Engineering Bulletin

Life Cycle
Cost Analysis:
A Guide for Comparing
Alternate Pavement Designs

Time Present
Worth
%

American
Concrete
Pavement
Association
 Engineering Bulletin

Life Cycle Cost Analysis:

A Guide for Comparing
Alternate Pavement Designs

N CONC
CA
RI American Concrete Pavement Association
RE
E
★ AM

TE

5420 Old Orchard Road, Suite A100

★

Skokie, Illinois 60077-1059

PAV

ON

Phone: 847-966-2272 • Fax: 847-966-9970

I

M
E

AT

EN I
T ASSOC

ACPA is the premier national association representing concrete pavement

contractors, cement companies, equipment and material manufacturers and
suppliers. We are organized to address common needs, solve common
problems, and accomplish goals related to research, market development,
local promotion, design construction and best practices of portland cement
concrete pavements.
KEYWORDS: cement, concrete, concrete pavement, concrete pavement restoration, construction, cost, CPR,
discount rate, equivalent uniform annual cost, inflation rate, initial cost, interest rate, LCCA, life cycle, life cycle cost
analysis, maintenance, net present value, overlay, pavement, paving, PCCP, performance, portland cement, portland
cement concrete, portland cement concrete pavement, present worth, probabilistic analysis, reconstruct,
rehabilitation, salvage value, user cost

ABSTRACT: This engineering bulletin presents the concepts of Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) for the purpose of
comparing equivalent competing pavement design alternatives on an economic basis. All of the factors that should be
considered in an economic analysis are explained, and guidance is given on the selection of values for LCCA-
sensitive factors. Examples of three different analyses are given: highway, county road, and city street. Advanced
LCCA techniques are discussed, including the impacts of pavement type selection on a roadway network. Finally, life
cycle cost and pavement performance studies are summarized, showing the benefits of concrete’s low life cycle cost
and other economic benefits.

This publication is intended SOLELY for use by PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL who are competent to evaluate the
significance and limitations of the information provided herein, and who will accept total responsibility for the
application of this information. The American Concrete Pavement Association DISCLAIMS any and all
RESPONSIBILITY and LIABILITY for the accuracy of and the application of the information contained in this
publication to the full extent permitted by law.

© American Concrete Pavement Association 2002

 Engineering Bulletin
Table of Contents

Life Cycle Cost Analysis:

A Guide for Comparing
Alternate Pavement Designs
Page

Chapter 1 Introduction 1
➣ Types of Economic Analyses 1
➣ Present Worth & Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost 1
➣ Performing a LCCA 2

Chapter 2 Basic Factors 3

➣ Agency Costs 3
➣ Initial Cost 3
➣ Effect of Initial Costs 3
➣ Maintenance & Operation Costs 6
➣ Rehabilitation Costs 7
➣ Selection of Rehabilitation Activities 7
➣ Timing of Rehabilitation Activities 9
➣ Estimating the Timing of Rehabilitation Activities 10
➣ Salvage Value 11
➣ User Costs 11
➣ Delay-of-Use Costs 11
➣ User Costs due to Roadway Deterioration 11
➣ Accident Costs 12
➣ Using User Costs in LCCA 13
➣ User Cost Example 13
➣ Discount Rate 14
➣ Choosing a Discount Rate – The Traditional View 14
➣ Interest Rates 14
➣ Inflation Rates 15
➣ Discount Rate Selection for State DOT’s 16
➣ Comparable Sections 17
➣ Length of Analysis Period 17

Chapter 3 Examples 19
➣ Case 1 – Existing Interstate Pavement 19
➣ Case 2 – Rural County Pavement 20
➣ Case 3 – City Street Reconstruction 20
 Engineering Bulletin

Table of Contents
Page

Chapter 4 Advanced LCCA 21

➣ Probabilistic Analysis 21
➣ Interpreting Probabilistic Analysis Results 22
➣ Simplified Risk Analysis 22
➣ Network Impacts 23
➣ Pavement Cost vs. Project Cost 24

Chapter 5 Life Cycle Cost & Performance Studies 25

➣ Comparative Performance of In-Service
Highway Pavements 25
➣ Michigan Studies 26
➣ Case Study Comparisons of the Life-Cycle
Costs of HMAC and PCC Pavements on Lower
Volume Roads in Minnesota 26
➣ Iowa County Road Study - Impact of Pavement
Type on County Road Systems 27
➣ Kansas City Street Study 28

Chapter 6 Summary 29

References 30

Appendices 35

Metric Conversion Factors 50

 Engineering Bulletin

Chapter 1
Introduction

Life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) is an economic proce- Present Worth and Equivalent
dure used to compare competing design alternates, over
the lives of each alternate, considering all significant
Uniform Annual Cost
costs and benefits, expressed in equivalent dollars.(1) It The results of a LCCA can be presented in several ways.
is important to understand that LCCA is an economic The two most common are Present Worth (PW) and
tool that determines which alternate has the best value Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost (EUAC). Present Worth
and not an engineering tool that determines how long is the sum of all costs (and benefits) over the project life
an alternate will last or how well it will perform. in today's dollars (Figure 1). It combines initial costs
This does not mean that engineering is not an with discounted future maintenance costs, rehabilitation
important element of the life cycle cost analysis. Proper costs, and a salvage value. The future costs are dis-
engineering must be used to ensure that each rival counted to account for the time value of money using
alternate meets the design criteria and provides similar the discount (real interest) rate. Present worth analysis is
results. If the alternates do not provide similar perfor- limited to comparing alternates with equal analysis
mance, then an economic assessment using LCCA to periods. Equation 1 calculates the present worth.
compare them is not realistic or reliable. PW = IC + Σ[pwf (MC) + (UC) + (FRC)] - pwf(S)
(Eq. 1)
Types of Economic Analyses Where:
Life cycle cost analysis can be broken down into IC = Initial Cost
primary and secondary analysis.(1) Primary analysis MC = Maintenance Cost
determines if a certain set of actions should be done. UC = User Cost
For example, a primary analysis determines if a roadway, FRC = Future Rehabilitation Cost
a transit system, or neither should be built. Primary S = Salvage Value
analysis essentially determines if any improvements
need to be done at all. Therefore, in primary analysis, Initial Cost
a “do nothing” scenario is a viable alternate that should Periodic Rehabilitation Cost Yearly
Costs

Maintenance
be analyzed. Cost
Secondary analysis compares the alternates that
satisfy the primary analysis. It is the comparison that YEAR Salvage
shows which alternate provides the best value. Life cycle Value
cost analysis for pavement type selection (concrete or
Present Worth
Costs

asphalt) is a secondary analysis. Because the primary

analysis already has decided that a pavement project
must be done, “do nothing” is not a viable alternate in
secondary analysis(1) which means that an agency YEAR
cannot invest the funds in stocks, bonds, etc. The return
Figure 1. Diagram showing all costs converted to Present Worth.
should only be based on investing in the asset network.

Page 1
 Engineering Bulletin

pwf = Present Worth Factor Performing a LCCA

= 1 / (1+i)n
The actual mechanics of performing a life cycle cost
i = discount rate
analysis are not complicated. It is a mathematical
n = Number of years to when cost (benefit)
calculation of the anticipated expenditure flows over
will occur
time. Though a computer program or spreadsheet is
EUAC spreads the cost of all items (initial, user, helpful in performing the calculations, an analyst does
maintenance, and anticipated rehabilitation costs) to an not necessarily need them. Finally, one needs to under-
annual cost over the analysis period (Figure 2). An stand that the procedure does not favor one alternate
analysis using EUAC allows comparison of alternates over the other (i.e. there is no such thing as a concrete
with different analysis periods. However, when making LCCA or an asphalt LCCA). The procedure cannot tell
such comparisons, the user must understand that the whether the calculated values are for a concrete
analysis is assuming that the same set of activities will pavement, an asphalt pavement, or something else.
be repeated indefinitely. Equation 2 is used to calculate There are six basic steps to performing a Life Cycle
the equivalent uniform annual cost: Cost Analysis.(2) They are:
EUAC = crf (IC) + AM + AUC + S [crf (pwf {FRC} ) 1. Design equivalent pavement sections
- crf [pwf (S) ] (Eq. 2) 2. Develop expenditure streams for the analysis period.
Where: a. Determine the maintenance and rehabilitation
AM = Annual Maintenance Cost strategies (activities and timing) to be used on the
AUC = Annual User Cost pavement over the analysis period.
crf = Capital Recovery Factor b. Estimate agency costs for each activity.
= [i (1 + i) n] / [(1 + i) n - 1] 3. Estimate user costs
i = discount rate 4. Compute Present Worth or Equivalent Uniform
n = Number of years to when cost (benefit) Annual Cost
will occur 5. Analyze results
6. Re-evaluate strategies.
Initial Cost Often a cash flow diagram worksheet, such as shown
Periodic Rehabilitation Cost Yearly in the example in Appendix 1, helps in the development
Costs

Maintenance
of strategies. A cash flow diagram shows the inflow and
Cost
outflow of cash due to construction and rehabilitation.
YEAR
Up arrows indicate major cash expenditures (con-
Salvage
struction, rehabilitation, etc.) and down arrows show
Value
cash inflows. With pavements, the only inflow of cash
Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost
Costs

occurs at the end of the analysis period to show either

continued-use or salvage value.* The length of the
YEAR arrow indicates the magnitude of the expenditure. The
Figure 2. Diagram showing all costs converted to EUAC. example in Appendix 1 shows a completed LCCA.

* This is true for public highways. For toll roads, where user fees are being
collected, there is a continuous inflow, which should be taken into account in
the development of the expenditure streams. Likewise, a toll agency must take
into account lost revenues during rehabilitation activities (due to traffic dis-
Page 2 ruption or reduced level of service) when developing the expenditure streams.

