HDM-4 Series Erratum

Version 1.3

Volume 4: Analytical Framework and Model Descriptions

Part C2: Section 4.1 Seasonal and drainage effects (Page C2-13)
Part C2: Section 10.3 Plastic deformation (Page C2-49)
Part C3: Section 4.1 Jointed plain concrete pavements (Page C3-19)
Part D2: Section 3.1.6 Effects of Patching (Page D2-13)
Part D2: Section 4.2.2 Effects of Resealing (Page D2-28)
Section 4.3.2 Effects of Overlay (Page D2-33)
Section 4.4.2 Effects of Mill and replace (Page D2-37)
Section 6.2.2 Effects of Widening (Pages D2-57 and D2-58)
Section 6.3.2 Effects of Realignment (Page D2-68)
Section 7.1.3 Bituminous Pavements (Page D2-76)
Part E2: Section 3.2.5 Desired Speed (VDESIR) (Page E2-19)
Section 4.6.2 Natural Acceleration Noise (Page E2-30)
 Version 1.2

Volume 2: Applications Guide

Part B2: Section 4.1 Total Enumeration (Page B2-14)

Volume 4: Analytical Framework and Model Descriptions

Part A1: Section 4.4 Prioritisation (Page A1-16)
Part G1: Section 6.1 Total Enumeration (Page G1-24)
Part G1: Section 6.2 Incremental Benefit/Cost Ranking (Page G1-24)
Part D2: Section 4.3.2 Effects of Overlay (Page D2-33)

Version 1.1

Volume 4: Analytical Framework and Model Descriptions

Part D2: Section 3.1.6 Effects of Patching (Page D2-11)
 HDM-4 Version 1.3

Volume 4:
Analytical Framework and Model Descriptions

Part C2:

Section 4.1 Seasonal and drainage effects (Page C2-13)

Equation 3.7 has been replaced by EC2-3.7 given below:

 [1 - exp(a 0 MMP)] 
f = K f 1 - (1 + a 2DFa )(1 + a 3 ACRA a + a 4 APOTa ) . . . (EC2-3.7)
 a1 

Part C2:

Section 10.3 Plastic deformation (Page C2-49)

The following new text has been added to the legend Sh for Equation 10.6:

If the road section traffic does not include heavy vehicles Sh = 80 km/h will be used.

Part C3:

Section 4.1 Jointed plain concrete pavements (Page C3-19)

Equation 4.1 has been replaced by EC3-4.1 given below:

100
PCRACK = . . . (EC3-4.1)
1 + 1.41 * (Kjp c * FD) -1.66
Part D2:

Section 3.1.6 Effects of Patching (Page D2-13)

Equation 3.18 has been replaced by ED2-3.18 given below:

    APAT   
 
RI aw = MAX 0.5, RI bw - MIN  a0 * ∆CRX w + ∆ RI t - a1 * MIN ,10  , (a2 - RI bw ) 
   (10 * CW ) 
      

...(ED2-3.18)

Part D2:

Section 4.2.2 Effects of Resealing (Page D2-28)

The parameter SFCaw should read SFC50 aw

Section 4.3.2 Effects of Overlay (Page D2-33)

The parameter SFCaw should read SFC50 aw

Section 4.4.2 Effects of Mill and replace (Page D2-37)

The parameter SFCaw should read SFC50 aw

Section 6.2.2 Effects of Widening (Pages D2-57 and D2-58)

The parameter SFCaw should read SFC50 aw

Section 6.3.2 Effects of Realignment (Page D2-68)

The parameter SFCaw should read SFC50 aw

Section 7.1.3 Bituminous Pavements (Page D2-76)

The parameter SFCaw should read SFC50 aw
Part E2:

Section 3.2.5 Desired Speed (VDESIR) (Page E2-19)

Equation 3.17 has been replaced by EE2-3.17 given below:

VDESIR0 = VDES * VDESMUL * MAX(0.36, XNMT * XFRI ) . . .(EE2-3.17)

Part E2:

Section 3.2.5 Desired Speed (VDESIR) (Page E2-20)

