. UJ > q: UJ C3 a:
5i
CO
Q
>-
5S
u.
o z in
UJ h X)
LlJ
LT
CNJ
O in
OJ
z =3
oz 3 o >Ul Q
^5 X
C3
X
1
O in
1/1
o in
CM
0<
"
CO
<
=)
>
1
s 3
LhJ LiJ
1/1
o. x>
u.
i^t-
o:
>s
> i
z Z
1 UJ o. :
UJ
i_j
z UJ
UJ 1 on H- UJ :=> UJ ^1/1
o
a.
^5
3
UJ \ Q. 1/1
1/1
rn
u u < u E
X
q:
a.
3 o
1
LkJ
z X o
a:
z 3t
1
z
1/1
5
UJ t ^1
X
O
(.>
UJ
oa
CVJ
1 XI ex ex t- <C CD 1
h(_ U_ cr u.
z z i -i
1/1
UJ 1 t
-J
>
UJ a.
1/1
eg
z-
UJ
_ < o
o a.
ijn
ii2
5
i
X ^
CO
5i
o
E
O
H
in
P.
CM
E
rn
4^
i "^ u. 2
I 2
c\
i-i
in
Vi
3 < z 7 UJ *
<;
<:
tine
maintenance
needs
maintenance
of
rehabilita-
highway
section
is
scheduled.
long term (e.g. yearly or half-yearly) or short term (e.g. weekly or biweekly)
Proper adjustments of
routine
resources.
therefore,
need
to
consider
maintenance
activi-
2* 2.
The Survey
by
Mon8
tenegro
and
Sinha
[6],
36 field staff
General Foremen or Superintendent and 19 Unit tricts in the six IDOH districts were surveyed. were from the northern region and twenty were
Foremen)
from
eleven
subdis-
southern
region
of
Indiana
(Table 2.1),
was such that the effects of two distinct climatic conditions as found in
Table 2.1
District
Subdistrict
Region
Engineers
Unit Foremen
Fort Wayne
North North
3 2
La Porte
Plymouth
Greenfield
North North
South South
South South
Greenfield Anderson
Seymour
Bloomington Columbus
Petersburg
_
1
1 1
Vlncennes
South
South South
Crawfordsville
Crawfordsville Veedersburg
1 1
Table 2.2
Code
201
Description
Shallow Patching
Deep Patching
202
203
204 205
Premix Leveling
Full Width Shoulder Seal Seal Coating- Chip Seal
206
207
Crack Sealing
Sand Seal
208
210
211
212
213
231
Spot Rftpair of Unpaved Shoulders Blading of O^aved Shoulders Clipping Unpaved Shoulders
Roconditioning Unpavod Shoulders
Clean and Reshape Ditches
Hotor Patrol Ditching
234
colder
northern
The
region
and
assessed.
subdistrict
and
field
staff
interviewed
included
field
unit foremen.
2^. 2^._1_
priority
ratings
were
considered
in
the
survey.
activity
and
the
highway
Fourteen
Interstate
and
Other
State
Highways
(OSH).
OSH
was
further
more than 400 vehicles per day (vpd"), and low traffic OSH with less
vpd.
400
The traffic volume classification was chosen to provide broad guidelines For
con-
ditions,
three
levels
126
entries
to
be
priority
it
rated.
is way beyond
human.
Palrwise
comparison
is
theoretically
possible
possible combinations.
the
con-
tributing
factors
(Part 1
(Part 2
numbers)
Stage I Rank N activities in relative importance in preserving road elements at a desired level of service
Stage
Rank (N
x N) conditions
activities
Compute priority rating of routine maintenance activities by highway class and distress severity level
Figure 2.2
10
at
desired
level.
In
by
distress
severity
level
choice
quickly
and
(a) A two-stage
rank
the
entries
potenltal
ties
considered.
Keeping
raters were next asked to assign priority score to each on a 10-polnt scale as
shown
in
Figure
2.3.
(b)
allowing
each
rater
positions above or below each other along the 10-point scale, realistic priority
scores
could
be
indicated that the rating procedure was well received by raters, and satisfactory results were obtained in an unambiguous manner.
to
adopt
tree-like
survey
structure.
1
of
number of
times
the
Part
consuming.
study.
2.2'1
to
account
11
ID
You are given lA routine maintenance activity types, each written on a small card. Go through and read the activity types carefully.
(Ranking Assignment) Rank the cards on your desk in accordance with the importance of each activity type in preserving ^.road condition at a desired level. Put the most important activity at the top, followed by other activities in the order of decreasing importance. Ties are allowed.
Step 2.
Step 3.
2.
Make
Step 4.
Move the top priority card to the top (i.e. a score of 10) of the scale on this instruction sheet. Next, move one card at a time, in sequence of decreasing importance, to the score and assign a score to each by comparing with the activity immediately above it. Continue until all the cards are placed on the scale.
If the last card does not have a score of 1, adjust
Step 5.
the scores (except the top score) so that the lowest priority activity has a score of 1.
Step
6.
Figure 2.3
12
for
the
ming.
given
routine
maintenance
activity
would
be
Figure
2. A
shows a
sketch
which
depicts
graphically
the
concept
of
Interference
period.
The
X,
the
length
of
time
to
suspend, all
maintenance
activities.
The
It
the
mainte-
It
is
important to
a
function
the
Based upon the definitions given above, the following relationship can be
written:
X^ - min x^
^^'^^
Interference period
"
"^ijk
''ijk
"
i-1.2,...N^,
= l,2,...N2,
k=l,2,...N2
^^'^^
13
'^IN2N3
ijk
Y. = MAINTENANCE OPERATION ^
'
SUSPENSION PERIOD
d|jk
= INTERFERENCE PERIOD
ijk
i
ijk
NOTE:
FOR HIGHWAY CLASS ~" FOR ACTIVITY TYPE j k FOR DISTRESS SEVERITY
i
ill
f^ill
*^
X:
/,'/
'
/,
Rehabilitation Period
D =
Tinrie
Time
"
Time - D
Figure 2.4
14
where
X X
-'
* maintenance operation suspension period on highway 1 = suspension period for routine maintenance activity J on highway 1 with distress condition level k, = interference period during which no maintenance activity type j would be performed on highway 1 with distress condition level k, = total number of highways, = total number of routine maintenance activities, = total number of distress condition levels.
d...
N N
N
The above relationships clearly show that the basic quantities that
to be determined are
need
These
interviewee
to
estimate
length
of
suspension
2^. 3^
This section presents the results and analyses of the survey data on
the
(a)
Influence of rehabil-
2,3,1
(see
Figure
2.2)
Appendix A.
Let
f.
and
represent
the
priority
scores
obtained
from
15
Table 2.3
Highway
Class
Condition
Level
Northern Region
Southern Region
95^
Average
1
Conf.
1
Average
1
95^
Conf.
1
Int.
Int.