Basic Factors
The factors affecting the results of a LCCA for pavement
type selection are:
• Agency costs (including engineering costs)
• User costs
• Discount rate
• Selection of rehabilitation activities
• Use of comparable sections
• Length of the analysis period
Agency costs should include engineering costs, which
are often 15-20% of a project, especially on municipal
projects. More frequent asphalt overlays often require
the use of a consultant, thereby driving up the agency’s
cost. These engineering costs should also be included.
Other considerations, such as smoothness over time,
safety, and environmental friendliness, may enter the
pavement selection decision, but can be difficult to
relate to cost or performance. When possible, it is
preferable to use engineering adjustments on the
alternates to account for these considerations before
performing the LCCA. After the adjustments are made,
LCCA will allow a fair comparison between the
alternates.(1)
Agency Costs
Agency costs are all direct costs incurred by the agency
over the lifetime of the project. These include:
• Initial costs
• Operation and maintenance costs (including staffing)
• Rehabilitation costs (including engineering and traffic
control for each rehabilitation)
• Salvage value.
When looking at agency costs, it is only necessary to
include costs that are specific to the individual alternates
and set them apart. Common costs, such as public hear-
ing and informational meetings, permits, real estate and
Engineering Bulletin
Chapter 2
land development, legal fees, etc. are incurred no matter
which pavement alternate is selected. Therefore, these
costs do not affect the comparison results.
Initial Cost
Initial costs may be divided into pavement and non-
pavement costs associated with the original development
of the project. Pavement costs include subgrade prep-
aration; base, subbase, and surface materials; labor;
equipment; drainage, etc. The non-pavement costs are
costs that affect the overall cost of the project, but are
not necessarily part of the pavement structure. These
include extra fill or cut due to different grade elevations
between the pavement types, traffic control, median &
fill slopes, utilities, guardrail and sign adjustments,
lighting requirements, overhead structures and at-grade
structures, culvert extensions etc. Unless a non-
pavement cost item varies between alternates, it can be
disregarded, as it will have no impact on the outcome.
Effect of Initial Costs
Initial costs drive the agency portion of a LCCA.
Depending upon the pavement type and rehabilitation
activities chosen, as well as consideration of other non-
agency costs, initial costs can account for 50 to 90% of
the present worth or EUAC. For concrete pavements, a
large portion of the initial cost is associated with the
design features chosen for the pavement (i.e. shoulders,
subbase, etc). Therefore, it is important that the de-
signer choose pavement features that give the desired
performance without needlessly increasing the cost of
the pavement.
In many cases, designers add features to concrete
pavements, but do not recognize the performance
benefit of the feature. Other times, expensive features
are added that are unnecessary to satisfy the design
Page 3
 Engineering Bulletin

requirements. In either case, the results of the LCCA are
flawed because the benefits of the added design features
are not matched with the anticipated performance.
While there are numerous research studies on how
pavement features affect performance, only one study(3)
has looked into how pavement features affect initial
costs. The study was made in terms of relative costs, not
in actual costs or specific dollar values.
There are three advantages of using relative costs over
the actual costs. First, they allow costs to be compared
across the United States, regardless of labor and material
costs, contractor equipment and capabilities, project
size, etc. Second, relative costs allow general compari-
sons of one feature to another to be made easily, which
helps in identifying their cost-effectiveness. Finally,
relative costs diminish the effect of interest and inflation
rate fluctuation, allowing the designer to use the same
information year after year.
To determine the relative costs, concrete paving
contractors across the US were surveyed and given a
“reference section,” which was assigned a relative cost of
100 (Figure 3). Next, a specific pavement feature was
changed, and the contractors determined the relative
cost of the modified section. In this study, the following
design features were evaluated:
• Slab thickness
• Subbase Type
• Shoulders
• Transverse joint design (spacing and load transfer)
• Transverse joint sealant
Figures 4 – 8 show the relative cost impacts of these
various design features on the “reference section.” All
costs are presented in terms of total pavement costs. As
can be seen, some features, such as open-graded drain-
able subbases dramatically add cost to concrete pave-
ments. If these features do not enhance performance
significantly, then they are not cost effective.

250 mm (10 in.) PCC Gravel Shoulders

1.2 m 3.6 m (12 ft) 3.6 m (12 ft) 3.0 m (10 ft)
(4 ft)

Prepared Subgrade

150 mm (6 in.) Dense-graded subbase

• Transverse joints: 6.1 m (20 ft) uniform with no skew and no dowels
• Single-width saw cut to 75 mm (3 in.) with hot-poursed filler
• Lanes: 3.6 m (12 ft); tied with #4 deformed bars 75 mm (30 in.) centers
• Subgrade prepared by scarifying to depth of 150 mm (6 in.) and
recompacting at optimum moisture content

Figure 3. Reference Section used in the “Cost of Features Study.” (3)

Page 4
 Engineering Bulletin

81 111

112
91
124
114
132

75 100 125 90 100 110 120 130 140

Average Relative Cost Average Relative Cost
150 mm (6 in.) thick, 3.7 m (12 ft.) Jt. Spacing 150 mm (6 in.) Asphalt on 150 mm (6 in.) Granular
200 mm (8 in.) thick, 4.6 m (15 ft.) Jt. Spacing Widened PCC Lane and Asphalt Shoulders
300 mm (12 in.) thick, 6.1 m (20 ft.) Jt. Spacing 150 mm (6 in.) PCC on 150 mm (6 in.) Granular
Reference Section: 250 mm (10 in.) thick, 6.1 m (20 ft) Full-Depth PCC
joint spacing. Cost = 100
Reference Section: Gravel shoulders on 150 mm (6 in.)
Figure 4. Effects of Concrete Thickness. granular subbase. Cost = 100
Figure 6. Effects of Shoulder Type.

84

97 108

114
112
122
123 134
124

70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 90 100 110 120 130 140
Average Relative Cost Average Relative Cost

None Lean Concrete 38 mm (1.5 in.) Dowels, 6.1 mm (20 ft.) Jt. Spacing
38 mm (1.5 in.) Dowels, 4.6 mm (15 in.) Jt. Spacing
Lime-Treated Soil Asphalt-Treated OGB
CRC – #6 bars at 200 mm (8 in.) Spacing
Unstabilized OGB Cement-Treated OGB
Reference Section: 150 mm (6 in.) thick dense-graded Reference Section: 250 mm (10 in.) thick undoweled
subbase. Cost = 100 6.1 m (20 ft.) joint spacing. Cost = 100

Figure 5. Effects of Subbase Type. Figure 7. Effects of Joint Design (spacing and load transfer).

Page 5
 Engineering Bulletin

Because maintenance and operation information is

81 difficult to obtain and itemize, many agencies do not
include it in their LCCA for pavements. Still, US high-
91
way agencies spend about $7 billion/year on pavement
maintenance.(4) If no other information is available,
114 Reference 1 states that the amount and cost of main-
tenance for a concrete pavement per year is one half that
of an asphalt pavement. Other studies show asphalt
90 100 110 maintenance costs up to 19 times higher than concrete
Average Relative Cost
pavement maintenance costs.(5)
No sealant One procedure to obtain maintenance cost was
Silicone sealant in reservoir developed by the University of Minnesota in a research
Preformed compression seals project entitled “Case Study Comparisons of the Life-
Reference Section: Single 75 mm (3 in.) cut filled with Cycle Costs of HMAC and PCC Pavements in Lower
hot-pour sealant 6.1 m (28 ft.) joint spacing. Cost = 100 Volume Roads.” (5) In this project, maintenance costs for
Figure 8. Effects of Joint Sealant. two different counties were collected for the years 1991
to 1999 for a number of different pavement sections
ranging in age from new to about 25 years old. With
Maintenance and Operation Costs this data, the researchers related the maintenance costs
Maintenance and operation costs are the daily costs to the different sections and developed the 25-year
associated with keeping the pavement at a given level of asphalt and concrete maintenance cost curves for each
service. This should include contracts, materials and county (Figure 9).
equipment, staff salaries, etc. for the maintenance of the There are a number of insights that can be obtained
pavement surface, shoulders, striping, and drainage. from Figure 9. First, the maintenance costs rise as the
pavement gets older.
$20,000
Second, the asphalt and
Waseca Asphalt
$18,000 concrete maintenance
Waseca Concrete
Avg. Cum. Maint. Costs (1998 $/Lane-Mi.)

Olmsted Asphalt
curves for the two
$16,000
Olmsted Concrete counties do not match.
$14,000 This is because each
county has different
$12,000
maintenance practices
$10,000 and activities, and these
$8,000
different practices will
produce different
$6,000 results. This will hold
$4,000
true for all agencies and
as such, one agency’s
$2,000 maintenance curves
$0 cannot necessarily be
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 substituted for
Years since Last Major Rehabilitation another’s. Finally, it is
Figure 9. Concrete and Asphalt Maintenance Costs for Two Minnesota Counties. important to note that

