Case Study

Value Engineering for Roadway Expansion

Project over Deep Thick Soft Soils
Tae-Hyung Kim 1; Hyun Woo Lee, M.ASCE 2; and Seok-Woo Hong 3

Abstract: A roadway expansion that takes place on soft ground is susceptible to differential settlement because of the high consolidation of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 10/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

soft soils. Therefore, steps must be taken to lessen the risk of such settlement; yet, this often only results in costly drainage solutions. In that,
applying a systematic value engineering (VE) process can be beneficial to develop cost-effective design alternatives. However, VE studies
specifically targeting for this problem are absent from the field. Thus, the goal of this study is to supplement this knowledge gap by applying a
systematic VE process to an expansion project on soft ground to demonstrate the benefits of performing VE. A case study was performed on
an expansion project over a soft soil layer approximately 50 m thick. Through the VE process, the original design was reviewed, problems
were discussed, and three alternatives were proposed. Then value analysis techniques were applied to evaluate these alternatives in terms of
cost saving, function improvement, and value improvement with respect to the original design. The VE process and design alternatives as
applied in this study are expected to serve as a guideline for engineers and decision-makers in roadway expansion projects on soft ground.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001054. © 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Value engineering (VE); Job plan; Roadway expansion; Deep soft ground; Differential settlement; Value improvement;
Cost saving; Project planning and design.

Introduction design solutions for a roadway expansion on soft ground. In

In 2011, the number of vehicles worldwide surpassed 1 billion
units—an annual increase of 3.6%, 20 million vehicles, since 2009
(WardsAuto 2011). Today, increased traffic continues to demand
road expansions internationally, and these expansions require ad-
equate planning to minimize the chance of differential settlement
between new and existing sections. When an expansion project
occurs on soft soils specifically, the embankment for new sections
could cause high settlement because of the high consolidation
of soft soils, which subsequently leads to differential settlement
between the new and existing road. Such differential settlement
can result in a number of problems such as reduced traffic safety
and reduced structural stability, increased surface cracking, and in-
creased maintenance costs during construction and maintenance.
In recent years, ground improvement methods based on drain-
age systems have proven effective for accelerating the consolida-
tion of soft soils. Unfortunately, such drainage systems are typically
costly. Therefore, applying a systematic value engineering (VE)
process can be beneficial in developing cost-effective design alter-
natives that can improve the value of expansion projects on soft
ground, while effectively mitigating the risk of differential settle-
ment. However, no identified VE study has aimed at developing
response, the overarching goal of this study is to supplement this
knowledge gap by applying a systematic VE process to a case
project to exemplify the process of developing design alternatives
for a roadway expansion on soft ground. To achieve the goal, this
study aims: (1) to analyze the original design of a roadway expan-
sion project for brainstorming ideas for improvement; and (2) to
synthesize and evaluate ideas for developing alternatives as design
improvement through a systematic VE process, called the job plan.
To exemplify the VE process as applied in a roadway expansion
project, a highway expansion project in South Korea was selected.
It is expected that the VE process as applied in this study, along
with the design alternatives developed as a result of the process,
will provide a guideline for engineers and decision-makers to
perform VE when they face issues related to a roadway expansion
project on soft ground. It is also believed that the rigor of this case
study will provide insight and evidence regarding the capability
and effectiveness of the VE job plan in improving the value of ex-
pansion projects.
Literature Review

Geotechnical Issues Related to Expansion Projects on

1
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Korea Maritime and Ocean
Univ., Busan 606-791, Republic of Korea. E-mail: kth67399@kmou.ac.kr
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Construction Management, Univ. of
Washington, 120 Architecture Hall, Campus Box 351610, Seattle, WA
98195 (corresponding author). E-mail: hyunwlee@uw.edu
3
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Dong-Eui Univ., 176
Eomhwangno, Busan-Jin-gu, Busan 614-714, Republic of Korea. E-mail:
hongswoo@deu.ac.kr
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 29, 2014; approved
on July 10, 2015; published online on August 17, 2015. Discussion period
open until January 17, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction Engineer-
ing and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364/05015014(9)/$25.00.
Soft Ground
It is a geotechnical fact that stress can exist at a point in soils
not only because of a superstructure loading above the point,
but also by loading on adjacent points (Bowles 1997; Clough
and Woodward 1967). When applied to saturated clay, this stress
can result in consolidation because of dissipation of excess pore
water pressure (Bergado et al. 1990; Holtz and Kovacs 1981). This
localized differential settlement can cause unevenness and cracking
in the road, and even cracks in a superstructure itself (Ludlows et al.
1993; Varin and Saarenketo 2012). Applying uniform embankment
preload to the entire roadway area for an extended period will
create uniform settlement and thus minimize the likelihood of this