Severe
Interstate
Moderate
Slight
3 6 2 5
8
Other State
Severe
Highways
(High Volume)
Moderate
Slight
4
7 2
3-4 6-8
2
5
7
4-
Other State
Severe
5
7
Highways
Moderate
3-6 6-6
9
4
7 9
16
Table
2. 4
Highway Class
Condition
Level
Northern Region
Average
95% Confidence Interval
10.0
-
Average
Severe
Interstate
10.0
10.0
10.0
Moderate
Slight
8.7
8.2 - 9.2
8.1
7.3 - 8.6
6.3
9.4
4.1
2.8
9.5
5.4
9.7
Severe
Other State
9.6
Highways
(High Volijne)
Moderate
7.8
7.2-8.3
3.0 - 5.6
7.3
6.8 - 7.9
Slight
Severe
Other State
4.3
3.7
2.2-5.1
7.4
6.4-8.3
3.6-6.4
1.0 - 1.0
7.6 3.8
6.0-9.3
2.2 - 5.5
Moderate
4.9
Slight
1.0
1.0
1.0 - 1.0
17
Table 2.5
Maintenance Activities
North
South
95^
Code
Description
Ave.
1
Conf.
1
Ave.
Int.
95^
Conf.
Int.
201
Shallow Patching
-2
202 203
Deep Patching
2
6
10
-3
2
8
12
11
-2
Premix Leveling
Full
3-8
8-12 6-10
5-10
204
205
8 7 7 9
206 Seal
& Joints
8 7
12
4-9
6-11
6-11 4- 10 11-13
5 6
10
11
212
7 9
5-9
7-11 6-11
213 Recondition
231
7
5 7
5-10
10
7-13
12- 14
3-7
5-10
234 Motor
13
18
Maintenance Activities
Northern Region
95X Confidence Interval
Southern Region
95% Confidence Interval
Code
201
Description
ShalloK Patching
Deep Patching
Ave.
9.
Ave.
9.8
9.2
- 10.0
9.4 9.6
5.4
8.8 - 10.1
9.1 - 10.0
9.6
7.2
10.0
Premix Leveling
Full Width Shoulder Seal
Seal Coating - Chip Seal
5.5 - 8.9
2.9-7.9
2.1 - 5.0
4.9
5.4
6.7
3.5
7.3
4.4
5.7
2.8-5.0
4.1 - 7.3
5.3-8.1
6.8 5.6
7.8 7.0
5.3-8.4 3.8-7.3
6.1 - 9.6
5.1 - 8.8
6.5
2.9
7.1
4.6-8.4
1.7 - 4.2
208
210
211
5.9 5.8
212
213
231
4.6 4.2
3.7
1.9
2.8-6.4
2.7 - 5.6
1.5 - 5.9
6.5
7.8
4.4
8.6
5.7-8.8
4.9-8.4
234
0.3 - 3.5
6.6
19
^ijk
where
F
-'
"
^^2^ik
*"
^^Pj
1-1. 2,
Np
= 1, 2, ..N2, k=l,2,..N3
(2.3)
" priority rating for routine maintenance activity on highway i with distress severity level k,
(f
= routine maintenance priority score for combination of highway class i and distress severity level k in relation to all other combinations of the two factors as obtained from Part 2 of the survey, = routine maintenance priority score for routine maintenance activity type j in relation to all other routine maintenance activity types as obtained from Part 1 of the survey.
(f.)
and N
f.
and
f^,
f ^.
A com-
Using the relationship in Eq. (2.3) and the data in Tables 2.4
the
and
2.6,
priority
ratings for all the routine maintenance activities surveyed are Both the priority rating scores
for
the
These priority
vari-
maintenance activities.
an
optimization
model
2^.2*2^
of
determining
priority
ratings for
20
Table 2.7
Priority Ratings of Routine Maintenance Activities by Highway Class and Distress Severity Level.
Interstate Routine High Volume OSH Low Volur.e OSii Distress Severitv Lev. Distress Severitv Lev. Maintenance Distress Sevc-ritv Lc.-. Activity Code Severe Moderate Slight Se\'ere >ioderate Slight Severe >:oderace SIi-;it
99
(N) (S)
(N)
86
76 84 78
(N) (S)
(N)
62
(N) (S)
93 90
(K)
(S)
77
(N)
43
(N)
73
71
(N)
49
36
(N-)
10
9
201
94
39
70 (S)
75
(N)
35 (S)
41
(N) (S)
(S) (N)
(S) (N) (S) (N) (S)
(S) (K)
96
60
(N)
90 (N)
92
(S)
71
47
35
10 10
7
202
96
(S) (N) (S) (N) (S) (S)
40 (S)
45
22
31
14 (N) (S)
(N) (S)
70 (S)
56
39
(N) (S) (N)
(S)
36
31
73
(S)
(N) (S) (N) (S) (N)
203
72
63 (N)
44
(S)
68 52
(N)
(S)
53 38
35
21
54
20
21
5
5 4
49
43 (N)
28
(S)
46
34 60
42
38 26
(N)
(S)
36
27
24
13
31 16
20A
35
64
13
(S) (N)
(S)
(N) (S)
(N)
56 (N)
36 58
(S) (N) (S) (N)
40 (N)
18
(N)
(N) (S)
50
32
(N) (S)
28
16
(N) (S)
(N) (S) (N) (S) (N) (S) (N) (S)
(N) (S)
47 33
(N) (S)
6 4
7
205
44
67
(S) (N)
(S) (N) (S)
(S)
(N)
(S)
42
23
63 55
64 62
52 (N)
42
(S) (N)
29
21
50 (N)
43 50
50
41
(S) (N) (S)
33 22
33 25 27
(N)
(S)
206
57
(S)
(N)
46
59 53
6
7
68
43
27
(N)
(S)
53
47
29
24 24
11
(N) (S)
(N)
(N)
(S)
(N) (S)
207
65
(S) (S)
(N) (S) (N) (S) (N) (S)
(N)
7
56 (N)
49
23 68 58
61
35
12
53 28
73
(N) (S)
(N) (S)
44
21 61
(N) (S)
(N)
6 3
8
208
29 78
(S) (N) (S) (N)
(S)
(N) (S)
22
58 54
52
11 '(S)
49
29
34
26
38
(N) (S)
(N) (S)
(N)
210
71
68
67 57
52 55
27
34
12
7
7
70
211
59
(N)
(S)
44
24
(N)
(S)
30
22
(N)
(S) (N) (S) (N)
(S) (N)
(S)
48
43
36
(S)
(N)
46
34
46 (N)
212
40 (N)
46
37
(S) (N)
29
23
43 (N)
55
(S) (N)
(S)
20 (N)
21 18
(S)
23 22
21
5
6 4
58 (S) 42
(N)
(S)
42
33
43
31
26 27
39
62
(N)
(S)
(N)
213
65 37
53 (S)
32 63
17
47
29
57
15
24 16 29
8
50 (S)
27 59
14 (N) (S)
(N)
25
18
(N)
(S) (N)
23 (N)
32
12
35
(N)
4
8
2
231
78
19
(S) (N)
75 (S)
18
(N)
(S)
(N)
30 (S)
9
(N)
(N)
23A
66 (S)
53
27
(S)
63
(S)
48 (S)
24
(S)
50 (S)
32
(S)
Note:
(N)
stands for North Region, and (S) stands for South Region.
21
various
routine
an
illustration,
this
section
the
North
and
Plotted in Figures 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 are data obtained from Table 2.7 routine
for
points
in
reference
purpose.
from
two
different
regions,
it
is
important
much meaning,
that
is
ratings
make
the
difference.
maintenance
activities,
while
same activities.