Page 6

the two counties’ concrete and asphalt curves remain
relatively constant. That is, the asphalt curve is from 2.5
to 19 times higher than the concrete’s curve.(4)
The current Federal highway Administration (FHWA)
position is to exclude maintenance and operation costs
in a LCCA.(2) Their reasoning is that the difference in
maintenance and operation costs are very small in com-
parison to initial construction and rehabilitation costs
for the typical alternates analyzed. As such, the FHWA
suggests that their impact on LCCA results is very
minor. For large projects, where initial construction and
rehabilitation costs are in the millions of dollars, this
may be true. However, for smaller projects (rural and
municipal roadways) with lower initial cost, this is likely
not to be true. Maintenance costs can be influential on
small agencies/projects. Furthermore, large maintenance
costs can drain off funding for new future projects.
Rehabilitation Costs
Rehabilitation costs are larger future periodic costs
associated with keeping the project in a usable con-
dition.(1) Rehabilitation raises the condition of the
facility and increases its level of service. In an ideal
LCCA, the rehabilitation activities and their timing
would be based on the predicted distress that will
develop in the pavement. That is, in the design phase,
the engineer would calculate the rate of distress
development in the pavement, determine the year in
which the critical distress level is reached, then apply
the appropriate rehabilitation activity for that distress.
Unfortunately, this level of sophistication is not available
to most pavement design engineers.
For this reason, the stream of rehabilitation activities
used in LCCA varies greatly from agency to agency and
most apply a standard scheme to all pavements
(Appendix 2). However, a standardized scheme is not
realistic for three reasons. First, standard rehabilitations
rarely address the cause of the problem and therefore, it
is unlikely that same standard rehabilitation is appro-
priate for all pavement types, at all times.
Second, because traffic is always increasing, it is not
possible for the same standard rehabilitation to last the
same length each time it is applied. If it did, it would
mean that each subsequent rehabilitation activity would
carry more traffic than the previous activity, and this is
* CPR can be used more than once on the same pavement. The state of Georgia has used
CPR extensively for more than 20 years and has used it as many as three times on the
same road. They have found CPR techniques to be one-fourth to one-third the cost of a
150 mm (6 in.) asphalt overlay. CPR projects in Georgia typically last between seven and
10 years, and some have performed for more than 17 years before a second CPR.(6,7)
Engineering Bulletin
not possible. Finally, as the underlying structure is
deteriorating, the pavement is losing its structural
capacity. Therefore, it is unlikely that the second and
third rehabilitation activities will last as long as the first
one for any alternate.
Two other important costs, often overlooked when
determining the rehabilitation costs, are traffic control
and engineering. Because every pavement deteriorates
differently, each rehabilitation is unique and therefore
needs to be engineered. Likewise, because traffic is
increasing, future rehabilitation may require more
complicated traffic control.
Selection of Rehabilitation Activities
The rehabilitation activity selection should be based on
the type, severity, and extent of distress in the pavement
because as a pavement deteriorates, the appropriate type
of rehabilitation changes. For concrete pavement, the
first rehabilitation activities should be some form of
Concrete Pavement Restoration (CPR).*
CPR is used early in the life of a pavement when it is
in reasonably good condition with only slight deterior-
ation. It consists of 8 different techniques that repair
isolated sections of deteriorated pavement, or prevent or
slow overall deterioration, as well as to reduce the
impact loadings on the pavement. The eight CPR
techniques are:
1. Full-depth repair
2. Partial-depth repair
3. Diamond grinding
4. Joint & crack resealing
5. Slab stabilization
6. Retrofitting dowels
7. Retrofitting concrete shoulders
8. Cross-stitching longitudinal cracks/joints
The choice of which CPR activity to implement
depends upon which distresses are present in the pave-
ment. For CPR to be most effective, proper engineering
and timing are critical. For more information on CPR
see references 8 – 14.
Resurfacing, or overlaying, is the second category of
rehabilitation. Resurfacing is used when a pavement has
medium to high levels of distress and CPR can no longer
be cost-effective. Concrete overlays fall into two basic
categories: concrete overlays for concrete pavements and
Page 7
 Engineering Bulletin
concrete overlays for asphalt pavements. Within each of
these categories there are two overlay types.
For concrete overlays on concrete, there are “Bonded
Concrete Overlays” and “Unbonded Concrete Overlays.”
Bonded concrete overlays consist of a thin concrete layer
(100 mm [4.0 in.] or less) bonded to the top of an
existing concrete pavement to increase its structural
capacity. Good candidates for bonded overlays are
pavements that have little deterioration, but are too thin
for increasing traffic volumes. For example, an existing
pavement is 150 mm (6.0 in.) thick, but new traffic vol-
umes indicate that it should be 230 mm (9.0 in) thick.
Bonded concrete overlays are not recommended
when the existing slab is deteriorated or has a significant
amount of durability problems (e.g., “D” cracking or
reactive aggregates). For more information on bonded
concrete overlays, see reference 15.
An unbonded concrete overlay consists of a thicker
concrete layer (125 mm [5 in.] or greater) on top of an
existing concrete pavement. The major advantage of an
unbonded overlay is that it can be applied to a
deteriorated pavement and require very little, if any
preoverlay repair. Unbonded overlays use a thin asphalt
“separation interlayer” between the new and existing
concrete so that concrete layers act independently of
each other. This separation interlayer also acts as a
cushioning layer and prevents distresses from the
underlying pavement reflecting into the overlay.
Unbonded overlays are most cost effective when the
existing concrete pavement is badly deteriorated. Because
the two concrete layers are independent, unbonded
overlays react structurally as if built on a strong, non-
erodable base course. This advantage makes unbonded
overlays a much better option for deteriorated concrete
pavements than rubblization with an asphalt overlay. For
more information on unbonded concrete overlays, see
reference 16.
Concrete overlays of asphalt pavements consist of
“Conventional Whitetopping Overlays” and “Ultra-Thin
Whitetopping Overlays” (UTW). Conventional white-
topping is a thick concrete layer (100 mm [4.0 in.] or
greater) on top of an existing asphalt pavement. They
are applicable in almost all situations and have been
successfully used on interstate highways, state primary
Page 8 than either one of these overlays.
and secondary roads, intersections, etc. as well as major
airport and general aviation runways, taxiways, and
apron areas.
The main advantage of a conventional whitetopping
is that it requires a minimal amount of pre-overlay
repair before the overlay is placed. Furthermore, the
concrete slabs will bridge problems that the asphalt
cannot. The existing asphalt surface becomes an ex-
cellent base course for the whitetopping, with reduced
potential for pumping, faulting, and loss of support
underneath the concrete. Finally, because the con-
struction contractor can maintain traffic on the existing
surface during paving, many reconstruction problems,
such as rain delays, are avoided.
An ultra-thin whitetopping overlay (UTW) is a con-
crete overlay, normally 50 mm to 100 mm (2 to 4 in.)
thick, placed on top of the existing asphalt pavement.
In addition to the thinness of the concrete, two other
factors differentiate UTW from normal whitetopping.
These are:
1. Bonding between the concrete overlay and the
existing asphalt pavement
2. Joint spacings that are much shorter than normal
(i.e. 0.9 to 1.8 m [3 to 6 ft.]).
The bonding of the concrete overlay to the asphalt
pavement creates a composite pavement in which the
load is shared between the concrete and existing
asphalt. The close joint spacing allows the slabs to
deflect instead of bend. Together, these effects reduce
slab stresses to reasonable values.
UTW is a good application for normal traffic loads on
residential streets and low-volume roads. Other applica-
tions include intersections, ramps, bus pads, etc. (where
rutting and washboarding is a problem), general aviation
pavements, and parking areas. However, in order to
form the composite action needed, UTW’s must be
placed at locations where at least 75 mm (3.0 in.) of
asphalt exists. For more information on conventional
and ultra-thin whitetoppings, see reference 17.
Reconstruction is the most invasive rehabilitation
option. It is used when the pavement has high levels of
distress and overlays are no longer effective.* Recon-
struction can involve either the complete removal and
* Unbonded overlays and conventional whitetopping are essentially new
pavements on stabilized bases. As such, they can be expected to perform as well
as, or better than reconstructed pavements. However, other factors, such as
height restrictions may make reconstruction a more viable rehabilitation activity
 Engineering Bulletin

replacement of the existing pavement or partial removal
and replacement. Partial removal and replacement is
called an inlay. For more information on inlays, see
reference 18.
Reconstruction is usually necessary to correct items
such as subgrade and subbase deficiencies, roadway
geometrics, roadside safety features, drainage, etc. Other
advantages with reconstruction are that it controls the
final elevation and minimizes roadside appurtenance
adjustments. Furthermore, it gives the agency and
contractor the option to recycle the old pavement either
as an aggregate for the subbase or the new concrete.
Figure 10 shows this concept of where each rehabili-
tation activity is done in the life of the pavement.
Restoration
Structural/Functional Condition
programmed in year 32, but actually done in 31, the
increase in present worth is only $11,650. This is over
40% less than when the rehabilitation occurred in the
analysis period.
Accurate assessment of service life for alternate
pavement sections and rehabilitation activities is
necessary if the results of the LCCA are to be credible.
Typically, the service life for a concrete pavement is cited
at about 20 to 30 years. However, many concrete
pavements, originally designed for 20 years, have lasted
longer and carried significantly more traffic than for
which they were designed. A recent study found that
the concrete pavements on Illinois’ interstates carried
almost 4 times more traffic than they were intended for,
and lasted an average of 23 years.(19) A similar study in
New York state found that their concrete pavements

Resurfacing
lasted 29 years and carried 3.4 times more traffic than
for which they were designed.(20) Table 1 shows some
Reconstruction comparisons between asphalt and concrete
pavements.(21)

Min. Acceptable Rating Table 1. Pavement Service Life,

years(30)
Agency* Concrete Asphalt
Age or Traffic Wisconsin 20 – 25† 12 - 14†
Figure 10. Timing of rehabilitation activities in a pavement’s life. Minnesota 35 20 (12)‡
Kentucky 20+ 12+
Timing of Rehabilitation Activities New York 20 – 25+ 10 – 13
Due to of the effects of discounting, the time at which Colorado 27 6 – 12
rehabilitation activities are placed into the analysis must FHWA (1985) 13 – 30 6 – 20
be chosen as realistically as possible. If not chosen FHWA (1971) 25 15
carefully, a change of one year in rehabilitation timing, *For Heavy Duty Highways
†25 percent longer if drained
in either direction, for either pavement alternate can ‡37 mm (1.5 in.) overlay at 12 years, thick overlay at 20 years.
alter the LCCA results. This is most important with the
early rehabilitation activities since they are discounted
less and have a greater impact on LCCA results than CPR activities generally provide between seven and
later activities. 10 years of service, though some have performed for
For example, consider a pavement that has a more than 17 years.(7) A recent study has found that
$1,000,000 rehabilitation activity programmed in year diamond grinding, the most common CPR activity, has
12. If that rehabilitation is actually done in year 11, an expected life between 9.5 and 13.5 years or between
it increases the present worth by $21,041 (using a 6.5 and 12 million ESALs, depending upon the level of
3.0% discount rate). For the same rehabilitation reliability chosen.(22)