The minimum allowable values for the XNMT and XFRI speed reduction factors have been
changed from 0.6 to 0.4. Hence,

The range of XNMT has been changed from 0.6 - 1 to 0.4 – 1

The range of XFRI has been changed from 0.6 - 1 to 0.4 – 1

Part E2:

Section 4.6.2 Natural Acceleration Noise (Page E2-30)

The minimum allowable values for the XNMT and XFRI speed reduction factors have been
changed from 0.6 to 0.4. Hence,

The range of XNMT has been changed from 0.6 - 1 to 0.4 – 1

The range of XFRI has been changed from 0.6 - 1 to 0.4 – 1
 HDM-4 Version 1.2

Volume 2:
Applications Guide

Part B2:

Section 4.1 Total Enumeration (Page B2-14)

The text at the beginning of this section has been replaced:

The new text reads as follows:

Total enumeration is performed internally within the HDM-4 software provided the problem size
is small, i.e., less than 6 road sections each with less than 5 alternatives. The AHMED method of
effective gradients is generally used within HDM-4 as coded in the EBM-32 version, provided the
problem size is within the following limits:

n Maximum number of sections: 400

n Maximum number of alternatives: 17
n Maximum number of years: 20
n Maximum number of budget periods: 12

See the Erratum for Volume 4 in this document for the detailed specifications of the optimisation
method implemented in HDM-4 version 1.2.
 Volume 4:
Analytical Framework and Model Descriptions

Part A1:

Section 4.4 Prioritisation (Page A1-16)

The following text at the end of this section has been replaced:

The incremental analysis is used to test whether the ratio of the increase in NPV to the increase in
costs between alternative mutually exclusive projects is greater than a specified marginal ratio.
The formula is defined as:
(NPV2 - NPV1 )
IBCR = …(4.1)
(C 2 - C 1 )
where:

IBCR Incremental Benefit/Cost Ratio

NPV 2, 1 Net Present Values of two mutually exclusive project alternatives
C2, 1 Investment costs of the two mutually exclusive project alternatives

If the above ratio is greater than a specified marginal value, then the project alternative is included
among those to be funded. The marginal value is usually determined from the BCR of the road
project at the budget boundary.
Further details of the above method are given in the Applications Guide (Volume 2).

The new text reads as follows:

The incremental analysis is used to test whether the ratio of the increase in NPV to the increase in
financial capital cost of the mutually exclusive project alternatives is greater than a specified
marginal ratio. The formula is defined as:

 (NPV j - NPVi ) 
ji  cost - cost 
( )
E = ...(4.1)
 j i 

where:
Eji the incremental NPV/cost ratio
NPV j the net present value of the more expensive project alternative j
NPV i the net present value of the cheaper alternative i
costj the financial capital cost of the selected project alternatives; j, i

Part G1:
Section 6.1 Total Enumeration (Page G1-24)

The following text at the end of this section has been replaced:

Total enumeration is performed externally in the EBM-HS software of HDM-III. The procedure is
as follows:
1 Create an input file for the EBM-HS in the programme analysis. The format of this file is defined in
the HDM-III EBM documentation.
1. The user starts the EBM-HS, imports the file to the EBM-HS, runs it, and exports results to an output
file.
2. The output file is imported to the programme analysis for reporting.

The new text reads as follows:

Total enumeration is performed internally within the HDM-4 software provided the problem size
is small, i.e., less than 6 road sections each with less than 5 alternatives. The AHMED method of
effective gradients is generally used within HDM-4 as coded in the EBM-32 version, provided the
problem size is within the following limits:

n Maximum number of sections: 400

n Maximum number of alternatives: 17
n Maximum number of years: 20
n Maximum number of budget periods: 12

The effective gradient method (see appendix 8B in Watanatada et al, 1987) proceeds in two
stages: first, it finds a feasible solution based on the concept of effective gradients; and second, it
searches for better solutions that would improve the total NPV obtained after the first stage . The
computational procedure is described below:
Stage I: Find feasible solution