B scores, and that panel C scores are slightly different from those of the two
sets.
An appropriate parameter
to
measure
this
difference
[10].
would
be
the
statistics
known
as
Panels A and B
between
two
r
sets
of
priority scores.
lower
between
22
O
100Legend for
Condition Severity:
90o
severe
80
moderate
slight
<
u c c
**
0) 0)
7060-
Line of Equality
ID
5040-
a>
o
30O)
20-
10-
o
Q.
1 1
1
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Figure 2.5
Comparison of North and South Region Priority Ratings for Routine Maintenance Activities on Interstate.
23
C o
I
5 ?100
Legend for
90
Condition Severity:
>
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Figure 2.6
Comparison of North and South Region Priority Ratings for Routine Maintenance Activities on High Volume OSH.
24
'
O
O)
0>
fiC
90-
SEVERE
80-
MODERATE
SLIGHT
<
u c
0)
/
o
o o
70-
(D
60-
Line of
\Equallty
S
c
c n
50
40e e
/
J6
o
CE
o
(0
30
20-
o o
10-
o
Q.
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Figure 2.7
Comparison of North and South Region Priority Scores for Rout: Maintenance Activities on Low Volume OSH.
25
scores
in
Table
2,7,
computation
value of
equal to 0.74.
only
fair.
However,
closer examination of the plots in Figures 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 shows that (i) all
the points that lie below the line of equality belong to the
following
four
maintenance activities:
212,
213,
Considering
only
first
10
maintenance
activities
in
Table
obtained.
231
For the last four maintenance activities, i.e. activities 212, 213,
234,
and
the
excellent
agreement
over
the
priority
ratings
These
The
four
activities
are
mainly
drainage-related
maintenance
work.
climatic
and
has
more rainfall, with an annual average of more than 40 in. compared to about 35
in.
in the North.
activities
by
South
region
26
maintenance
personnel.
similar.
This
explains
why
the
equality,
indicates
give
that
both
the
North
and
South
region
maintenance
personnel
highest priorities to
crack sealing.
appreciably
Taking
higher
these
priorities
four
to
the
last
four
drainage-related
activities.
rela-
priority
of
correlation
It
values
for
different
groupings
of
distribution
it
In graphical form,
can
for
Inter-
state
was
repeated
very closely in the plot in Figure 2.6 for OSH with high
This
traffic volume, and again in Figure 2.7 for OSH with low traffic volume.
Indirectly
The par-
the
survey
process
27
ID
V o O o
<
3
1
tl
f 4*
(.
I e ^o
<r
(Z o
u
o
01
0)
m JZ 4 9 4
r*
3 e D
_l -H
(.
:>
00
o
00
t- t-
H
(
Of
"^
<-
0.
c
01 01
3
p
P A O
Ul
01
.
ID
1 O
Lfl
ID <-
D
C o
0)
X
I
3
e
0^
H 4 w
ID
C
ID
Ol D H fH :> +>
u
<*
<4-
<
o
u<
o U u C
I OH
l/^
ID
(.
o
Ifi
c C o
ID 01
tH
O)
01
C
to
4 t* tt
ID
c
at
*4
r 4'
3 c O
0)
4>
(ft
o
OK
(.
u
H
i-
0)
t> *
(0
U
00
3 "O o O c
01
(T
ID
Or
u
ID
tvi
tn Of
r*
ni
VI a>
P
Ol (A
dl
tt
4>
P H
ID
>
4*
4*
<
4> -H
> U
<r 01
> rw H 4> 01
9) 01 H 4> TO H P
<- 4*
O
4>
U
<I
Ol
(b
a
D
(-
<I
ID
>
4*
ID
^ ^
r-l
fH XI
ID
^
(0 01
1-
<r -^
28
2.7,
it
is
observed
there
exists
plots,
as
moves
from
Interstate
2.2*2
mainte-
nance
activity
suspension
periods
Survey interthey
period
would
consider
for
their
organiza-
Interstates.
2.10.
As
These
data
are
presented
in
the
form
of
bar
charts in Appendix B.
compute,
Eqs
(2.1)
routine
Depending upon the highway maintenance agencies, and the size and management
level
of
the
network
even
yearly
29
Table 2.9
Mji -tenar.ce
AcllvUies
Distress.
r.M.oit i.'n
Ji-.li
rstJU
High Vol.
1
Code
Description
Level
Severe
i,
:oi
Shallow PatcMng
Moderate
Slight
13
20
61
28
17
Severe
202
22
43 73 75
Deep Patching
Moderate
Slight
29 47
157
37
65
Severe
203
233 248
254
Premlx Leveling
Moderate
Slight
Severe
187
210
225
227
251 164 170 190 137
278
288 284 275
299 300
297 289
204
Moderate
Slight
Seal Coating
Severe
205
(Chip Seal)
Moderate
Slight
280 285
164 186 198 126 136
290
289
209
211
Sealing Longitudinal
206
Severe
Moderate
Slight Severe
146
151
208
175
67
81
207
Crack Sealing
Moderate
Slight
178 190
307
112
221
173
287
Severe
208
Sand Seal
Moderate
Slight
224
285 287
39
57
308 308
58 87
254
8
Spot Repair of
Severe
210
Unpaved Shoulders
Moderate
Slight
88 84
34
115
Blading of Unpaved
211
Severe
93
Shoulders
Moderate
Slight
98
132
105 143
Clipping Unpaved
212
Severe
235
259
Shouldera
Moderate
Slight
239 260
269
284 294
136
Reconditioning
213
Severe
Unpaved Shouldera
Moderate
Slight
Severe
Ditches
Moderate
Slight
139
143
195
191
196
193
Severe
234
138
Moderate
Slight
163 216
207
210
256
240
30
Table 2.10
AcLlviLles
Distress
Con^itii-n
Inicrst ite
High Vol.
i,
Code
Uvel
Severe
:oi
Shallow Patching
Moderate
Slight
n
69 29
50
111
23
35 100
70
55
Severe
202
66 98
147
Deep Patching
Hoderate
Slight
90
132
Severe
203
110
155 211 194
135 188
149
Premlx Leveling
Moderate
Slight
217
282
231
265
205
261
Severe
204
Moderate
Slight
251
288
311
279
156
183
303
182
Seal Coating
205
Severe
249
288
(Chip Seal)
Hoderate
Slight
236
190
137
286
184
289
209
282 299
Sealing Longitudinal
206
Severe
Hoderate
Slight
250
264
280
256
261
291
289
261
Severe
207
280
300
Crack Sealing
Moderate
Slight
282
311
316
Severe
235
294
248 302
314
294
208
Sand Seal
Moderate
Slight
315
317
101
298
36
93 112
78
139 168
Spot Repair of
210
Severe
Unpaved Shoulders
Moderate
Slight
Blading of Unpaved
211
Severe
80
176
84
171
Shoulders
Hoderate
Slight
209
236
211
209
116 175 231
154
210
187
Clipping Unpaved
212
Severe
Shoulders
Hoderate
Slight
226
294 180 268 300
143
273
317
226
305
307
181
1
Reconditioning
213
Severe
Unpaved Shouldera
Moderate
Slight
227 252
105
162
Severe
205 245
!