Page 9
 Engineering Bulletin

Table 2. Spreadsheet showing how to

When constructed correctly and applied appropri-
estimate timing for Rehabilitation
ately, bonded overlays have lasted over 20 years. Activities.
However, when placed on pavements that are too Avg. Daily Traffic (ADT) 1000
deteriorated to provide adequate structure, they have Growth Rate 4%
performed poorly. Unbonded overlays have performed Life Estimate of Original Pavement 12 years
very well and can be expected to perform for 20 or
more years. Where there has been problems, it has been Traffic
Carried by
due to the use of inadequate separation layers.(23) Yearly Cumulative Pavement
Because the vast majority of conventional Year Traffic Traffic Rehab. Activities
whitetopping projects are less than 20 years old, there is 1 365,000 365,000
little long-term performance information available. 2 379,600 744,600
3 394,784 1,139,384
Those that are older than 20 years are providing 4 410,575 1,549,959
excellent performance.(23) However, the typical range of 5 426,998 1,976,958
service life for conventional whitetoppings is considered 6 444,078 2,421,036
to be the same as reconstruction in concrete, i.e. 20 to 7 461,841 2,882,877
8 480,315 3,363,193
40 years.(24) 9 499,528 3,862,720
Similarly, ultra-thin overlays (UTWs) are also too new 10 519,509 4,382,229
to provide long term performance. However, in a 1997 11 540,289 4,922,518
condition survey of 10 different projects that were built 12 561,901 5,484,419 5,484,419 1st Rehab
13 584,377 6,068,796 584,377
between November 1992 and January 1994, nine out of 14 607,752 6,676,548 1,192,129
10 projects were rated “excellent” and the tenth was 15 632,062 7,308,609 1,824,190
rated “good.”(25) Because a UTW is essentially a surface 16 657,344 7,965,954 2,481,535
17 683,638 8,649,592 3,165,173
treatment and not considered a structural enhancement, 18 710,984 9,360,576 3,876,157
the estimated service life for a UTW is generally in the 19 739,423 10,099,999 4,615,580
range of 5-15 years.(24) 20 769,000 10,868,999 5,384,580 2nd Rehab
21 799,760 11,668,759 799,760
Estimating the Timing of Rehabilitation Activities 22 831,750 12,500,509 1,631,510
If no information is available to estimate the life of 23 865,020 13,365,529 2,496,531
pavement and rehabilitation activities, one way to 24 899,621 14,265,151 3,396,152
25 935,606 15,200,757 4,331,758
estimate the timing for rehabilitation activities is to use 26 973,030 16,173,787 5,304,788 3rd Rehab
traffic counts. That is, estimate the life of the original 27 1,011,951 17,185,738 1,011,951
pavement and determine how many vehicles are carried 28 1,052,430 18,238,168 2,064,381
over that time. Next, assume that each major 29 1,094,527 19,332,694 3,158,908
30 1,138,308 20,471,002 4,297,215
rehabilitation will carry that same amount of traffic and 31 1,183,840 21,654,842 5,481,056 4th Rehab
determine the life of each rehabilitation by matching the 32 1,231,194 22,886,036 1,231,194
amount of traffic. 33 1,280,441 24,166,478 2,511,635
Table 2 shows this process for the rehabilitation 34 1,331,659 25,498,137 3,843,294
35 1,384,925 26,883,062 5,228,220 5th Rehab
cycles of a pavement that has a life of 12 years, an 36 1,440,322 28,323,385 1,440,322
average daily traffic of 1000, and a 4% traffic growth 37 1,497,935 29,821,320 2,938,258
rate. Note that one can use any initial traffic count (i.e. 38 1,557,853 31,379,173 4,496,111
39 1,620,167 32,999,340 6,116,278 6th Rehab
1000) to estimate the rehabilitation activity lives because 40 1,684,974 34,684,313 1,684,974
this procedure is used to account for the compound
traffic growth. Any change in the original estimate only
changes the traffic volume at any given time, but does
not the change the actual time to the next rehabilitation.

Page 10

Salvage Value
Salvage value represents the benefits associated with
either the continued use, or the demolition and disposal
of the facility. Since both concrete and asphalt are
recyclable, they have value at the end of their
serviceable life.
However, because roads are rarely ever taken out of
service, the Federal Highway Administration suggests
that an agency calculate a pavement’s salvage value as its
“continued use” value.(2) This is calculated as the
percentage of remaining life of the last rehabilitation
multiplied by its cost. For example, if a 10 year
rehabilitation is applied in year 36 of a 40 year analysis
period, then the continued use value is six-tenths the
cost of the rehabilitation (i.e. 10 years - 4 years used = 6
years remaining life).
User Costs
User costs are costs associated with and borne directly
by the users of the facility. There are three primary
forms of user costs:
1. Delay-of-use costs.
2. Roadway deterioration costs.
3. Accident or crash costs.
Delay-of-Use Costs
Delay-of-use costs develop when the number of vehicles
that can use the roadway is greatly reduced due to con-
struction or rehabilitation lane closures. Delay-of-use
user costs are calculated as idling cost and delay-of-time
cost as the vehicles slow down through the construction
zones and/or sit in queues before the construction zone.
In general, projects that have reduced construction/
rehabilitation time, or are constructed/rehabilitated
during times of limited traffic (i.e. at night) have lower
delay-of-use user costs.
A second form of delay-of-use costs is delay-of-use
due to vehicles being detoured on longer paths. This is
called circuity. In congestion situations, a certain number
of drivers will use alternate routes that are faster than
the congested roadway. However, this impacts the
normal users on those alternate routes and increases
their travel time, which causes them a delay-of-use cost.
Engineering Bulletin
User Costs due to Roadway Deterioration
Roadway deterioration user costs are incurred as vehicle
operating costs and damage to goods increases. The
more deteriorated and rough a roadway is, the greater
the costs to the public because of added vehicle wear,
increased cost of goods, and increased travel time
because of lower speeds needed to compensate for the
roughness. The cost due to roadway deterioration can
be substantial. A report from The Road Information
Program (TRIP) entitled 1996 Highway Funding
Methods, Condition, and Use, found that in 1994
deteriorated roadways in the US cost the American
motorist $21.5 billion, or $122 per motorist.(26)
Currently, the FHWA does not recommend that user
cost due to roadway deterioration be included in LCCA.
There are several reasons for this position. First, the
roadways in the US are maintained at a high level over
their entire life. Thus the difference in pavement
performance between concrete and asphalt is minimal
and therefore, little difference exists in these costs.
Second, even if the difference in the pavement
performance becomes measurable, to accurately
determine the user cost one must be able to:
1. Precisely calculate the performance difference over
time.
2. Quantify the performance difference in dollar
terms.
These calculations are difficult. Still, one state
(Wisconsin) has developed a method that may help
quantify these differences.(27) The method measures and
compares the area under the performance curves (PSI
vs. Age) for each alternate. The area under the curve is
called “Quality of Service” (Figure 11). The performance
curves (including effects of rehabilitation) for the two
alternatives are plotted to the same analysis period, and
the difference in “Quality of Service” helps determine
which alternative serves the public better.
With this type of analysis, it is possible to compare
the differences in performance of various pavement
alternates. For example, the two pavements shown in
Figure 12 are usually considered equivalent designs.
However, the area under the curve for pavement A is
greater than area under the curve for pavement B. Thus,
Page 11
 Engineering Bulletin

5 and work zone accidents usually involve a higher

Present Serviceability Index

percentage of trucks.(28,29,30,31) In some instances, the

4 accidents are broken down into different types based on
Quality of Service severity.(2)
3
In almost all cases, accident costs are not included in
the user cost analysis. The reasoning behind this is
2 Minimum Level of Service mostly due to the lack of consolidated information on
1
work zone accident and exposure rates and the difficulty
in determining a cost differential between alternates
0
because of this lack of data.(2)
End of Analysis Period Still, the state of New York has determined that work
Age
zone accidents increase the cost of insurance for their
Figure 11. Quality of Service.
contractors, which increases the Department of
Transportation’s construction cost.(32) The increased
Differences in insurance costs come in three forms:
5 Pavement A Quality of Service
1. Increased workers compensation.
Present Serviceability Index

2. Increased owners’ protective liability.

4
3. Increased general liability.
Of these three, the greatest increase in cost is due to
3 Pavement B workers compensation. Table 3 shows the increase in
workers compensation rate for street and road paving
2 Minimum Level of Service
and repaving in New York. The NYSDOT estimates that
in 1991, it spent $10 million on traffic control and still
had $45 million in work zone accidents costs.(32)
1
End of Analysis Period Though many activities have been initiated that
Age improve traffic and highway work zone safety, (traffic
Figure 12. Two pavements with different levels of “Quality of control, safety barriers, improved signage, etc.), the
Service.” most efficient way to reduce work zone accidents is to
decrease the number of work zones. This is best accom-
plished through longer-life pavements that do not need
it has a higher Quality of Service. By relating this rehabilitation as often.
information to a representative cost factor, it is possible
to develop a user cost based on roadway deterioration
for use in LCCA. Table 3. New York State Workers
Compensation Rates for Street and
Road Paving / Repaving, 1985-1993.
Accident Costs
Accident or crash costs are those costs attributed to Cost
Month & Year (Dollars/$100 payroll)
motor vehicle accidents. Accident costs are usually
considered only at times of rehabilitation, when work July 1985 7.14
zones are in effect. They are typically calculated by July 1987 7.71
multiplying the estimated accident rate by the average July 1989 10.44
cost per accident. For most work zones, accident rates July 1991 17.20
and severity increase as compared to normal operations, Oct 1993 22.68