© ASCE 05015014-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 05015014

 problem occurring (Jamiolkowski et al. 1983). However, it is chal-
lenging to accomplish this in a road-widening project because this
process leads to prolonged construction schedules, further inter-
rupting traffic and increasing construction costs (Cao and Shi 2012;
Varin and Saarenketo 2012).
Value Engineering
VE has become an integral part of many construction projects that
have sought a way to increase the value of projects (Cariaga et al.
2007; Moon et al. 2012). VE is an organized process that identifies
opportunities that can improve the value of products while remov-
ing unnecessary costs (Dell’Isola 1997). The VE process generally
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 10/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
involves value analysis and function analysis to determine the cost-
effectiveness and feasibility of proposed design alternatives, while
meeting or exceeding the required functions of a facility at a mini-
mum life-cycle cost (Chun 2007; WVDOT 2004).
In the context of VE, the value improvement is achieved by in-
creasing the function or reducing the cost, or both, based on Eq. (1)
(Dell’Isola 1973, 1997; Lee et al. 2010):
ΔFunction
Value Improvement ¼ ð1Þ
ΔCost
where ΔFunction = function change relative to the original design;
and ΔCost = cost change relative to the original design (Dell’Isola
1973, 1997; Lee et al. 2010). In other words, for an alternative to be
considered for implementation, ΔFunction must outweigh ΔCost
(i.e., value improvement >1).
The VE process is made possible by collaboration amongst a
multidisciplinary team that carries out a rigorous, systematic effort
in value and function analysis (Dell’Isola 1997). Creative work-
shops play a vital role in the VE process by allowing a multidis-
ciplinary team to use their combined knowledge, experience, and
creativity to generate ideas (Moon et al. 2012). These ideas are then
synthesized to develop design alternatives that aim to avoid unnec-
essary expenditures while obtaining optimum value (AASHTO
2010; Dell’Isola 1973). The VE job plan (Dell’Isola 1973, 1997)
provides a guideline for VE participants by describing tasks that are
to be performed in each phase of the VE process, including inves-
tigation, speculation, evaluation, development, and presentation
(FHWA 2014). The effectiveness of VE has been reported in many
construction project cases including a report by FHWA (2013) in
which 1,191 approved VE recommendations were said to have re-
sulted in a combined cost saving of more than $1 billion in 2012
(approximately a $1 million saving per recommendation).
Soft
Ground
Fig. 1. Construction sequence of original design (adapted from Kim et al. 2012)
© ASCE 05015014-2
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 05015014
However, the results of VE studies (such as implemented VE
tools and techniques, and developed ideas and alternatives) are sel-
dom disseminated, hindering the knowledge transfer from project
to project (NCHRP 2005). An extensive literature search for VE in
highway construction revealed that only a few studies have reported
implemented procedures [e.g., Basha and Gab-Allah (1991) for
bridge construction] and design alternatives [e.g., Lee et al. (2010)
for a highway toll plaza modification]. No VE studies were iden-
tified for highway expansion projects.
Original Design and Its Limitation
For the purpose of the present study, the second branch of the
Namhae Expressway in South Korea was selected. The traffic
on the expressway had been fast approaching the traffic capacity
of the roadway. Frequency of severe traffic delays had greatly in-
creased. To diminish the traffic problem, the expressway would be
expanded from four lanes to eight lanes while traffic is diverted
during construction.
The expansion project involves constructing a new set of four
lanes alongside the existing four lanes in the westbound direction
(Fig. 1). However, because the expansion would be constructed on
soft soils up to approximately 50 m thick, there would be a signifi-
cant level of risk of differential settlement occurring. To meet the
project requirement of the transportation agency (hereinafter, the
agency) for any new road construction in the allowable residual
settlement of 10 cm, the original design included the installation
of vertical drains, called plastic board drains (PBDs), as a way
to accelerate the consolidation of soft soils (Rahman et al. 1990;
Rixner et al. 1986).
For the existing road, PBDs were installed along 1.2 km of the
highway, equivalent to 6% of the total length 19.6 km when the
existing road was constructed in 1978. For the sections constructed
without vertical drains, long-term and continuous consolidation
settlement had occurred since the opening of the road because the
embankment was built using sand, gravel, and crushed stone with-
out soft ground improvement. In that regard, the original design
included the removal of the existing road and the installation of
new vertical drains (PBDs) for improving soft ground. The design
was originally perceived to be the most economical method of en-
suring the long-term stability of the highway after the expansion.
It would satisfy the minimum longitudinal slope of 0.5% and the
minimum allowable residual settlement of 10 cm. However, a more
detailed investigation by the agency revealed the following the lim-
itations of the original design.
PBD
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Low Constructability of PBD Installation on the
Existing Road
According to the original design, PBDs would be applied to im-
prove soft soils after removing the existing road. However, as men-
tioned previously, only 6% of the existing road was constructed
with vertical drains, and the remaining 94% was built using sand,
gravel, and crushed stone for the lower part of the roadbed without
drains. These coarse materials would obstruct the installation of
PBDs, and would hence significantly reduce the constructability
of the PBD installation on the existing road. In addition, there
is a high chance of needing special drilling and excavation because
of the low constructability, and these activities could eventually