244
277
Dltchea
Moderate
Slight
218
132
171
210
2*4
Severe
234
Motor Patrol
Ditching
Hoderate
Slight
163
217 257
j
205
285
1
31
programs are known to exist and used by different highway maintenance agencies
[11,12,13,14],
The maintenance activity suspension period data covered a wide
1
range
Judging from
of
program
duration
common
routine
maintenance
schedules.
It
Is
mainte-
nance
activities.
The data in Tables 2.9 and 2.10 clearly display several trends
that
one
would
readily
anticipate.
For
the suspension
OSH,
and
much
shorter
than
on
low
volume OSH.
followed
"moderate' and "slight' categories in the order of increasing suspenAn analysis of variance (ANOVA)
[15]
were
found
to
have
significant
The length of suspension period of a maintenance activity is a measure of the extent in which scheduling of the activity is affected by a rehabilitation
constraint.
Maintenance
activities
with
longer
suspension
periods
are
32
very short suspension periods are affected only near the end nance
of
the
mainte-
program
period.
different
On the
maintenance
activities
surveyed
had
long
suspension periods.
following.
activities
that
had short and very short suspension periods are shallow and spot
repair
of
unpaved
Premix level-
(code 203), full width should seal (code 204), chip seal (code 205), sand
(code
212),
and
reconditioning
unpaved shoulders (code 213) are found to have long suspension periods.
2^.3^.4^
The data in Tables 2.9 and 2.10 are further analyzed in this section with
respect
to
the
differences
and
similarities
between
the
survey results
of
maintenance
personnel
Indiana.
the
two
broad
band
r
with
positive
slope.
Coefficient
of
33
/\
X
4*
w c
OInD
P
_i
(u
CO CM nD CU (M
r^ -^ CM 01 CO
s: +>
a>
r %
01
u c 10 C
ft
T3
.
/^
lit
IQ
^
(1)
e D P
"i T3
a>
e
1
ITl
4 CO (^ 00 iH
O 5 9
H
ID f-
a.
in
i-
o iH
00
p
r*
\f\
z^
CO \^
O
c(-
f
cn
P
Ol
x: 4* Ol 3>
X
A
c o
D
3
1/1
(f.
/^
C a
4* 4*
V)
P e
CO
1
4* CT
3-fH
l/l
r^ vo
10 CM
XI -P
c c o -*
r*
P
0)
T-l
_I
\^
ja
4
Q
*
E 3 O
U
ft
/^
4> 4>
P
U>
>
ft
-rH
QJ
"D 3>
O
'M
fft
* -r*
W
U
Ol
P
<U
<^
Tj-
oj
CO OJ
u
ft
3^X
4*
Q.
>
ft
z>
C O
-r*
CO
1
w M
_l s/
C
ft
HI
n
>
a 4
4*
(A
to<
V4 1H
.
3 U
M
<D
f-<
X WX O
o
Op a*
\f\
X mX o in o
(b (b
U
D
fl>
4
(5
6 Of 3 e PH 3
4>
<5
6 0) 3 6 ^ D
t\l
4*
Ut (. <b
ft
-I
<-i
3
Ot
A K
^
cn
-rt
<-
4>
W
z>
(. Of
<Q
X
p
r4
4*
P
-
3
_l
>
01
' 3>
4
-
p H
3
_l
4*
s-
4>
cn
a>
34
C o
1
.
350
Line of Equality
(0
300
>
OS
250
o
0)
Q.
200
c o
J^
c
a>
150-
a.
CO
100
50-
u
c (0 c
0)
50
100 150
c
CD
200
250
in
300
350
Comparison of Routine Maintenance Activity Suspension Periods on Interstate for North and South Regions.
35
o
350-
(A
300-
>
(0
250-
o o c o
(A
200-
o.
150
M 3
cn
^
<
o c
(D
100
*^
0)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
In
Comparison of Routine Maintenance Activity Suspension Periods on High Volume OSH for North and. South Regions.
36
O
'5)
1
'
350-
CO
>>
300-
O
T3 'w
d>
(0
250
O
c
0.
o c
o.
(0
200
Line of Equality
150
3
>
(0
100
<
o c C
50-
50
100
150
200
250
In
300
350
Figure 2.10
Comparison of Routine Maintenance Activity Suspension Periods on Low Volume OSH for North and South Regions.
37
correlation
for
North
and
South
region
maintenance
personnel.
region
also
were
given
relatively short suspension periods in the South region, and vice versa.
The linear association mentioned above however does not mean equality
of
suspension
2.10,
periods
for
the
North
in fact,
below
the
equality
line.
shorter
suspen-
periods
An inspection
also
was conducted
for
the
126
pairs
of
matched
hypothesis
cluded that the North had indeed assigned shorter suspension periods
tine maintenance activities at a significance level of 0.01.
rou-
This difference in
maintenance
looking
practice
Past
between
research
the
two
regions
in
is
Interesting
and
worth
into.
studies
Indiana
[16,17,18] have pointed out the following differences between the two regions:
(a)
the
climatic
including
traffic
pavement
age,
38
The pavement
or
condition
may
In
the
light
these
differences
in
climate
periods
longer
in
the South.
unattended
The
results
of
the
present
study
on
tional
information
required for an optimization programming analysis of rouSpecifically, the objective was to determine for
(a)
the
North
and
South
the
priority ratings of various routine maintenance activities; and (b) the influence
of rehabilitation constraint on routine maintenance scheduling by speci-
The
survey
was
successfully
conducted
and
14
was collected.
Priority
ratings
and
suspension
periods
for
all
routine
were
informative,
additional
analyses
were
in Indiana.
39
1.
The overall priority ratings from the North and South regions
showed
fair
degree
of
agreement.
Both
assigned
highest
priorities
volume
to
OSH,
lowest
2.
placed
much
more
emphasis
on
The all
3.
priority
ratings
between
the
two
regions
is
believed
to
be
related to the differences in their climatic and topoOne would therefore expect variations in priority
graphical conditions.
ratings
of
4.
The partitioning technique with the two-stage survey procedure was found
to
be
effective.
knowledge
and
5.
of
1
different
maintenance
activities
differed
Interstate to more than 300 days for sand seal on OSH with
volume.
low
traffic
6.
Considering
highway
class,
Interstate
had
the
shortest
suspension
40
period,
and
OSH
In terms of
distress condition, the ^severe' category was given the shortest suspension
period,
followed
by
the
^medium'
and
slight
in the order of
7.
width
shoulder
seal
and
reconditioning
of
unpaved
shoulders
rehabilitation constraints.
patching
and
patching,
deep
8.
between
the suspension period estimates from the North and South region
maintenance personnel.
9.
were
found
to
be
shorter
than
more
rapid
deterioration
rate
10.
Similar to the
case
of
of
maintenance
a given
activity
priority
ratings,
the
suspension
period
characteristics
41
CHAPTER
3^.2_
Background
maintenance
management
system
has
three
basic
management levels, namely the central office level, district level, and
Each subdistrict is further subdivided into
that are two
to
subdistrict level.
four
maintenance
units
are
developed
at
central
office
level.