Step 1: For each road section k, consider the alternative that has the maximum net present
value. Check whether the capital budget constraints are satisfied. If so, go to step 10.
Otherwise, proceed to step 2.
Step 2: For each road section, rank the alternatives according to the ranking index RIkm,
defined as:

 
 NPV
 ( km
)
m = 1,..., M k
RI = ….(6.3a)
km  Q T
Rkmqt 
 ∑∑ 
 q=1 t =1 TRqt 

where:

Rkm the ranking index

NPV km the net present value of the selected road section alternative km
Rkmqt the required financial capital budget of type q, for road section k, alternative m,
in budget period t.
TRqt the total financial capital budget of type q, available within budget period t.
Q the number of budget types available
T the number of time periods specified
Mk the total number of road sections to be prioritised.

Note that Q = 1 in HDM-4, i.e. only the capital budget constraint is used.

Step 3: For each road section, select the alternative that has the greatest ranking index, RIkm
Step 4: Add the budget requirements for all the selected alternatives and check whether all
the budget constraints are satisfied. If so, go to step 8. Otherwise, go to step 5.
Step 5: Consider the road section alternatives selected in step 4. Calculate the effective
gradients EGk of the selected section alternatives, defined as:

 

 ( NPV )
km


EG =   ….(6.3b)
k K
 ∑ ∑ ∑
Rkmqt Rkmqt −TRqt 
 ( q, t .. ∈...Q 'T ') k =1 

where:
k = 1, …, K and Q’T’ is the set of exceeded budget periods.
 Step 6: Consider the road section with the smallest effective gradient and, if possible,
exchange the selected alternative with the next best one for that road section which
satisfies the criterion that it should not be uniformly worse in terms of requirement of
exceeded budgets. The next best alternative is defined in terms of the next higher
ranking index (RIkm). If all the alternatives for the road section are exhausted, go to
step 7. Otherwise, return to step 4.
Step 7: Consider the road section with the next higher effective gradient EGk . Return to step
4.

Stage II: Search for better solutions

Step 8: For each road section, look for an alternative that has the highest net present value
other than the one currently selected, and which would be feasible if the currently
selected alternative is replaced. If there is at least one alternative that meets this
condition, go to step 9. Otherwise, go to step 10.
Step 9: From all the road sections that have at least one better feasible alternative, select the
one that gives the maximum increase in the net present value. Return to step 8.
Step 10: Stop. A final solution has been obtained.

It is possible that the algorithm can fail to find a solution in Stage I. If this happens, then it is
recommended that the user should pre-select an alternative for one or more road sections and re-
run the optimisation.

[The above text was extracted from: Watanatada et al, 1987, Appendix 8B.]
Part G1:

Section 6.2 Incremental Benefit/Cost Ranking (Page G1-24)

The following text at the beginning of this section has been replaced:

With many applications of HDM-4, a large number of road sections will need to be prioritised. In
these cases, the incremental benefit/cost method is the most appropriate. This involves searching
through investment options on the basis of the incremental NPV/cost ratio of one alternative
compared against another. The incremental NPV/cost is defined as:

  NPV - NPV  
 j i
E =  ...(6.4)
  cost - cost  
ji
 j i 

where:

Eji the incremental NPV/cost ratio

NPV j the net present value of the more expensive alternative j
NPV i the net present value of the cheaper alternative i
costj the economic cost of the more expensive alternative j
costi the economic cost of the cheaper alternative i

The new text reads as follows:

The following text at the beginning of this section has been replaced:

With many applications of HDM-4, a large number of road sections will need to be prioritised. In
these cases, the incremental benefit/cost method is the most appropriate. This involves searching
through investment options on the basis of the incremental NPV/cost ratio of one alternative
compared against the base case. The incremental NPV/cost is defined as:

 
 NPV j - NPVi  
E =  ...(6.4)
  cost  
ji
  j 

where:

Eji the incremental NPV/cost ratio

NPV j the net present value of the selected project alternative j
NPV i the net present value of the designated base alternative i
costj the financial capital cost of the selected project alternative j
Part D2:

Section 4.3.2 Effects of Overlay (Page D2-33)

The following text has been removed. Equation 4.32 has been replaced by Equations E4.32
to E4.39 given in the new text below. Equation 4.32 has been removed.