increase the schedule and costs. What is worse, if a drilling method
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 10/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
is applied on the slope of the existing road, construction could
be significantly delayed because of the additional time required
for the drilling and for filling the drilled halls on the slope (Kim
et al. 2012).
Extended Construction Schedule for Soil Stabilization
The agency learned from a previous project that soft ground im-
provement using PBD installation after removing the existing road
is time-consuming work, because of time required for the stabili-
zation of soft ground. In 1996, an expansion project that the agency
oversaw included improving soft soils in two sections of expansion
and existing roads. Despite the original schedule to complete the
entire project within 24 months, it took more than 24 months just
to improve soft soils in the expansion section. The unexpected
delay resulted in a modification of the project plan to exclude soft
ground improvement underneath the existing road. Based on the
lessons learned from the previous project, an extensive scheduling
analysis by the agency revealed that the soil stabilization after the
removal of the existing road would require more time than expected
for construction.
Increased Construction Cost for Waste Removal
The construction costs would increase in proportion to the quantity
of waste materials that need to be transported and disposed. On
top of the waste materials generated by the drilling for the PBD
installation, a large amount of asphalt concrete waste would result
from the removal of the existing road. A preliminary field inves-
tigation revealed that the asphalt concrete at some areas (especially
near bridge abutments) was up to 1.5 m deep because of repeated
pavement overlays triggered by incremental settlement more than
30 years.
Risk of Differential Settlement
Even after the PBD installation, the original design could still be
susceptible to additional differential settlement because of the fol-
lowing two factors. First, the soft ground below the existing road-
way has settled for more than 30 years. The installation of PBDs
could disturb the settled soft soils, which in turn could lead to
unexpected, additional settlement. Second, differential settlement
could occur because of different overconsolidation ratios between
the new expansion sections and existing road sections (Wang et al.
2012).
The identified issues associated with the original design trig-
gered an investigation for value improvement, and accordingly
provided a case study opportunity for this study. The following
sections present the VE job plan which project members followed
to develop design alternatives that would improve the value of the
expansion project.
© ASCE 05015014-3
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 05015014
Overall Value Engineering Process
The VE job plan is the systematic application of recognized VE
techniques (Caltrans 2013; FHWA 2014), and its objective is to
achieve improved value not only by a cost reduction but also by
increased function. Fig. 2 shows the main phases and associated
tasks of the VE job plan as applied in the project. To effectively
complete the VE process according to the job plan, a group of
project stakeholders gathered to form a VE team (hereinafter, the
team). The team consisted of a dozen of specialists including en-
gineers from the agency, engineering consultants, and civil engi-
neering professors. The agency administered the process of inviting
team members and establishing the team, and the team members
were selected based on diversified expertise, engineering back-
ground, and construction experience, to establish a multidiscipli-
nary team. When the team formation was finalized, the specialties
of the team members ranged from structural engineering, geotech-
nical engineering, transportation engineering, and construction
management. Performing the job plan was then centered on a series
of creative workshops in which project members communicated
their experience and expert opinions. The creative workshops were
hosted by the agency at Busan, South Korea, and the team met a
total of nine times from March 2009 to September 2009.
The following sections summarize the results of each phase as
performed by the team, focused on three phases, function analysis
and value analysis, idea creation, and development and evaluation.
Function Analysis and Value Analysis
The function analysis and value analysis phase of the job plan
started with the function analysis system technique (FAST), a func-
tion analysis technique that determines the basic and secondary
functions of a product or process under study (Kaufman and Wood-
head 2006). A FAST diagram has a horizontal orientation described
as the HOW-WHY dimension, because it helps “identify dependent
functions (how) and the reason for selecting those functions (why)”
(Kaufman and Woodhead 2006). VE participants are asked to start
with a function on the left and ask WHY that function is performed
and continue to ask why as they move across the diagram to the
right. The diagram will structure the logic of the identified func-
tions, and provide a basis for determining function costs (Dell’Isola
1997; UDOT 2013). Fig. 3 shows the FAST diagram that the team
developed.
PHASES TASKS
Review project requirements
Information Gathering Identify problems
Identify functions being provided
Function Analysis and Determine costs of functions
Value Analysis Determine value of functions
Determine target functions for improvement
Identify creative ideas for target functions
Idea Creation Evaluate ideas
Development and Synthesize ideas into alternatives
Evaluate alternatives
Evaluation
Presentation Present alternatives
Fig. 2. VE job plan phases and tasks
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 How? Why?
High order Ensure Minimize Reduce Minimize fill Adjust Minimize Increase Input
functions safety coupled overburden longitudinal longitudinal surface functions
settlement load alignment grade drainage
Ensure safety capacity Apply
for roadway optimum
Apply soil
expansion on Use light method
Improvement
soft ground materials
methods on
as a fill
soft ground