These
work
programs
identify
the
are
then
com-
activity
by
is
computed
from
quantity
standards
that
are
established
largely
engineering
experience r9].
estimated
average
that
require
maintenance,
subdistrict
unit
foremen
of
Maintenance
Needed
42
Reports,
subdistrlct
general
foremen
would
prepare
semi-monthly
work
activities
for
the
Semi-Monthly
Schedule
is
an
area
Instead of relying on
optimization
programming procedure can be incorporated and used to select the best combination of routine maintenance activities. cient Beside enhancing effective and
effi-
3^. 2^
They
are
produc-
tion
mathematical
model
is
presented below.
2,'2.'l.
N
1
N
2 E
N
3
i:
Maximize
W
^^^
F
^^'^
(3.1)
where, W
is
...N, jl,2,..
and k-1,2,..., N
Subject to
43
(a)
Production requirements
T...
< W^j^^ <
Y.
^J^
i-l,2,...,N^
j=l,2,...,N2
k=l,2,...,N3
(3.2)
(b)
Budget constraint
N
1
N
2
N
3
"K "U
%.
(3.3)
(c)
Manpower availability
N
l
"l
N "^2
l
N ^3
E
W
^^^
h
J
<
= 1,2,. ...L
(3.4)
(d)
Equipment availability
N
1
N
2
E
N
3 E
W
^J^
q
J"^
<
Q
^
r =
1,2,... ,R
(3.5)
44
(e)
Material availability
h
E
^2
Z
^3
E
W
^J^
m
J^
<
M
^
^ l)Zy*fd
(3.6)
(f)
Rehabilitation constraints
D-d iijc
'ijk
i=l,2,...,Nj
j=l,2,...,N2
k=l,2,...,N3
(3.7)
where,
^tiu " equivalent workload units in number of work-days of routine maintenance activity j on highway i with distress severity level k,
\..
= priority weighting factor for routine maintenance activity j of distress severity level k on highway i.
= total number of highways considered, = total number of routine maintenance activities considered,
N N
ijk
total workload of routine maintenance needs in work measurement units (see Table 3.1) for routine maintenance activity j on highway 1 with distress severity level k,
ftiu = rehabilitation constraint factor for routine maintenance activity j on highway i with distress severity level
k.
<
y^^^
<
1.
work productivity for routine maintenance activity on highway 1 with distress severity level k.
'ijk
cost per production unit of routine maintenance activity on highway 1 with distress severity level k.
= number of
man-days of maintenance crew type required for each production day of routine maintenance activity j,
- total
45
= number of equipment-days of equipment type r required for each production day of routine maintenance activity j,
= total available number of equipment-days of equipment type r,
M
s
d.
-'
= Interference period in number of working days during which no maintenance activity type 1 would be performed on highway 1 with distress severity level k,
2._2
2_
Objective Function
equivalent
work-
units
of
priority factor.
erally
are
gen-
Table 3.1.
into a
common
basis
of
reference.
Equivalent
subdlstrict level by general or unit foreman to each crew with crew day
[8].
manpower
equipment
assigned.
46
Table 3.1 Work Measurement Units of Some Routine Maintenance Activities in Indiana
Activity Code
Activity
Type
201
Shallow Patching
Deep Patching
Tons of Premix
Tons of Premix
202
Premix Leveling
Full Width Shoulder Seal
Seal Coating
Tons of Premix
Foot Miles
Lane Miles
Linear Miles
Lane Miles
Tons of Aggregates
Sealing Cracks
Spot Repair of Unpaved Shoulders
210
211
Blading Shoulders
Shoulder Miles
212 213
231
234
Ditch Miles
47
field
and
planning personnel.
that
the
perfor-
terras of
There Is hence
well-defined
relationship
^ijk
where,
^
"
"ijk "ijk
i=l,2,...,N^
j=l,2,...,N2
k=l,2....,N3
(3.8)
-i,
type
Ijk
decision
variables,
W^^i,
i"
Equation
ij K
highway
type.
All
detailed
identification of routine maintenance activity is apparent because each combination of activity type - distress severity - highway
type
has
a
different
priority
higher
priority
ranking
It
is
of
the
Integer
48
activities first.
reflect
relative
impor-
therefore
provide
the
best
selection
of
maintenance
activities
for
highway
condition
a
preservation.
measure
of
effectiveness
of
routine
maintenance
strategy.
effective
in
_3 . 2^. 3^
Production Requirements
maintenance
This
assigned for each activity type should not exceed the need for it.
is
necessary
would
not
be
effective.
cannot
take
on
negative
values,
non-negativity constraints are also included in the producThe rehabilitation factor, Y^.^^. will
be
dis-
3.2.4^
Resource Constraints
resources
including
manpower,
equipment
and
material.
It
to
routine
maintenance
allocation
49
N "2
Z
N
1
N
3 E
W
^^^
U
^^
< B
(3.9)
where,
than
year
can
be
2.2 5.
Rehabilitation Constraints
Effective
coordination
between
routine
maintenance
programming
and
scheduling
of
coor-
dination
[3,19].
formulation
in
this
represents
the
constraints
imposed
by
rehabilitation work.
Values of
Yj.i,
depending
on
highway classification.
be
different
for
different
routine
maintenance
activity types.
other
50
of need urgency
level k
would be suspended
djji^
interference period
Rehabilitation Constraint
Factor
ijk
1,
1.
N2
dill
N3
Rehabilitation Period
t
Time -
f
Time - D
i
Time
J(
^^ for
51
hand,
shallow
patching
work
may
be
required
travelto
public
before
the
rehabilitation
work.
Similarly,
owing
cost-
level
applied
to
highways
grouped
under
In that
ijk
..
is
computed
preferably
by
- I(T
1^^^
^^"^
ijk
^=^'^
^1
= 1.2,...,N2
k=l,2,...,Np.lO)
interference periods (Figure 3.1) of all the highway sections in highway class
i.
A zero value of
interference
Y,
ijk
,,
<=
plete
d..,
from
rehabilitation work.
Y.
..
ijk
=0, indicating
3^.^
Data Requirements
The data required for the model may be classified into the following main
categories:
52
a. b. c. d. e.
f.
Performance standards
Unit costs
each
of
the
above
presented below.
step-by-
3^.2__1_
Performance Standards
each
routine
maintenance
activity
should
be performed.
and
composition
field
crew,
performing
the
work,
input
information
for
U
the
In
following
Ij k
Equation (3.3), h
tlon (3.6).
in Equation
(3.5"),
and m.
in Equa-
J ^
dally
production
rate. U
ijk
by road condition.
However,
an
earlier
phase
of
the
53
present
study
specifically
documented
in
Reference
[7]
where daily production data of various routine maintenance activities for different roadway conditions can be found.
2.2'2.
Unit cost, expressed as cost per unit production for each routine mainte-
nance
activity is required.
in Equation (3.3),
activity
type
for
dif-
Purdue
University
on
routine
maintenance
costs in Indiana
[3, A, 7, 161.
Because of
unit
each
activity
for
different
2_3*3.
as
budget
funding,
manpower,
equipment
and
Budget, manpower and equipment data are easily obtainable from the District or
Subdistrict
not as clear.
offices of IDOH.
to
routine
maintenance
work
54
make
sure
they
governing
factor
in
programming
analysis.