Page 12

Using User Costs in a Life Cycle Cost Analysis
Most agencies do not account for user costs in their life
cycle cost analysis. A National Pavement Design Review,
done by the FHWA in 1995-1996, found that only 32
percent of states utilize user costs in their LCCA.(2)
Since that time, the number of states may have in-
creased, but not significantly. The main reasons cited by
agencies for not incorporating user costs are that they
are deemed hard to calculate and often overwhelm the
agency (pavement) costs. It is not uncommon for user
costs to be 100 times greater than the agency costs for a
project. These high values can drive LCCA results and
require an agency to base their selection on something
over which they have little control. However, many of
these same agencies cite user costs as a subjective
judgment factor in scoping projects.
Currently, the FHWA is recommending that delay-
of-use costs be included in LCCA. To help, they have
developed an eight-step procedure to calculate delay-of-
use user cost. For more information, see reference 2.
One way to keep user costs from overwhelming
agency costs is to keep the agency costs and user costs
separate. This practice gives the designer the ability to
utilize the user costs to evaluate the impact of construc-
tion operations on the alternates. For example, if alter-
nate A has $15 billion worth of user costs and alternate
B has $10 billion of user cost, it does not necessarily
mean that alternate B is the automatic choice. It may
mean that both alternates are poor choices and that a
new, third alternate needs to be developed.
User Cost Example
User delay cost can be easily incorporated into LCCA by
using a simple mathematical calculation of increased
cost due to reduced speeds through work zones. The
following example illustrates the user delay cost
calculation using some assumptions and estimates:
• Project length 8 km (5 miles) of four-lane divided
highway
• One lane closed each way during rehabilitation
activities
* The analysis only looked at time to complete the paving portion of the project. No attempt was made to
look at grading, shouldering, drainage work, or final clean-up, in an effort to isolate comparisons to pave-
ment type only. Furthermore, the time taken for non-paving construction events can be diminished through
pre-design work and value engineering. It should be noted that future comparisons including these other
events could likely show concrete paving to be an even faster process than reported in the study.
Engineering Bulletin
• Speed reduction 113 km/hr (70 mph) to 72 km/hr
(45 mph)
• Restricted flow length 8 km (5 miles)
• Restricted flow for 6.7 minutes (8 km at 72 km/hr, or
5 miles at 45 mph)
• Normal flow for 8 km (5 miles) = 4.3 minutes
• Overall increased travel time = 2.4 minutes
• Value of time lost (cars) = $0.25/minute
• Value of time lost (trucks) = $1.00/minute
• Average daily traffic (cars) = 25,000
• Average daily traffic (trucks) = 5,000
• Delay cost (cars) = 2.4 minutes/car x $0.25/minute x
25,000 cars/day = $15,000/day
• Delay cost (trucks) = 2.4 minutes/truck x
$1.00/minute x 5,000 trucks/day = $12,000/day
• Total delay cost = $27,000/day
The example demonstrates that regardless of pave-
ment type, the user cost per day for closing one lane
each way during rehabilitation/reconstruction activities
will be the same. The user cost difference, therefore, lies
in the difference in construction time. Concrete pave-
ment construction has long been recognized as a process
that is quicker and requires rehabilitation less frequently
than other pavement types. Because concrete pavements
can be built with one pass of the paving machine, re-
gardless of thickness, in many cases they are faster
pavements to build. Plus, when one considers the length
of time that concrete pavements remain in service with-
out costly and extensive resurfacing, they are recognized
as pavements that will cause less inconvenience
throughout the years following construction.
During the year 2000, seven construction projects
observed in Iowa(33) demonstrated that concrete
pavements were constructed about three times faster
than other pavement construction projects.* The com-
pletion times observed showed that the concrete pave-
ments were placed at an average rate of 7,876 square
yards per production day. Asphalt pavements were
placed an average of 2,467 square yards per production
day. Concrete production, according to these average
rates, was 319% faster than asphalt. In another compar-
ison, the lowest average production level for concrete
Page 13
 Engineering Bulletin

was still 258% faster than the highest average produc- 20.0
tion for asphalt.(33) Long-term
16.0
Applying the above to a hypothetical five miles of US Government
divided highway paving demonstrates the time and cost 12.0 Securities
(Interest Rate)
associated with completing the project with either con-
8.0
crete or asphalt. By choosing concrete, the public might
see the paving completed in less than 20 working days as 4.0
opposed to over 60 for asphalt. The user cost for asphalt
would be over $1.62 million, versus less than $540,000 0.0
Produces Price Index
on average for concrete pavement construction. (Inflation Rate)
-4.0
Public expectations have increased the importance of 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005
reducing interruptions in the service provided by our Year
transportation infrastructure. Concrete pavements can Figure 13. Long-term interest and inflation rates.
have a very beneficial impact on reducing the amount
of time a facility may be out of service, because they
require less frequent maintenance, have longer service Second, the discount rate takes into account the
lives, and are often quicker to build. competing forces of interest and inflation. This allows
the person performing the analysis to use constant, or
Discount Rate today’s, dollars in an analysis.
The discount rate accounts for the time value of money. When using the discount rate, the analyst must
$100 today is not worth $100 one year from now due realize the results are artificial values on the total costs
to inflation.* The discount rate takes into account the of ownership. That is, the results are not the actual
fluctuation of the inflation and interest rates to show the dollars that will be needed in the future to complete
actual or real rate of increase in the value of money over each of the operations. As such, LCCA can only be used
time.(1) It is one of the most hotly-contested and highly- to compare alternates, and not determine precisely how
debated aspects of life cycle cost analysis. Equation 3 much a pavement will cost over its total life.(1)
calculates the discount rate (Note: subtracting the in-
flation rate from the interest rate is commonly used to Choosing a Discount Rate – The Traditional View
approximate the discount rate). The debate over the discount rate centers around
DR = (INT - IFL) / (1 + IFL) (Eq. 3) selecting the appropriate interest and inflation rates. As
Where: such, to avoid biased outcomes, designers must choose
DR = Discount rate the interest and inflation rates so that they reflect the
INT = Nominal interest rate cost of funds to the agency/owner of the pavement.(34)
IFL = Inflation rate Interest Rates
The discount rate has two advantages associated with The interest rate should reflect the cost of borrowing
its use. First, it is not the absolute values of the interest money for the agency building the pavement. Factors
and inflation rates that matter, but rather their difference that need to be considered are:(34)
that is important.(34) Historically, this difference has • Whether the project is being financed by a public or
remained relatively constant at about 3.0% over the last private entity
century. Over the last 2 centuries, it has averaged • Whether the project is being financed by borrowed
1.5%.(35) Figure 13 shows this difference in interest money or capital assets
rates and the inflation rate since 1952.(36) • The rate of return for the industry or project.

* Inflation is the general increase in the price of goods and services over time. It lowers the value of a dollar, and raises the true cost
of future expenses. It is the reason you are not able to buy as much with $100 one year form now, as you are today. Interest is more
or less the opposite: it is the return on an investment. Interest raises the value of a dollar and lowers true cost of future expenses.

Page 14

If a state or local government is undertaking a
project, an appropriate interest rate is the municipal
bond rate.* If a federal agency is involved, an appro-
priate rate is the rate for long-term U.S. Government
Securities.** Finally, if a private firm is financing a sub-
stantial portion of the project, then a good indicator is
the Corporate Bonds rate.***(36)
When selecting the value for the interest rate, it is
important not to confuse the selection of the rates with
market or social opportunity cost. LCCA is used to
select between alternates for a given project. As such,
the interest rate is not based on the return that can be
gained by the owner/agency from investing in the
market or the “social opportunity cost” of using the
funds for something else. The opportunity to invest in
the market or for some social issue was lost in the
primary analysis when it was decided to construct or
rehabilitate the pavement, instead of the “do nothing”
option.(1,34)
Inflation Rates
A good overall indicator of the appropriate inflation rate
is the Producers Price Index (PPI). The PPI indicates
price changes for materials (product goods and
commodities) sold directly to manufacturers at
intermediate levels of processing. These manufacturers
then produce a final good and sell it to the
Table 4. Forty-one Year Average Historical Discount Rates (Derived using data
from ref. 37)
State Agencies
Municipal Bond Rate
(%)
1997-2001* 4.37
1987-1996 3.69
1977-1986 3.16
1967-1976 -0.92
1957-1966 2.80
45 Year Average:
1957-2001 2.42
Recommended
2.25
Discount Rate
* 5 year average. ** 25 year average.
* Bond Buyer Index, 20 years to maturity, mixed
quality.
** U.S. Government Securities, over 30 years.
***Moody’s Seasoned AAA Corporate Bonds.
Engineering Bulletin
consumers.(32) Some economists might argue that the
CPI (Consumer Price Index) is a better indicator of the
inflation rate. However, there are two reasons why the
PPI is a better indicator:
1. The CPI monitors the change in prices of goods
sold directly to the consumer. Both asphalt and
concrete are intermediate products used by con-
tractors to build pavements, which is the final
product used by the driving public.
2. The CPI accounts for differing market or social
opportunity costs that can be gained from various
alternatives. The CPI is an appropriate rate to use
in the primary analysis when an agency is deciding
whether to build a roadway, a school, or invest in
the market. However, once the decision to invest in
a section of pavement has been decided, all other
opportunity costs have been lost and the compar-
ison is between pavement alternates.
For these reasons, the PPI is the appropriate deflator
and reflects costs for materials sold to contractors.
PPI's are available for a wide variety of products in-
cluding concrete products and asphalt paving mixtures.
In this analysis, the PPI for Commodities Materials and
Components for Construction was used†.(36)
Table 4 summarizes the historical discount rate for
the state, federal and private sectors. During the 41-year
U.S. Government Moody’s
Securities Seasoned AAA
(%) Corporate Bonds
4.88 6.09
4.79 5.45
4.98 5.57
-0.45 0.80
3.44 3.78
4.88** 4.14
3.00 4.00
† This is a subset of the PPI for All Commodities. The PPI for All Commodities includes non-construction
items such as clothing, food, etc. The PPI for Commodities Materials and Components for Construction is
a weighted average of 204 different items used specifically in the construction industry. In this weighted
average, concrete and asphalt paving mix are two of the top 10 of weights and therefore,
any price movements in either concrete or asphalt will be reflected in this PPI.
Page 15
 Engineering Bulletin