Control Separate new Adjust Use available

longitudinal expansion horizontal space as
cracks from the alignment green zone
existing road
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 10/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Control
differential
settlement

Meet Simplify Stabilize Change ground

Improve
construction construction ground improvement
constructability
schedule process under the method for the
existing road existing road

Secure Reduce the Select a proper

continuity of duration of fill method
Increase the construction on soft ground considering road
use of expansion
equipment in
construction

Extend Reduce Select a proper

construction stabilization method
schedule period considering
ground property

Scope of VE Study

Fig. 3. FAST diagram

Based on the functions identified through the FAST diagram,
the original design was reviewed to overcome the identified limi-
tations of the original design. The FAST diagram consists of 27
functions including two basic functions (“Ensure safety” and
“Improve constructability”). A basic function refers to “a perfor-
mance feature that must be attained” (WVDOT 2004). Through
the creative VE workshops, the team analyzed the secondary func-
tions as to which functions the team would need to focus on improv-
ing. The analysis was based on the premise that the improvement of
each selected function would most effectively help overcome the
identified limitations of the original design. As a result of the analy-
sis, the team selected the following four key functions for further
analysis (functions in bold in Fig. 3):
• F-1: Reduce overburden load,
• F-2: Adjust longitudinal alignment,
• F-3: Meet construction schedule, and
• F-4: Stabilize ground under the existing road.
As a next step, the team analyzed the function costs of the four
key functions. Function cost is defined as “the cost of the method
chosen to perform the function under consideration” (WVDOT
2004), which is prorated from the cost of an item that performs
the function (Park 1998). The analysis involved breaking down the
construction costs of three main construction operations of the
project (earthwork, vertical drain, and horizontal drain) into rela-
tive costs pertaining to each function to the best of the collective
construction and estimating knowledge of the team. Table 1
summarizes the results of the analysis. It was determined that
F-2 accounts for the highest function cost (38% = $4.2 million/
$11.2 million), followed by F-4 (30%), F-1 (18%), and F-3 (14%).
Following the function cost analysis, the team applied the de-
cision alternative ratio evaluation system (DARE) law to determine
the value weight distribution of the four key functions. Table 2
presents the results of the DARE. The DARE law suggests the fol-
lowing steps to determine the value weight distribution of n number
of functions (Sato and Kaufman 2005):
1. Determine the value index of the ith function respective to that
of the i þ 1th function whose value index is set at 1.0 (e.g., F-1
received 2.0 because the team collectively decided that F-1 is
twice more important than F-2 that was set at 1.0). Step 2 starts
with F-1 in Table 2, which is i ¼ 1. The determined indices are
given in the columns named “Value Index Based on Function-
to-Function Comparison.”
2. Repeat Step 1 until the value index of the n − 1th function (F-3
in Table 2) is determined.
3. Determine the relative value Ri of the ith function as a product
of each value index (e.g., 1.0 × 1.5 ¼ 1.5 for F-3).
4. Determine the weight score K i of the ith function by Eq. (2):