Consequently,
^.3^.4^
class
and
by
activity
type
Ijk
in Equation (3.2).
load
needs
in
Indiana
relies
on
workload
need
of
each
subdistrict
Quantity standards
are
currently
available
for
each routine maintenance activity by two highway classes. Interstate and Other
State Highways.
of
the
present
study,
Montenegro
and
Sinha
[6]
developed
This
maintenance
needs by highway route, routine maintenance activity type, and distress severity level.
pro-
3.3.5
in
Equation
55
(3.1)
has
been
routine
maintenance
work
items,
total
in number, be ranked by
net-
work
highway
conditions.
In
two-stage
procedure
for
ranking
and
determining
Items
were
ranked
first
an
followed
activity
type-distress
severity
level-highway
where,
(f
^s.y.
1.1
"^
(3.1)
= routine maintenance priority score for combination of highway class i and distress severity level k in relation to all other combinations of the two elements = routine maintenance priority score for routine maintenance activity type j in relation to all other routine maintenance
(f-)
-'
activity types.
It
values
of
^^^i.
factors
have
no
direct
It
is
effect
on
in Equation (3.1).
2.2*6.
Lack of
coordination
between
routine
maintenance
and
rehabilitation
56
operations
usually
arises
pro-
The long term and predictive nature of the data required for reha-
bilitation planning does not provide enough Information to the routine maintenance personnel.
forms
of
operation
could
result
In
substantial
savings
In
both,
It
Is
activities.
would
2^.4^
hypothetical
problem.
Highways.
However, the input data were obtained from the Indiana Department of
For
Illustration
types
purpose,
and
four
highway
classes,
four
routine
maintenance
sidered.
activity
necessary
as
Input
data
to
the
problem.
Material
availability
constraints,
explained
earlier,
were
value
of
each
decision
variable
Is
given.
It was
57
Table 3.2
J-2
(Code 202)
Severe (k=l)
7.2
19.8
6.3
Moderate (k=2)
Slight (k=3)
4.2
2.8
10.4
6.8
8.4
10.2
Note:
1.
Description and production measureinent unit of each maintenance activity type are given in Table 3.1.
Values in the table represent U appropriate measurement units.
,
2.
3. U
j-2
(Code 202)
Severe (kl)
85.2
119.0 159.0
77.4
121.0 165.0
36.3
38.1
131.0
113.0
Moderate (k=2)
Slight (k=3)
42.4
103.0
Note:
I.
Description and production Beasureaent unit of each nalatenance activity type are given in Table 3.1.
iti
Equation
(3. 3)in
dollars
58
Maintenance
Activity,
j
Manpower Requirement, h
i^l
Equipment Requirement
^Jr r-1
A-2
A-3
^4
r-2
r-3
r-A
r-5
r-6
J-1
2
1 1
A
5 5
2
1
J-2
J-3
3 2
2
A
3
2
j-^
Note:
1.
Manpower and equipment requirement values are in man-days and equipment-days respectively Manpower types 1 to A represent respectively supervisors, drivers, laborers and equipment operators
Equipment types 1 to 6 represent respectively dump trucks, pickup trucks, crew cabs, distributors, loaders and rollers.
2.
3.
Highway Class, i
J-2
J-3
j-A
i=l
(Urban Interstate)
k-1
(Severe)
90 63
5A
100 90 60
70 63 A2
50 A5 30
i=2
(Urban Arterial)
72 5A A5
80 70 50
56 A9 35
AO 35 25
i=3
(Rural Interstate)
85 75 A5
i4
(Rural Primary)
70.5 36
18
65 AO 20
A5.5
28
lA
32.5 20
10
Note:
in Equation
(3.1).
59
^
CM \0 On On On
GO
U O u a
0-
R
O
C)
0.83
0.91
^->
0.80
1.00
1.00
d d
o o o oo o ...
0.96
a.
c U a c o
c
0)
>N
pH
> -^
1.00
0.90
o o o oo o ...
1.00
o o o oo o ...
1.00 1.00 1.00
"H N .^
CD
>^
CO
1
f-(
CM
R
0.83 0.90
1.00
ce
C
0)
o oo o o o ...
C^ < -H ON 00 CO
1.00
1.00
1.00
oo o o o o ... oo oo o o ...
o
iJ
z^
T-)
>
CN
Xi j=
a
0)
c H n
c
0)
cn
^-y
1
CO
0.82
0.70
1.00
... o oo
CM CO
0.92
0.78
0.80
> ^
O"
CD
3 V
o ^ JJ
CO
c o c
-o
V
0)
CM <^ CO
n
iTi
moo
om
a-
m o CM -H
iM
o
CD
O"
z
(0
H
>
R
E u
0)
c H
^ ^
H
HI
^-s
c
0)
00
>J
en
ON 00
C
00 CM CO
T3
NO
-H
XJ
x:
0)
c o
U
CO (0
>.
iJ
H
JJ
e
CO 0)
V O C S C
01
C4
vo
ir>
NO
R T-l
CM
o o CM
00 CM
ir>
< NO in
<
c 3 O e
c
CO
W u a. K V V u
CO CO
e CO 3
O"
0)
jr
Aj
< vo n
CM CM <^
IT)
ITN
lA
en
-ff
u^ o
0) 0)
> iH
AJ
CJ
0)
0)
u c a c
0)
Distress
k
(Severe)
Severity
(Moderate)
(Moderate)
(Moderate)
(Moderate)
(Slight)
(Severe)
(Slight)
(Severe)
(Slight)
(Severe)
(Slight)
c V CJ c CO c
^
O
U
bO
C
H
Level,
u
k-l
0)
XJ
C
0) CO
H
k-2 k-3
k-1 k-2
k-3
k-1 k-2
k-3
k-1
k-2
k-3
&.
/-N
V
ij
0)
o
CO
u
J=
0)
to
CO
iH
CO
to
r-i
4J
3 m j: CD bO
0)
>^
a m 9 U X> 0) u u 3 C
C
CO
-H
Wi
^ V u u 9 U w <
CM
b CO P U 3 W
C
05
1
CO
u
eo
u e
3
s^
-a-
Bi
OH
^ U
&,
c 3 o
u
0)
a
R
n
R
60
Item
Value
1.
Analysis period
Budget allocation
A5 working days
2.
1
3.
Manpower availability
'.'.
k
A.
Equipment availability
Qi
^2
Q3
% Q5 i
Note:
(3.1) to (3.10)
61
Table
(a)
,111
133
141
^222 = " W
^
1
,341 ,342
W
, 3
^311
= 3
^ ^313 = ^ W 2 322
Note:
All other W
(b)
,111
;133 1^1
21.6 16.8 8.4 79.2 31.2 88.6 55.0 6.3 25.2 7.2 4.2 8.4
premix premix premix premix premix premix premix linear miles linear miles tons of premix tons of premix tons of premix
tons tons tons tons tons tons tons
of of of of of of of
,222
241 311
j312 j313
62.4 6.3 28.8 12.6 11.2 20.8 25.2 8.4 21.6 16.8 2.8
tons of premix
linear miles tons of premix tons of premix tons of premix tons of premix
linear miles linear miles tons of premix tons of premix tons of premix
(c)
Deep Patching
(Tons of Premix)
Urban Interstate
Urban Arterial Rural Interstate Rural Primary
46.8
110.4
143.6
31.5
19.8
62.4
6.3
52.6
20.8
33.6
41.2
62
routine
W
Ij
K.