period from 1957 through 1997, the discount rate based savings in a new plant, new machine, or the stock
on the municipal bond rate averaged 2.21 %. For long- market. In deciding which to do, a private sector
term U.S. Government Securities, the discount rate company will choose the option that provides the
averaged 3.14%, and the discount rate based on the highest rate of return to cover future rehabilitation costs.
AAA Corporate Bond Rate averaged 3.93%. For public-financed, government-run highway
The FHWA suggests using discount rates in the range systems, this is not true. The Highway Revenue Act
of 3 to 5 percent.(2) However, the upper ranges of this of 1956, which established the Highway Trust Fund,
value are probably too high. Another federal agency, adopted the pay-as-you-go principle for highway
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which funding. That is, Congress decided that it was better to
provides guidance for discount rates for benefit-cost finance the highway system with user fees (i.e. gas
analysis to the Executive Branch of the Federal taxes) than to pay for it with tolls or bonds issued by a
Government, publishes recommended discount rates federal corporation.(37) As such, the State Departments
every year. Table 5 shows recent trends in their of Transportation must spend their available capital or
published rates. As can be seen, their rates average risk having it reduced.
between 3 and 4 percent, which is consistent with Although the Departments of Transportation in the
US Government Securities. US have been extremely successful at building the road
network in the US without a large use of borrowed
Table 5. Trends in the OMB real money, this procedure also has some inherent de-
discount rates(2) ficiencies. First, it means that public agencies can not
Analysis Period act like the private sector and compare the different
opportunities for higher rates of return. They do not
Year 3 5 7 10 30
’92 2.7 3.1 3.3 3.6 3.8 have the option to invest it in long-term, interest-
’93 3.1 3.6 4.0 4.3 4.5 bearing accounts*.
’94 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.8 Secondly, it means that when government agencies
’95 4.2 4.5 4.6 4.8 4.9 invest in highways that require more future
’96 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 3.0 rehabilitation, they are mandating where future budgets
’97 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6
will be allocated. In some cases, all future budgets may
’98 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.8
’99 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.9 be earmarked for maintenance and rehabilitation, which
’00 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.2 does not allow for expansion or improvement. This
’01 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 generates the need to raise taxes for the reconstruction
’02 2.1 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.9 or expansion projects.
Avg. 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.7 A simpler way to look at this is that the money saved
from the lower priced alternative is not being invested
and retrieved later to do rehabilitation work. In order to
Discount Rate Selection for State DOT’s keep the alternate with the lower initial price in a safe
The discount rate described above is an interest- and usable condition throughout the analysis period, the
adjusted discount rate. The main assumption with an government agencies must pay for future work out of
interest-adjusted discount rate is that the cost savings of their yearly working capital.
the lower priced alternate is invested at the discount For this reason, future rehabilitation work is subject
rate to help pay for future maintenance and only to the effects of future inflation. Thus, every dollar
rehabilitation costs. spent by a government agency is invested in a depreci-
For the private sector, this is a reasonable assump- ating asset. A newly constructed highway starts to wear
tion. A private company or corporation can invest its out immediately and the investment is worth less the

* Governmental agencies do invest their money over the year. However, their
yearly funding is invested for the short term only. The anticipated future main-
tenance and rehabilitation costs are not invested for the long term and can
never gain the long-term return as indicated by the discount rate.
Page 16

following year than it is now. The same is true for the
equipment, buildings, and even the employee labor. All
costs are increased the following year due to the effects
of inflation and the lack of long-term investment that
can gain interest for the benefit of the public agency.
Based on this situation, the true time value of money
to a state DOT is not the discounted cost, but the
inflated cost so that the work can be done in the future.
Because the government cannot gain long-term interest
on their savings, the only costs they can account for are
the true costs or actual dollars spent on the project. As
such, public agencies should not discount future costs
with the discount rate, but rather inflate future costs
with the inflation rate (i.e. PPI) in order to determine
the actual expenditures of the alternates.
Comparable Sections
In order to perform a realistic and reliable life cycle cost
analysis, the two alternates must have equivalent and
comparable designs and should provide similar results
over the analysis period. That is, they should be
designed for the same:
• Structural (traffic-carrying) capacity
• Reliability
• Subgrade properties
• Terminal condition
Furthermore, they need to provide the same or
reasonably similar levels of service over the analysis
period. If the two designs being compared do not have
these same characteristics over the analysis period, the
resulting LCCA is erroneous.
Typically, most agencies consider alternates with the
serviceability curves shown in Figure 12 to be
equivalent. Though the two pavements meet all the
comparable section requirements, they do provide
different “Quality of Service” (Figure 11). Ideally, this
difference in the “Quality of Service” should be taken
into account in a LCCA. Unfortunately, this is difficult
because of the complexity in:
1. Precisely calculating performance over time, and
2. Quantifying the difference in performance between
alternates.
Engineering Bulletin
The Wisconsin procedure outlined in the “User Costs
due to the Deterioration of the Roadway” section may be
useful in addressing this issue.
Currently, the only national design procedure that
directly compares flexible and rigid pavement designs is
the AASHTO Pavement Design Procedure.(38) However,
in the early analysis of the LTPP GPS test sections, it has
been found that the current AASHTO flexible design
equation consistently over predicts the amount of traffic
that asphalt pavement can carry. In 112 out of 244
sections evaluated, the flexible pavement equation over-
predicted traffic that a flexible pavement could carry by
more than 100%. For rigid pavements, the AASHTO
pavement design equation does better. It accurately
predicts the traffic, showing no bias to over prediction,
or under prediction, but it has wide variability.(24) The
AASHTO 2002 Design Guide aims to improve the
predictive reliability and consistency.
Length of Analysis Period
The analysis period is the time frame over which all
costs are compared. It does not have to be equal to the
design or service life and in most cases it is not. The
main criterion is that it be long enough to reflect the
cost differences between the two pavement types. For
this reason, it should be long enough to include at least
one rehabilitation cycle for all alternates.
Though the analysis period can be based on
component life or a common multiple of component
life, facility life, or investment life, most government
agencies base their analysis period on an arbitrary time
frame that is equal for each alternate. Typical values are
30-40 years for highways, 20-30 years for streets, and
30 years for airports. In general, costs that are incurred
25-30 years or beyond play a minimal role in the life
cycle cost analysis.
If an agency is performing a LCCA on alternates
where the analysis periods are not equal, then the life
cycle cost analysis must be performed with equivalent
uniform annual cost. However, in doing this, the analyst
must realize that this procedure assumes that each
alternates’ activities will be repeated indefinitely (i.e. the
activity streams will be repeated forever).
Page 17
 Engineering Bulletin

Page 18

Examples
The following examples demonstrate LCCA for three
hypothetical pavement sections – an interstate
application, a rural county application, and a city street
application.
Each case represents a different project with different
conditions. The solutions shown are for strategies
applied at condition levels appropriate for the
techniques. Detailed life cycle cost analyses are shown in
appendices 3, 4, and 5.
The LCCA for each alternative was calculated as
outlined on page 2. The steps are:*
1. Design equivalent pavement sections
2. Develop expenditure streams for the analysis
period.
a. Determine the maintenance and rehabilitation
strategies (activities and timing) to be used on
the pavement over the analysis period.
b. Estimate agency costs for each activity.
3. Estimate user costs
4. Compute Present Worth or Equivalent Uniform
Annual Cost
5. Analyze results
6. Re-evaluate strategies.
The time to first rehabilitation for the concrete
alternatives is assumed to be 20 years for both cases. In
the asphalt alternatives, in case 1, it is assumed that the
initial AC pavement life is 10 years and case 2, it is
assumed to be 15 years. The life of each rehabilitation
activity in Case 1 is determined by assuming that each
activity will carry as much traffic as the original
pavement (as outlined in Table 2 on page 10). For Case
2, the rehabilitation activities were assumed to occur at
specific times and last only to the end of the analysis
period (no salvage value). This simplification is common
practice, but not recommended.
* It is important to note that this process is independent of functional classifi-
cation and applies to highway, street and local road, airport and parking lot
applications.
Engineering Bulletin
Chapter 3
The discount rates are from Table 4 and cost data
were derived using actual cost data from local agency
bid tabulations and inflated to 2001 prices.(39,40,41)
These costs are used for illustration only and are not
intended as guideline values. Actual costs will vary
based on local project conditions, material costs, and
labor costs.
For brevity and simplicity, no user costs or
maintenance costs are shown in the examples. However,
in normal practice, they should be included whenever
possible and practical.
Case 1 – Existing Interstate
Pavement
An existing interstate pavement is a 31-year old concrete
pavement, with concrete shoulders, that is approaching
its terminal serviceability. It has been determined that it
requires a significant structural overlay or replacement.
The highway is a bypass of a large city.
Two rehabilitation alternatives are examined for Case 1:
an unbonded concrete overlay, and a crack-and-seat of
the existing concrete followed by a thick asphalt overlay.
Comparisons are made based on costs over a 35-year
analysis period using a discount rate of 3.0%. Appendix
3 shows the calculation of traffic to determine when to
do future rehabilitation activities, the spreadsheet show-
ing the construction items, life cycle costs calculations,
and a cash flow diagram of the results.
Comparisons between the alternative strategies are
made using Present Worth Analysis. The unbonded
concrete overlay alternative proves to be the most cost-
effective based on present worth. A couple of advantages
that the unbonded concrete overlay has over crack-and-
seat with asphalt overlay is the limited pre-overlay
repair and the much lower requirement for extensive
future rehabilitation. The minimal future rehabilitation
Page 19
 Engineering Bulletin