K iþ1 Ri ði ¼ 1,2; : : : ; n − 1Þ
Ki ¼ ð2Þ
Ri ði ¼ nÞ

© ASCE 05015014-4 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 05015014

 Table 1. Determination of Function Costs
Key function costs (in $ million)
F-1 F-2 F-3 F-4
Costs Reduce overburden Adjust longitudinal Meet construction Stabilize ground under
Type of work (in $ million) load alignment schedule the existing road
Earthwork 9.0 1.8 3.6 0.9 2.7
Vertical drain 1.3 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4
Horizontal drain 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3
Total 11.2 2.0 4.2 1.6 3.4
Weight (%) 100 18 38 14 30
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 10/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 2. Determination of Function Value change; −1 = degradation; −2 = significant degradation). The se-
Value index based on lection of the five criteria was suggested by the agency because the
function-to-function five criteria were in alignment with not only the business missions
Item comparison R K W (%) of the agency but also the primary concerns associated with the
expansion project. The total scores were calculated for ranking the
F-1 2.0 — — 2.0 3.0 43
F-2 (1.0) 1.0 — 1.0 1.5 21 ideas based on the following five levels:
F-3 — (1.0) 1.5 1.5 1.5 21 • Rank 5: Major value improvement (total score of 7 to 10),
F-4 — — (1.0) 1.0 1.0 14 • Rank 4: Moderate value improvement (total score of 4 to 6),
Total — — — — 7.0 100 • Rank 3: Minor value improvement (total score of 0 to 3),
• Rank 2: Moderate value degradation (total score of −1
to −5), and
• Rank 1: Major value degradation, or nonconformation (total
5. Determine the value weight W i of the ith function in percent score of −6 to −10).
by Eq. (3):
X
n Development of Design Alternatives
Wi ¼ Ki Ki ð3Þ
i¼1 The development phase involved synthesizing the ideas shown in
Tables 4 and 5 to develop design alternatives, from which three
The last step in determining the target functions for improve- alternatives resulted. The alternatives share one underlying idea:
ment is to calculate the weight differential of the four key functions “2-7 Leave the existing road.” Table 6 lists the ideas synthesized
between the function cost weight in percent (C in Table 3) and the for developing the three alternatives, and the following sections
function value weight in percent (V in Table 3). The decision rule is, present each alternative in detail.
when a function cost significantly outweighs the function’s value, it
indicates that the function likely has the opportunity for improve- Alternative 1
ment. Therefore, based on the weight differentials, F-2 and F-4
were determined to present the best opportunities for improvement Alternative 1 involves lowering longitudinal grade and installing a
because their function costs outweigh the value. Subsequently they median strip along the expansion to absorb the effect of any differ-
were selected for continued analysis. ential settlement that may occur (Fig. 4).
In this alternative, based on the Ministry of Construction and
Transportation (2003), the standard for longitudinal slope was re-
Idea Creation vised from 0.5% or greater to 0.3% or greater, which results in
reducing the depth of the embankment over the existing road by
During the idea creation phase, the team carried out a series of 5 m at most. The changes were expected to eliminate a need for
brainstorming sessions to create ideas in regards to the two func- PBD installation in the existing road section and thus minimize
tions selected for improvement. Tables 4 and 5 summarize the re- the chance of additional settlement because of the disturbance
sults of the sessions. A total of 12 ideas were suggested for each of of soils. The design for the crossings with other highways was re-
the two functions (F-2 and F-4). vised from underpass to overpass so that the grade difference be-
The suggested ideas were then evaluated based on five evalu- tween the new road and the existing road could be minimized. In
ation criteria—safety, constructability, maintenance, environment, addition, the reduction of longitudinal slopes would secure enough
and cost—and subsequently rated against the criteria by using five space for installing a three to six meter-wide green zone as a
levels (2 = significant improvement; 1 = improvement; 0 = no bumper zone. The green zone would absorb the effect of differential
settlement between each direction.
Alternative 1 allows for leaving the existing road with no PBD
Table 3. Determination of Functions for Improvement installation. Alternative 1 would therefore require only typical over-
lay over the existing road and subsequently eliminate a need for
Item F-1 F-2 F-3 F-4
embankment. As a result, Alternative 1 would reduce the quantities
Function cost weight (C) in percent 18 38 14 30 of embankment and PBD, by 500,000 m3 and 1,140,000 m, respec-
Function value weight (V) in percent 43 21 21 14 tively, which leads to a significant construction cost saving. In
C−V −25 17 −7 16 addition, the original design would require the removal of the
Rank order for improvement opportunity 4 1 3 2
existing road, resulting in additional cost needed to dispose of

© ASCE 05015014-5 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 05015014

 Table 4. Evaluation of Ideas Created for F-2
Evaluation criteria
Number Idea description Safety Constructability Maintenance Environment Cost Total Rank
1-1 Adjust minimum longitudinal slope from 0.5 to 0.3% based on given 0 2 0 0 2 4 4
in the manual and guideline for standards of road structures
1-2 Lower longitudinal grade to reduce an additional load on the 2 2 2 0 1 7 5
existing road
1-3 Change type of grade separation from underpass to overpass 1 1 2 1 −1 4 4
1-4 Change shape of culvert 1 0 2 1 0 4 4
1-5 Reduce inlet spacing of surface drainage facility 2 0 2 1 0 5 4
1-6 Use available space in the existing road 1 1 2 2 2 8 5
1-7 Install a green median strip as a bumper zone that observes the effect 2 1 2 2 2 9 5
of differential settlement
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 10/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1-8 Make the most of the existing road alignment 2 1 1 1 2 7 5

1-9 Use bridge in deep thick soft ground sections rather than embankment 2 −1 −1 0 −2 −2 2
1-10 Consider the maximum flood level of the Nakdong River 2 0 2 2 0 6 4
1-11 Maintain the transverse and longitudinal profile of underpass road 1 0 1 1 0 3 3
1-12 Secure fill material for embankment and consider transport distance of 0 0 0 2 2 4 4
fill material

Table 5. Evaluation of Ideas Created for F-4

Evaluation criteria
Number Idea description Safety Constructability Mainte-nance Environment Cost Total Rank
2-1 Use expanded polystyrene (EPS) to reduce an overburden load 2 2 0 1 −1 4 4
2-2 Replace vertical drains sand compaction pile (SCP) 1 0 0 0 −1 0 3
2-3 Relax the allowable residual settlement requirement 2 1 2 0 −1 4 4
2-4 Reduce maintenance cost 1 0 2 1 0 4 4
2-5 Apply deep cement mixing method to improve soft ground 2 1 0 −1 −2 0 3
2-6 Extend the construction schedule to get enough time required to 2 1 0 1 −2 2 3
stabilization of soft ground
2-7 Leave the existing road 2 2 0 2 2 8 5
2-8 Install vertical drains by drilling hole on the existing road 2 0 1 2 −1 4 4
2-9 Minimize coupled settlement 2 1 1 0 0 4 4
2-10 Eliminate the need for ground improvement under the existing road 2 2 0 0 2 6 5
2-11 Install a differential settlement bumper zone between the new road 2 1 2 1 0 6 5
and existing road
2-12 Separate new road from the existing road 2 −1 −1 0 −2 −2 2