Table 3.8(c)
presents
from
Urban and rural Interstates received most mainteThe same holds true for
shalThese
low and deep patching when routine maintenance activities are compared.
priority
weighting
factors
directly
reflect the sequence in which routine maintenance needs should be carried out.
This desired sequence would only be affected to some extent by resource
avai-
63
CHAPTER 4
summary
of
the
assessment
^.l^
ceived
by
An
indication
has
been
given
of
the
Volume
Also,
Highways.
similar priority scores have been determined for the fourteen IDOH rou-
tine maintenance activities (201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 211,
212,
213,
231 and 234).
mainte-
activities
by
directly
as
weighting
factor
input
are
analyses
performed on the survey data collected, with an aim of demonstrating how other
useful Information on routine maintenance practice could be derived
data.
from
the
64
A^.2^
Rehabilitation Constraints
activities
the
bilitation
Interference
duced.
constraints
on
routine
maintenance
planning,
the
concept
of
maintenance
activity
Is
period
An interference
period
is
the
duration
routine
maintenance
program
period
period was also defined to relate the two parameters defined above.
the
suspension
period
each
information
quantitatively
influence
additional analyses
were
conducted
on
the
practice in Indiana.
4.3
Mathematical programming is
maintenance
activities
currently
not
used
in
selecting
routine
Hence,
65
maintenance
need
requirements,
budget
allocation,
manpower,
schedule.
material and
A
pavement
rehabilitation
priority
weighting
priority
weighting
ser-
rou-
maintenance
The impor-
stressed.
Dis-
cussed
are the types and forms of data needed and the ways in which such data
A numerical
example
illustrates
the
procedure
of
data
proposed
programming
procedure
has
potential
modifica-
should
management systems.
66
4,4
such
1.
activities
can
enhanced
by
the
tion of resources.
2.
to
eliminate
non-uniform
inconsistent
decision-making
and
consistency
across
it will greatly
perfor-
3.
other
network
levels.
4.
programming model.
67
be Investigated by performing
parameter
sensitivity
analysis.
These
analyses
are
useful
because
these
decisions
could
be
reviewed
after
examining
their
adjusted
to
achieve
better results.
year
could
be
of
the
proposed
model.
All
these
output
acquired data.
maintenance
data
ming analysis.
highway
maintenance
would
rat-
68
REFERENCES
1.
Pavement Management
Systems
McGraw
Hill,
2.
Journal
of
Sharaf, E. A. and Sinha, K. C. , "Analysis of Highway Routine Maintenance Costs," Joint Highway Research Project, Report No. FHWA/IN/JHRP-8A/15, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, 1984.
Sharaf, E. A., Sinha, K. C. and Yoder, E, J., "Energy Conservation and Cost Savings Related to Highway Routine Maintenance," Joint Highway Research Project, Report No. FHV7A/IN/JHRP-82/23, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, 1982.
Fwa, T, F. and Sinha, K. C, "Assessment of Routine Maintenance Needs and Optimal Use of Routine Maintenance Funds," Proposal for Research Study, Joint Highway Research Project, Project No.: C-36-63K, File No.: 9-7-11, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN, January 1984.
4.
5.
6.
Montenegro, F. and Sinha, K. C, "Development of a Procedure to Assess Highway Routine Maintenance Needs," Joint Highway Research Project, FHWA/IN/JHRP-86/4, Report No. School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, 1986.
"An Estimation of Service Feighan, K. , Sinha, K. C. and White, T. D. Life and Cost of Routine Maintenance Activities," Joint Highway Research Project, Report No. FHWA/IN/JHRP-86/9, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, 1986.
,
7.
8.
Indiana Department of Highways, Field Operations Handbook Division of Maintenance, 1986-1987. Indiana Department of Highways, Field Maintenance, 1975, Updated 1987.
for
Foremen
9.
Operations
Manual ,
Division
of
10.
G.A. , Neter, J., Wasserman, W. and Whitmore, Edition, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston, 1978.
Applied
Statistics
2nd
11.
Evaluation,"
Transportation
12.
Kilareski, W.P. and Churilla, C.J., "Pavement Management for Large Highway Networks," ASCE Journal of Transportation Engineering Vol. 109, No.
,
1,
Jan.
1983.
69
13.
with
PAVER,"
Transportation
Research
14.
Stein, A., Scullion T. Smith, R.D. and Cox, S., "A Microcomputer-Based Pavement Rehabilitation and Maintenance Management System," Proceedings Second North American Conference on Managing Pavements , Vol. 2, Toronto, Canada, pp. 2.373-2.386.
D. Nie, N. H. , Hull, C. H. , Jenkins, J. C, Steinbrenner, K. and Bent, H., Statistical Package for Social Sciences , McGraw-Hill, New York, 1975.
15.
16.
Sharaf, E.A. , "Analysis of Highway Routine Maintenance Costs," Thesis, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, 1984.
Ph.D.
17.
Colucci-Rios, B., "Development of a Method for Establishing Maintenance Priorities for the Pavement Management System in Indiana," Ph.D. Thesis, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, 1984.
18.
Pavement for Highway Fwa, T.F., "An Aggregate Performance Model Analysis," Ph.D. Thesis, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University,
1985.
19.
Byrd, L.G. and Sinha, K.C. [1987], "Concepts of Integrating Maintenance Management in Pavement Management," Proceedings Second North American Conference on Managing Pavements Toronto, Canada, pp. 2.341-2.360.
,
20.
Ksaibati, K. and Sinha, K. C, "The Development of a Pavement Routine Maintenance Data Base System," Paper presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1987.
J., Multi-Purpose Cohen, C. and Stein, Version Manual No. 320, Guide, 4, Northwestern University, 1978.
21.
User's Center,
APPENDIX A
Histogram Presentation of Survey Data on Ranking and Priority Scores
70
c o
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 210 211 212 213 231 234
71
10 rrt
u o o
(0
u o
Q.
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 210 211 212 213 231 234
72
c
a.
Figure A.
73
74
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 210 211 212 213 231 234
Activity Type
75
/\
(A
>%
o
o
H
u w
o c V u
0)
Q.
<-
u
0)
c
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 210 211 212 213 231 234
Activity Type
Figure A. 6 Activity Interference Periods for High-Volume OSH in Severe Condition.
76
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 210 211 212 213 231 234
Activity Type
Figure A, 7 Activity Interference Periods for Low-Volume OSH in Severe Condition.
APPENDIX B
77
365 340
north
320
300 280
260
(0
south
>>
o
T3
240
220
O
200
0
a.
180
160
w o c V it w Hu
c
140
120 100
80 60
40 20
Sev
nod SI Interstate
Sev
Figure B.l
78
365
north
340
320
300
280 south
260
o
H
Q.
a>
240 220
e U V
200
180
160 140
o c 0) u c
120
100
80 60 40
20
Sev
nod
SI
Sev
Hod
SI
Sev
nod
SI
Interstate
Figure B.2
79
north
south
O O
c
0) In
Sev
Hod
SI
Sev
Hod
SI
Sev
Hod
SI
Interstate
Figure B.3
80
365
340 320
300
^\
north
280
760
south
M >l
TS
240
H
U
Q.