in this urban area also limits the user delay and traffic Based on comparisons of present worth, the concrete
control costs. alternative costs less when considered over its entire life
cycle. The analysis shows that the concrete option costs
Case 2 – Rural County Pavement 6% less in Present Worth calculations, even though it is
Case 2 involves an existing asphalt concrete roadway in 5% more in Initial Cost.
poor condition. It is a two-lane farm-to-market road.
During most of the year the pavement experiences a low Table 6. Results of LCCA Examples
volume of truck traffic. In the fall, farm equipment and (See App. 3-5 for Calculations)
grain trucks use the road extensively. Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
Example Analysis
Two rehabilitation alternatives are considered for this Interstate County City
rural road: a conventional PCC whitetopping overlay Initial Concrete $829,521 $167,065 $294,850
and staged asphalt overlays. Comparisons are made Cost Asphalt $753,351 $110,510 $278,893
based on costs over a 30-year analysis period using a Present Concrete $1,027,162 $176,190 $408,976
discount rate of 2.5%. Appendix 4 shows the Worth Asphalt $1,576,029 $171,303 $435,190
construction items for each alternative, life cycle cost
calculations, and the results.
Based on comparisons of present worth, there was no These case studies illustrate that all anticipated costs
clear distinction between the concrete and asphalt must be considered when selecting a rehabilitation
overlay alternatives. The analysis showed that both alternative: initial, future, pavement materials, and non-
options were within 3% of being equivalent based on pavement costs such as traffic control and engineering.
life-cycle cost. In such cases where a life cycle cost Consideration should also be given to items such as user
analysis produces results so close, additional costs and delays, especially in urban areas. All items will
considerations such as safety, risk, and other factors may have an influence on the annual or present worth cost
enter into the selection of the rehabilitation strategy. In and selection of the preferred restoration, resurfacing, or
the case of a rural road carrying some truck traffic, reconstruction strategy.
seasonal weight restrictions should be considered.
Annual maintenance costs, which have not been
included in the analysis, may also need to be included
in order to aid in the selection process.

Case 3 – City Street Reconstruction

Case 3 involves a local existing city street, which is
being reconstructed for sewer reconstruction. It is a
two-lane roadway with parking lanes on both sides. The
pavement experiences a very low volume of truck traffic,
mostly local deliveries (about 5 trucks per day).
Two reconstruction alternatives are considered for this
city street: a plain concrete pavement, and an asphalt
pavement. Comparisons are made based on costs over a
30-year analysis period using a discount rate of 2.25%.
Appendix 5 shows the construction items for each
alternative, life cycle cost calculations, and the results.

Page 20
 Engineering Bulletin

Chapter 4
Advanced LCCA Features

Probabilistic Analysis The results are not just one value, but a distribution on
what possible values could be.
The Life Cycle Cost Analysis procedure as described to
The basic idea with probabilistic LCCA is to put more
this point has been a “Deterministic Approach.” In a
emphasis or weight on the costs and activities that are
deterministic approach, the engineer selects a single
more certain, and less emphasis to riskier factors such as
value for each input (e.g. initial cost, maintenance and
future rehabilitation costs.
rehabilitation costs, the timing of the maintenance and
The FHWA’s probabilistic LCCA procedure uses a
rehabilitation activities, discount rate, etc.) and
“Monte Carlo Simulation.” A Monte Carlo Simulation is
computes a single PW or EUAC.
a computerized procedure that takes each input, assigns
For example, an agency states that a particular
a range of values, and then runs several thousand
pavement type will last 17 years before rehabilitation is
analyses with combinations of all inputs to generate a
needed. At that time it will require an overlay, which
probability distribution (Figure 14).
will last 10 years, and then it will require a second
overlay, which will last 8 years. If the agency uses a 3%
discount rate, an analysis period of 35 years, an initial
cost for the pavement of $2,000,000, and a cost of
$500,000 for each overlay, then the present worth of $
that pavement system is $2,530,000. However, if the
discount rate is changed to 5%, the present worth
changes to $2,350,000. This results in a 7.6% differ-
ence, which is large enough to alter a strategy selection
Time Present
decision.
As can be seen, the values chosen for the various Worth
inputs can have significant impact on the final results. %
Simply changing any one of the inputs changes the re-
sults. For this reason, almost all arguments over LCCA
Figure 14. Schematic of Monte Carlo Simulation.
deal with the selection of the inputs. However, because
there is so much variability in all of the inputs, it is very
hard to argue the validity of inputs unless actual perfor- By using a probabilistic LCCA procedure, an agency
mance data from pavement management systems is used. determines a life cycle cost distribution for each alterna-
To address the variability and reliability of the inputs, tive. By comparing the distribution of each alternative,
the FHWA developed a new LCCA procedure called the agency is able to understand the most likely cost,
“Probabilistic Life-Cycle Cost Analysis.”(2) Probabilistic and the probable high and low cost for each alternative.
LCCA takes into account the variability of each input by They are also able to understand the spread of life cycle
combining the variability of the individual inputs to cost distributions and determine which alternative has
generate a probability distribution for the LCCA results. the lowest risk. Often times, an alternative may have a

Page 21
 Engineering Bulletin

higher life cycle cost, but it is a better choice because it for asphalt and concrete PPIs dating back to 1958.(35)
has less risk (Figure 15). For more information on Since 1958, the monthly percent change for concrete
performing a probabilistic LCCA, see reference 2. ingredients and related products has ranged from
between -2.43% to 6.73%. For paving asphalt, the
monthly percent change has ranged from between
0.50
Narrow Distribution -.93% to 39.41%.
is less Risk Another basic rule is that events that are closer to the
beginning of the analysis period are more “certain” and
less “risky” than events later in the analysis period.
Probability

Therefore, they have a narrower distribution (i.e. tighter

Life Cycle Cost
Figure 15. Schematic of Risk.
The key in performing a probabilistic LCCA is having
good estimates for the distribution for each of the inputs
(initial cost, rehabilitation costs, the timing of rehabili-
tation activities, and the discount rate) and the risk that
each imposes on the final answer.
As an estimate of the input probability distributions
for costs of the different paving material alternatives, an
agency can use historical PPI’s for the differing paving
materials. Figure 16 shows the monthly percent change
12%
10%
PPI (1982=100, NSA)
standard deviation). For this reason, analyses should use
a price distribution for earlier events (i.e. initial cost,
which is the most certain) that is narrower than events
done in latter years (i.e. rehabilitation done in year 20
and beyond).
Similarly, just as the distributions for costs need to be
accurately predicted, so does the timing of rehabilitation
activities. Again, because the timing for rehabilitation
activities that are performed early is more certain than
activities done later, they are less risky and should have
narrower distributions.
Interpreting Probabilistic Analysis Results
Comparing two separate cost distribution curves, one
for each alternative, can be difficult. The easiest way to
interpret the results of a probabilistic LCCA is to plot
the difference in cost of two pavement alternatives for
each simulation run, on a distribution curve. Whichever
alternative is less than the other at least 50 percent of
the time is the most cost effective.

8%
6% Simplified Risk Analysis
4% Another way to determine where the risks are is to take
2%
0% the ratio of initial costs to the present worth value.
-2% When this ratio is high (i.e. 80% or higher), the
-4%
-6% majority of the present worth value is with the initial
90

91

92

93

94

95

96

Ja 7
98

99

00

01

02

costs and therefore, less risky. When the ratio is lower

9
n.

n.

n.

n.

n.

n.

n.

n.

n.

n.

n.

n.

n.
Ja

Ja

Ja

Ja

Ja

Ja

Ja

Ja

Ja

Ja

Ja

Ja

(i.e. less than 60%), most of the PW value is in the

Date
future and therefore it has more risk (see Appendix 3
Concrete ingredients and related products
Paving asphalt
and 4 case results). In both of these cases, the asphalt
alternatives are riskier because so much of their present
Figure 16. Percent Monthly Change of PPI for Paving Asphalt and
value is based on uncertain future activities.
Concrete Products.(36)

Page 22
 Engineering Bulletin

Network Impact Analysis In a worst-case scenario, if an agency is focused on

short-term activities, they will get a major backlog of
Because the goal of LCCA is to help agencies spend
projects as “the remaining years before repairs are
money most wisely in selecting the preferred alternate
needed” gets shorter and shorter (i.e. average pavement
for a project, they should also assess how the individual
life becomes less) and the amount of pavement needing
project affects the pavement network and future cash
repairs at anytime skyrockets.
requirements (or cash flow). Sometimes, it is not in the
To avoid this, when an agency is determining
best interest of the network to use the lowest cost
appropriate rehabilitation alternatives for a project, it
alternative because it can contribute to cash flow or
should look at the lives of the different alternatives to
funding problems in the future.
make sure that the repaired pavement falls into a
For example, assume that there is a pavement
network “structural hole.”
network such as that shown in Figure 17, which shows
A network structural hole is a time period (see Figure
the percentage of pavement in the network that will
17) in which very little of the network will need repair
need repair in a given period of time. In this case, with-
(i.e years 13-17, 18-22, 23-27, and beyond year 32). By
in 2 years, 25% of the network pavement will need
building long-lasting pavements (i.e. greater than 32
repair and between 8 and 12 years, approximately 33%
years) and selecting rehabilitation alternatives that fill
will need repair. If an agency were to repair the 25% of
structural holes, the average amount of pavement that
the network pavement that needs repair in 2 years with
needs repair at any given time is reduced, and the
shorter-term solutions (i.e. repairs that last approxi-
network will become balanced over time.
mately 10 years), then in 8 to 12 years, the agency
In order to balance the network, an agency needs to
could have a cash flow or funding problem because
use a variety of strategies when it selects pavement
over 50% of their system would need to be repaired.
rehabilitation. A set of different rehabilitation solutions

50

45
Percent of Network Needing Repair

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
<2 3-7 8-12 13-17 18-22 23-27 29-32
Remaining Years Before Repairs are Needed
Figure 17. Schematic of Time Frame for Network Repairs.
*Structural holes. By filling the structural holes and building long-lasting pavements (greater than 32 years), the yearly rehab/construction
budget of the agency remains constant.