Table 6. List of Ideas Synthesized for Alternatives result in a significant reduction in the quantity of embankment
Alternatives Descriptions Ideas number by 500,000 m3, but because of the same longitudinal grade as
the original design, it would require additional embankment. The
Alternative 1 • Leave the existing road 1-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
PBD installation on the existing road would require additional
• Lower longitudinal grade 8, 10, 12
• Eliminate PBD installation 2-3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11
construction cost not only for the installation itself but also for
• Install a median strip the treatment of the disturbed soil during installation. For those rea-
Alternative 2 • Leave the existing road 1-10, 12 sons, the schedule reduction by Alternative 2 is not as significant as
• Install PBD installation 2-3, 4, 7, 8, 9 Alternative 1.
through the existing road
Alternative 3 • Leave the existing road 1-10, 12
• Use EPS for embankment 2-1, 3, 7, 9 Alternative 3
Alternative 3 involves using expanded polystyrene (EPS) to re-
duce the weight of embankment on the existing road, so that the
PBD installation would not be needed (Fig. 6). Like Alternative
the demolished asphalt concrete and existing base. Therefore, if 2, Alternative 3 shares the benefit of reducing the quantity of em-
Alternative 1 is applied, the need for removing the existing road bankment by 500,000 m3 but still requires additional embankment
is eliminated, and construction schedule would be reduced by at because of the same longitudinal grade as the original design. Like
least 10 months. Alternative 1, Alternative 3 would reduce the quantity of PBDs by
1,140,000 m, and subsequently eliminate a need for the treatment
of the disturbed soil during the PBD installation. However, the in-
Alternative 2
stallation of EPS would require a significant increase both in con-
Alternative 2 involves PBD installation without removing the struction cost and operation, so the benefit from schedule reduction
existing road (Fig. 5). Similar to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would is not comparable to Alternative 1.

© ASCE 05015014-6 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 05015014

 Median Strip
3~6 m
Lower Longitudinal
Grade

Median
Leave the Strip
Existing Road 3~6m

No Ground
Improvement
The Existing Road
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 10/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 4. (a) Section view; (b) plan view of Alternative 1

38.8 m

Leave the
Existing Road 38.8 m

PBD Installation through 6.0 m

the Existing Road
The Existing Road

(a) (b)

Fig. 5. (a) Section view; (b) plan view of Alternative 2

38.8 m

EPS
Installation

Leave the
Existing Road 38.8 m

No Ground
Improvement 6.0 m

The Existing Road

(a) (b)

Fig. 6. (a) Section view; (b) plan view of Alternative 3

Evaluation of Design Alternatives Comparison of Cost Savings

The evaluation phase of the job plan consisted of three steps: com-
parison of cost savings, analysis of function improvement, and
analysis of value improvement. The three steps led to a selection
of the best value alternative, and the selection process is detailed
in this section. Based on Eq. (1), value improvements from each
alternative were measured based on the level of function changes
relative to the original design, and the level of cost changes relative
to the original design. The goal was to select the alternative that
would offer the largest value improvement.
At the start of the evaluation phase, the team determined that each
alternative would require an equivalent level of regular mainte-
nance, and hence only the construction costs were considered for
analysis. Table 7 compares construction costs of the three alterna-
tives to those of the original design, and compares the cost varia-
tions among the alternatives to calculate relative cost ratios (RC).
First, Alternative 1 would lead to a cost reduction of $3 million
(26.8% less than the original design) by leaving the existing road
untouched, eliminating the need for PBD installation, reducing the

© ASCE 05015014-7 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 05015014

 Table 7. Cost Variations between Alternatives and Original Design
Cost (in $ million) Cost Variation (in $ million)
Type of work Original design Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Earthwork 9.0 8.2 8.2 8.2 (0.8) (0.8) (0.8)
Vertical drain 1.3 — 3.4 — (1.3) 2.1 (1.3)
Horizontal drain 0.9 — 0.9 — (0.9) — (0.9)
EPS — — — 19.5 — — 19.5
Total 11.2 8.2 12.5 27.7 (3.0) 1.3 16.5
Relative cost ratio (RC) (%) (26.8) 11.6 147.3

Table 8. Analysis of Function Improvement

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 10/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Items Original design Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

a a a
Weighting Rank Points Rank Points Rank Points Ranka Points
Performance (A) (B) (A × B) (B1) (A × B1) (B2) (A × B2) (B3) (A × B3)
Safety 7 4 28 4 28 4 28 4 28
Constructability 10 1 10 5 50 2 20 5 50
Maintenance 5 3 15 4 20 3 15 3 15
Environment 2 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6
Cost 7 2 14 4 28 2 14 1 7
Function points 73 132 83 106
Relative function improvement — 80.8 13.7 45.2
(FI) (%)
a
Rank: 5 = very good; 4 = good; 3 = fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

longitudinal slope, and installing a bumper zone. Second, Alterna- Table 9. Analysis of Value Improvement
tive 2 would actually result in a cost increase of $1.3 million Original Alternative Alternative Alternative
(11.6% more than the original design) because of the increased Items design 1 2 3
quantity of PBD installation on the existing road. Lastly, Alterna-
Relative function 1.00 1.81 1.14 1.45
tive 3 is presumed to save $3 million in earthwork and installation
improvement ðFIÞ þ 100%
of vertical and horizontal drains; yet the installation of EPS would Relative cost ratio 1.00 0.73 1.12 2.47
completely offset the savings and eventually result in a cost in- ðRCÞ þ 100%
crease of $16.5 million (147.3% more than the original design). Value improvement — 2.48 1.02 0.59