220 700
180
160
u
<*
1^ 0>
140
120
4J
H
100
80 60 40
20
Sev
tlod
SI
Sev
Hod
SI
Sev
nod
SI
Interstate
Figure B.4
81
365
north
a_
south
73
o u V
Q.
c u
0)
(^
u V e
Sev
nod
SI
Sev
Hod
SI
Sev
Mod
SI
Interstate
Figure B.5
82
north
south
260 240
o
o
ft
o u
a
o o c
Q)
li 0)
Figure B.6
83
365
340 320 300
^
10
north
south
9s
"O
o U O
O c
220
200
180
Q.
01
ti
V V u
(U
80
60 40
20
Sev
Hod
SI
Sev
Hod
SI
Sev
Hod
SI
Interstate
Figure B.7
84
a
TJ
o O U V w o c o
0)
200
180
t-
u
(U
Sev
tlod
SI
Sev
nod
SI
Sev
Hod
SI
Interstate
Figure B.8
85
365
340 320
300
280 260 240 220
H
north
south
o U
200
180
O c
160
140
120
100
80
60 40
20
Figure B.9
86
365
north
south
a
H
o U
a
0)
o c
0) Ih 0)
(
Sev
nod
SI
Sev
nod
SI
Sev
nod
SI
Interstate
Figure B.IO
87
north
south
(A
>s
\^
TJ
o
O
0)
Q.
w o
c
(U tN
s c
Sev
Hod
SI
Sev
Hod
SI
Sev
Hod
SI
Interstate
Figure B.ll
88
365 340
north
320
300 280 260
>
south
\y
o
o
o
240
220
200
180
H
ki
Q.
O c
K4 0)
160
140 120
MWi
100
80
60
40 20
Sev
Hod
SI
Sev
Hod
SI
Sev
Interstate
Figure B.12
89
280 260
south
a
"O
o
0)
Q.
180
160
0)
0)
140
<^
120
4J
100
80 60
40
20
Sev
Hod
SI
Sev
Hod
SI
Sev
Hod
SI
Interstate
Figure B.13
90
365
north
south
M a
o o
o
Q.
o c V V
0)
Figure B.14
91
APPENDIX C
COMPUTATION OF FINAL PRIORITY RATINGS FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES BY HIGHWAY CLASS AND DISTRESS SEVERITY LEVEL
maintenance programming is typically so large that it is practically impossible for one to assign realistically priority ratings simultaneously to all
combinations.
combinations.
126
cedure was devised to aid maintenance personnel in arriving at a set of priority ratings which reflects, as closely as possible, the relative priorities
Chapter
2,
manner.
(A)
Multiplication Model
"
^l.1k
^^2\k
*"
^^l^j
(C.l)
(B)
Addition Model
^ijk
"2^^2\k
"l^^l^j
i=l,2,...N^,
j=
l,2,...N2, k=l,2,...N3
(C.2)
92
where,
F
= priority rating for routine maintenance activity j of maintenance distress severity level k on highway class
(f.)
distress severity level k to all other combinations of the two factors from stage II of Part 2 of the survey
2.2)
* routine maintenance priority score for routii Lne maintenance activity type j in relation to all other routine rout maintenance activity types as obtained from stage II of Part 1 of the survey (See Figure 2.2) = total number of highway classes = total number of routine maintenance activity types = total number of distress severity levels = numerical weighting factor = numerical weighting factor
N.
w w
It
is
the entire set of priority rating scores that make the difference in an optim-
It
is,
Let f
al
and
a2
'
and
of the survey,
f,/,
the corresponding
priority scores of B.
can be considered:
93
(a)
hi
>
Multiplication Model:
^
al
x f
a2
> f
bl
x f
b2
Addition Model:
al
a2
> f.
bl
f.
b2
Conclusion:
(b)
n^x(f^j,f^2>
<"'^"^^r^2^
f
^al'^a2'^l'^2
><
>
Multiplication Model:
al
o a2
= ^v, bl
'^
^vo b2
Addition Model:
al
+ f
a2
f.
bl
f.
b2
Conclusion:
(^)
= ^al = ^a2
^l
=^2
f
^al'^a2'^l'^2
,
>
Multiplication Model:
x f
al
a2
= f
x f
bl
b2
Summation Model:
al
a/
f.
Di
f,
Dz
Conclusion:
(d)
max(f^j,f^2^
"^^^^bl '^b2^
f x
"^"^^al *^a2^
f
"^"^^bl *^b2^
Multiplication Model:
x f
Addition Model:
al
a2
f.
bl
f.
b2
Conclusion:
94
(e)
inax(f^pf^2^
^ inax(f
.,f )
"^"^^hl '^b2^
< f.
"^"^^al '^a2^
Multiplication Model:
al
x f
a2
bl
f. .
b2
Addition Model:
al
a2
< f^,
bl
+ f^ b2
Conclusion:
(f)
max(f^j,f^2>
>
'"^'^(^l'^2^
>i"(^l'^2^
>
"^^^^al ^a2^
and
Aj
> >
A A
i.e.
A^ <
A^
we have
Al x A2 < Bl x B2
i.e.
A^
= Aj >
we have
Al x A2 < Bl x B2
i.e.
>
we have
Al x A2 > Bl x B2
if
95
Al X A2 < Bl X B2
Al X A2 = Bl X B2
if
if
Conclusion:
(g)
Conclusion:
rating.
The analysis performed above shows that the models produce the same ranking of priority ratings for cases (a), cies are found in cases (f) and (g).
(b),
(c),
(d)
less of the computation method used, the top and the bottom portions of the
The discrepancies
will lead to some differences in the ranking of priority ratings in the middle
16
While the multiplication model is used in this study, one should not
and w-.
= W2.
- 97 -
APPENDIX D
the User's Guide in Reference 21 of the main report, users may make reference
to it for details.
Input Preparation
Step
If priority ratings of
class and distress severity level are not already available, conduct
a
represented by F
(3.1).
3.5.
A sample product of F
Step
If
class and distress severity level are not already available, conduct
a survey using the
this Information.
Step
98
Steps
Y^^^^
and
(3.7).
A sample of
values
3.6.
Step 4
A sam-
Table D.l
Amount
of Work
Location of
Highway
Class
Distress
Type of Maintenance
(Production
Units)
Highway Section
Severity Level
Activity Needed
Step
- 99 -
1)
parameter
( ..
i1k '
ijk
is given in Table 3.6.
4
and
(3.2) com-
pletely.
Step 6
[7]
and
[8]
in main
in Eq.
(3.3),
(ii) in
in Eq.
(3.3),
(3.4),
material requirements, M
(3.6).
Step
Steps 6 and
set up Eq.
(3.3)
completely.
Step 8
in Eq.
(3.4).
Steps 6 and 8
Step 9
in Eq.
(3.5).
Steps 6 and
(3.5) completely.
in Eq.
(3.6).
Steps 6 and 10
(3.6) completely.
Step
11
100
Interpretation of Results
In work-
and scheduling purpose, one merely needs to link them to the original condi-
tion survey data record as depicted In the sample form In Table D.l.
One can
therefore, work backward using Table D.l to pick up the location of sections
that have been selected to receive routine maintenance treatment for the
^^
Sensitivity