The adjusted roughness after preparatory works (RIap) is then used to compute the final
roughness after overlay as follows (NDLI, 1995):

RI aw = = a0 + a1 * MAX [0, (RI ap - a0 )] * MAX [0, (a2 - HSNEW aw )] ...(4.32)

where:
RIaw roughness after overlay (IRI m/km)
RIap adjusted roughness after preparatory works (IRI m/km)
HSNEWaw thickness of overlay (mm)
a0 to a2 user-definable parameters (defaults = 2.0, 0.01, 80 respectively)

The new text that replaces the above reads as follows:

The overlay-roughness relationship for a specified overlay thickness, overlay technique, and an
existing pavement type can be represented diagrammatically as in Figure E4.01. This is referred
to as a bilinear model.
Reduction in roughness, ∆RI

a3
dR2

a1 dR1

0 a0 a2 Roughness before overlay, RIbo

Figure E4.01: Effects of overlay on roughness

The reduction in roughness after overlay, ∆RI, is given by the sum of dR1 and dR2, and this is
expressed as follows (Odoki, 2001):
 { [ ( ) ]
ÄRI = MAX 0, a1* MIN a2, RIap − a0 + a3* MAX 0, RI ap − a2 [ ( )]} ...(E4.32)

and

RI aw = RI ap - ÄRI ...(E4.33)

where:

∆RI reduction in roughness after overlay (IRI m/km)

RIaw roughness after overlay (IRI m/km)
RIap adjusted roughness after preparatory patching works (IRI m/km)
a0 to a3 user-definable parameters

The user-definable parameters a0 to a3 of the bilinear model are shown in Figure E4.01 and
defined as follows:

a0 minimum roughness after overlay (IRI m/km)

a1 slope of the first line (line 1) (default = 0.9)
a2 intersection point of the two lines (bilinear model) (IRI m/km)
a3 slope of the second line (line 2)

The default values of parameters a0, a2 and a3 are computed as a function of the thickness of
overlay as follows:
a0 = 1 + 0.018 * MAX[0, (100 - HSNEW aw )] ...(E4.34)

a2 = MAX[4.0,2.1 * EXP (0.019 * HSNEW aw )] ...(E4.35)

a3 = MIN {a1, MAX [0, (0.01 * HSNEW aw - 0.15 )]} ...(E4.36)

where:
HSNEWaw Thickness of overlay (mm)

The user may opt to use a linear relationship by defining the model parameters accordingly. This
is done by using the equivalent of line 2 only with line 1 set to zero. In this case, the reduction in
roughness is given by:
[ ( )
ÄRI = MAX 0, RI ap - a0 − ÄRITr ] ...(E4.37)
where
{ [ ( ) ]
ÄRITr = MAX 0, a1* MIN a2, RIap − a0 + a3* MAX 0, RI ap − a2 [ ( )]} ...(E4.38)

For the linear relationship the default parameter values are set as follows: a0 = a2, a2 = 1.0, a1 =
0, and a3 is computed using equation (E4.39):

a3 = MAX [0, (0.8 - 0.01 * HSNEW aw )] ...(E4.39)

 HDM-4 Version 1.1

Volume 4:
Analytical Framework and Model Descriptions

Part D2:

Section 3.1.6 Effects of Patching (Page D2-11)

The new text for the section on Effects of Patching on Roughness is given below.
Equations 3.20 to 3.22 have been replaced by E3.20. Equations 3.20 to 3.22 have been
removed.

Roughness
The reduction in roughness due to the patching of potholes is calculated as follows, based on
Watanatada et al. (1987):

 0 .1 * ∆NPT w 
∆ RI t = 0.378 *   ...(E3.20)
 10 * CW 

where:

∆RIt reduction in roughness due to pothole patching (IRI m/km)

∆NPTw reduction in number of potholes per km due to patching

CW carriageway width (m)