Analysis of Function Improvement

The same five evaluation criteria used in the idea creation phase
(safety, constructability, maintenance, environment, and cost) were
used for analyzing function improvement of each alternative with
regards to the original design. The team collectively decided on
weightings of each preformation criterion in which constructabil-
ity received the highest weighting of 10, whereas environment
received the lowest weighting of two. Table 8 summarizes the re-
sults of the function improvement analysis that was performed
based on five-point rating. The analysis results indicate that Alter-
native 1 offers a significant function improvement from the origi-
nal design by 80.8%. In contrary, Alternative 2 only indicates a
function improvement by 13.7% with regards to the original de-
sign. A relatively significant function improvement by 45.2% was
determined for Alternative 3, primarily because of its high score in
constructability.
Analysis of Value Improvement
Table 9 summarizes the results of value improvement analysis.
The analysis involved determining the value improvement of each
alternative based on Eq. (4):
Function ImprovementðFIÞ þ 100%
Value Improvement ¼ ð4Þ
Relative Cost RatioðRCÞ þ 100%
As a result, Alternative 1 indicates a significant value improve-
ment by a ratio of 2.48, whereas Alternative 3 indicates significant
value degradation because of a significant cost increase by the EPS
installation. It is interesting to see that a value improvement from
Alternative 2 is insignificant because its improved function is offset
by its increased construction cost.
Conclusion and Future Study
When a roadway expansion project occurs on soft ground, the high
consolidation of soft soils can significantly increase the risk of
differential settlement occurring between the new and existing
road. Recently, ground improvement involving drainage systems
have been used to mitigate the risk, yet significant cost increases
have resulted. Therefore, applying a systematic VE process can
support the development of design alternatives to improve the value
of roadway expansion projects. By using the job plan, this study
aimed at achieving such value improvement for a roadway expansion
project on soft ground. A case study was carried out on a highway
expansion project that would occur on soft soils up to 50 m thick.
The original design included installing PBD after removing the
existing road. This design was subject to a number of issues includ-
ing low constructability, increased construction costs, difficulty in
PBD installation, a complicated construction process, and a pro-
longed construction schedule. The identified issues triggered an
investigation of value improvement to be carried out by a group of
experts acting as a VE team. By following the VE job plan, the
team hosted a series of brainstorming sessions to develop and com-

© ASCE 05015014-8 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 05015014

 pare ideas for the two key functions identified for improvement:
adjust longitudinal alignment and stabilize the ground under the
existing road. As a result, a total of 24 ideas were developed—12
for each of the two functions. The ideas included leaving the
existing road, lowering longitudinal grade, reducing overload
weight, and installing a green median zone. These ideas were then
synthesized, resulting in three final alternatives. The alternatives
shared one underlying idea, “Leave the existing road.”
Based on the detailed analyses in cost saving, function improve-
ment, and value improvement, it was determined that Alternative 1
provides the best value with respect to the original design. Alter-
native 1 involved lowering longitudinal grade and installing a
median strip along the expansion to absorb the effect of any differ-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 10/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ential settlement that may occur. Alternative 1 would result in a cost
saving of $3 million—26.8% less than the original design. Based
on the five evaluation criteria (safety, constructability, maintenance,
environment, and cost), Alternative 1 indicated a significant function
improvement of 80.8% (from 73 to 132), and subsequently a signifi-
cant value improvement (248% improvement from the original de-
sign). As a result, Alternative 1 was selected for implementation.
In conclusion, the job plan based on the team’s creative work-
shops allowed for the effective development of a design alternative
that would offer a significant value improvement over the original
design. The team believed that the selected design alternative
(Alternative 1) would be effective in mitigating the risk of differ-
ential settlement while significantly reducing the complexity, cost,
and schedule of the construction. Therefore, the implementation
of the alternative is expected to improve the overall value of the
expansion project through improved function and cost saving com-
pared with the original design.
The findings and conclusions in this study require careful inter-
pretation because of the uniqueness of every project and because of
VE being project-specific. Thus, the authors do not claim that the
three alternatives presented in this study are the only viable options
for roadway expansion projects on deep soft ground. However,
given that there is a dearth of reported VE studies on highway con-
struction in general, the authors expect that the rigor of this case
study has provided insight on and may act as a guideline for how
a VE study can be implemented to improve the value of expansion
projects on soft soils. The authors suggest that additional case stud-
ies be conducted to further capture VE practices in roadway expan-
sion projects. Such efforts are expected to further contribute to the
overall body of knowledge in the field.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge that this study was performed
with the support and cooperation of the Naengjeong-Busan Con-
struction Agency of the Korea Expressway Corporation.
References
AASHTO. (2010). Guidelines for value engineering, Washington, DC.
Basha, I., and Gab-Allah, A. (1991). “Value engineering in Egyptian bridge
construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364
(1991)117:3(393), 393–401.
Bergado, D. T., Ahmed, S., Sampaco, C. L., and Balasubramaniam, A. S.
(1990). “Settlements of Bangna-Bangpakong highway on soft Bangkok
clay.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1990)116:1(136),
136–155.
Bowles, J. E. (1997). Foundation analysis and design, 5th Ed.,
McGraw-Hill, NY.
Caltrans (The California Department of Transportation). (2013). “Value
analysis team leader guide.” Sacramento, CA.
© ASCE 05015014-9
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 05015014
Cao, W. P., and Shi, Q. C. (2012). “Settlements of existing and widened
embankments over soft soils.” Adv. Mater. Res., 446–449, 1167–1171.
Cariaga, I., El-Diraby, T., and Osman, H. (2007). “Integrating value analy-
sis and quality function deployment for evaluating design alternatives.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2007)133:10(761),
761–770.
Chun, K.-S. (2007). “Current status and suggestions of performance and
value assessment in design VE.” Korean Soc. Civ. Eng. Mag., 55(2),
41–46.
Clough, R. W., and Woodward, R. J. (1967). “Analysis of embankment
stresses and deformations.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 93(4), 529–549.
Dell’Isola, A. J. (1973). Value engineering in the construction industry,
Construction Publication, Cedar Rapids, IA.
Dell’Isola, A. J. (1997). Value engineering: Practical applications
for design, construction, maintenance and operations, RSMeans,
Norwell, MA.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). (2013). “FY 2012 value engi-
neering accomplishment report.” Washington, DC.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). (2014). “Job plan.” 〈http://www
.fhwa.dot.gov/ve/vejob.cfm〉 (Jan. 7, 2014).
Holtz, R. D., and Kovacs, W. D. (1981). An introduction to geotechnical
engineering, 2nd Ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Jamiolkowski, M., Lancellotta, R., and Wolski, W. (1983). “Precompres-
sion and speeding up consolidation.” Proc., 8th Europe Conf. Soil Mech.
and Foundation Engineering, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands,
1201–1226.
Kaufman, J. J., and Woodhead, R. (2006). Stimulating innovation in
products and services: Function analysis and function mapping, Wiley,
Hoboken, NJ.
Kim, T.-H., Park, T.-Y., Kim, S.-R., You, S.-H., Kim, K.-H., and Kim, Y.-T.
(2012). “Design improvement of the road expansion on a deep thick soft
ground.” J. Korean Geotech. Soc., 28(8), 89–99.
Lee, M. J., Lim, J. K., and Hunter, G. (2010). “Performance-based value
engineering application to public highway construction.” KSCE J. Civ.
Eng., 14(3), 261–271.
Ludlows, J., Chen, W. F., Bourdeau, P. L., and Lovell, P. L. (1993).
Embankment widening and grade raising on soft foundation soils,
Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN.
Ministry of Construction and Transportation. (2003). “Manual and guide-
line for standards of road’s structure and facilities.” Gwacheon, Korea.
Moon, S., Ha, C., and Yang, J. (2012). “Structured idea creation for
improving the value of construction design.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000491, 841–853.
NCHRP (National Cooperative Highway Research Program). (2005).
“Value engineering applications in transportation.” Washington, DC.
Park, R. (1998). Value engineering: A plan for invention, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL.
Rahman, J., Suppiah, A., Yong, K. W., and Shahrizaila, Z. (1990). “Perfor-
mance of stage constructed embankment on soft clay with vertical drains.”
Proc., Sem. Geotech. Aspects of N-S Expressway, Projek Lebuhraya
Utara-Selatan Berhad (PLUS), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 245–253.
Rixner, J. J., Kraemer, S. R., and Smith, A. D. (1986). Prefabricated
vertical drains, Vol. 1 (Engineering guidelines), Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), Washington, DC.
Sato, Y., and Kaufman, J. J. (2005). Value analysis tear-down: A new pro-
cess for product development and innovation, Industrial Press, South
Norwalk, CT.
UDOT (Utah Department of Transportation). (2013). Manual of instruc-
tion: Value engineering, UDOT, Salt Lake City, UT.
Varin, P., and Saarenketo, T. (2012). Road widening guidelines, Roadex
Network, Finland.
Wang, Y., Tan, W., Zhao, J., and Guo, H.-Y. (2012). “The analysis of
the differential settlement of widened road based on ANSYS.” Proc.,
Civil Engineering and Urban Planning (CEUP 2012), ASCE, Reston,
VA, 699–703.
WardsAuto. (2011). “World vehicle population tops 1 billion units.” 〈http://
wardsauto.com/ar/world_vehicle_population_110815〉 (Jan. 17, 2014).
WVDOT (West Virginia Department of Transportation). (2004). Value
engineering manual, WVDOT, Charleston, WV.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.