Page 23
 Engineering Bulletin

that last different lengths of time is required so that the

next rehabilitation activity can be chosen to fall into a
Rural State &
structural hole. For concrete pavements, the strategies County Roads 59%
include the restoration, resurfacing and reconstruction Airports
53%
activities described earlier.
Divided Highways 41%
Pavement Cost vs. Project Cost (both Rural & Urban)
34%
Municipal Streets &
In every pavement construction project, the actual cost Arterials
of the pavement structure is only a portion of the total 0% 20% 40% 60%
project cost. A recent sampling of construction projects Overall Average: 44%
completed in 2000 shows that pavement costs are, on
Figure 18. Pavement Cost as Percentage of Total Project Cost by
average, usually around 44% of the total project
Project Type.(42)
costs.(42) This is a small percentage when considering
the intent of the construction project is to build or
rehabilitate a given section of pavement.
Since the complexity of a particular project can add
significant costs, certain types of projects have lower
pavement cost as a percentage of the total cost. Figure
18 shows pavement cost as a percentage of total project
cost by project type.(42)

Page 24
 Engineering Bulletin

Chapter 5
Life Cycle Cost and
Performance Studies

Several states have looked at their historical pavement
costs on both project and network levels the last several
years. These include Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa,
Florida, Tennessee, South Dakota, Utah, and Georgia.
The following summaries highlight these studies and
give general overall conclusions.
Comparative Performance of
In-Service Highway Pavements
This research project consisted of a series of studies
undertaken to look at the long-term performance of in-
service pavements on four rural interstate corridors and
to compare the relative costs expended on the different
pavement types in those corridors.(43,44,45,46)
The criteria for the projects were that the corridors
had to be rural interstate sections, greater than 20 years
old; be approximately 100 centerline miles long; have
an approximate 50/50 split between jointed plain
concrete pavement (JPCP) and asphalt concrete
pavement (ACP) and approximate equal traffic loadings;
and finally, there needed to be no known material or
construction problems on either pavement type.
The four corridors were chosen so that they repre-
sented different geographical and climactic zones in the
US. The corridors selected were:
• I-40 in Western Tennessee
history (distress information as well as IRI or roughness
information), and finally the costs.
The researchers conducted two basic types of
analysis: life-cycle cost analysis and survival analysis.
Survival analysis is a way to assess the risk that a
pavement section will fail in different years. The key
output of survival analysis is the mean age of pavement
failure. For this study, the definition of failure for the
original pavements was placement of first overlay or
major CPR. For the rehabilitation activities, failure
constituted placement of next overlay, major CPR, or
reconstruction. Figures 19 and 20 show the results of
these analysis.
From the survival analysis (Figure 19), one can see
that the concrete sections in these studies lasted
between 1.6 and 2.6 times longer than the asphalt
sections, with an average of 2.2 times longer life. From
the LCCA analysis, the concrete sections were from 14%
to 250% more cost-effective (cheaper) than the asphalt
pavements, with an average savings of 103%.
JPCP (mean) ACP (mean)
40
30
Age

• I-15 in Utah, South of Salt Lake City 20

• I-40 in Eastern Oklahoma
10
• I-985 & SR 400 in Georgia, North of Atlanta
The information desired for the study had to be 0
actual information and gathered directly from DOT TN UT* OK* GA GA
I-985 SR-400
records. Items that were sought included the original *Over 50% of JPCP sections
construction and rehabilitation history (e.g. the date and have not failed (>30 years).
type of construction and rehabilitation activities), the Figure 19. Mean Age at Failure from Survival Analysis.
traffic history (volume and weights), the performance

Page 25
 Engineering Bulletin

JPCP (mean) ACP (mean) Another Michigan study looked at the actual cost for
14,000 two pavement sections (one asphalt, one concrete) on I-
12,000 75, Gaylord to U.S. 31.(48) The asphalt section was 29.9
10,000 miles long and was built in 1961. The first maintenance
Age

8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0 asphalt section was $188,267 and the cost per mile of
TN UT OK
I-985
Figure 20. 40-Year Life Cycle Cost Analysis.
Michigan Studies
In the study,(47) Michigan State University took the
actual costs (on a per lane, per mile basis) that the
Michigan DOT spent on approximately 3219 km (2000
miles) of their highway system over the last 30 years.
The costs included the original construction cost as well
as all the rehabilitation costs (i.e. reconstruction, resur-
facing, etc.). To account for age differences in the
pavement sections, the total costs were divided by the
average age to yield a cost per lane mile per year.
Figure 20 shows the average overall cost of Michigan
pavements, adjusted to 1997 dollars. As can be seen in
Figure 21, significantly more has been spent on the
asphalt roadways.
3000
2500
Cost/lane km per year
contract was done in 1977 and in total there have been
9 different contracts. The concrete was built in 1960
and is 23.3 miles long. Its first and only rehabilitation
activity was done in 1987. The cost per mile for the
GA GA the concrete section was $69,460.
SR-400
Case Study Comparisons of the
Life-Cycle Costs of HMAC and
PCC Pavements on Lower Volume
Roads in Minnesota
This research project, which was performed by the
University of Minnesota and was cited earlier for its
procedure to determine maintenance costs, had the
objective to perform and document comparisons of
costs associated with AC and PCC pavements
constructed and maintained by local highway road
agencies in Minnesota. The study looked at road
networks from two counties: Olmsted County and
Waseca County.(5)
The cost data collected included the initial construc-
tion costs (i.e. base, bituminous surfacing, and concrete
surfacing), the rehabilitation costs, (i.e. bituminous
overlay costs) and the maintenance costs. Because the
researchers wanted to isolate strictly the pavement costs,
they only considered costs associated with construction
above the finished mainline subgrade. The researchers

also collected other information such as traffic and

(1997 dollars)

2000
performance data.
1500 The data analysis consisted of splitting the roadway
into uniform sections, proportioning all costs and ADT
1000
by section length and number of lanes, selection of an
500 analysis period that coincided with the performance life,
and calculating the net present value and equivalent
0
uniform annual cost. Because of the different structural
Bituminous (1578.6 km)
Concrete (1475.6 km)
sections, ADT, etc., the researchers grouped the roadway
into 3 general cases for each county.
Figure 21. Average overall cost per lane km per year for Michigan
(1 km = .621 mile).

Page 26
 Engineering Bulletin

Table 7. Life Cycle Cost Comparisons of AC and PCC Pavements for Olmsted and
Waseca Counties.
Olmsted County
EUAC/Lane EUAC/Lane/million vehicles
Case AC PCC % Difference AC PCC % Difference
1 $ 6,886 $ 6,572 4.6% $ 597 $ 574 3.9%
2 $ 5,831 $ 6,257 -7.3% $ 3,629 $ 1,199 67.0%
3 $ 6,697 $ 6,562 2.0% $ 852 $ 720 15.5%
General $ 7,903 $ 8,412 -6.4% $ 1,858 $ 776 58.2%
Waseca County
EUAC/Lane EUAC/Lane/million vehicles
Case AC PCC % Difference AC PCC % Difference
1 $ 8,684 $ 7,405 14.7% $ 2,766 $ 2,179 21.2%
2 $ 4,681 $ 6,679 -29.9% $ 2,248 $ 2,399 -6.3%
3 $ 6,359 $ 5,414 14.9% $ 2,619 $ 1,428 45.5%

Cost comparisons were done two ways: cost per lane
mile and cost per lane mile per million vehicles. Costs
were normalized to traffic to account for the fact that
concrete was put onto roads that carried more and
heavier traffic. Results are presented in Table 7.
In general, the favored pavement type for the EUAC /
Lane analysis for both Olmsted and Waseca Counties
fluctuated between PCC and AC depending on which
case is analyzed. However, when the results were
normalized for traffic, the PCC pavements were more
cost-effective in all cases for Olmsted County and for all
but one case for Waseca county.
Iowa County Road Study – Impact
The specifics looked at in each county’s system were
performance* over a 40-year period from 1954-1994,
construction costs, and maintenance costs. Figure 22
shows the cost results for County A and County B. As
can be seen, County A (concrete) had lower construc-
tion and maintenance costs. On the performance side,
both systems performed well. County A (concrete) had a
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating of 97 (Excellent)
and County B (asphalt) had a rating of 84 (Very Good).
16
14
Cost (millions $)

12
of Pavement Type on County Road 10
8
Systems 6
This was a study of three representative counties in Iowa 4
to evaluate their individual pavement systems in order 2
to determine the effect of a concrete policy vs. an 0
County A County B
asphalt policy.(49) The first county, County A, had a Construction Costs
system primarily concrete with “whitetopping” overlays. Maintenance Costs
County B consisted of a system primarily asphalt with Figure 22. Construction and Maintenance Costs from the Iowa
asphalt overlays, and County C had an approximate County Road Study.
even split between asphalt and concrete. The results
presented here will focus on counties A and B.

* Performance was evaluated using visual distress surveys using the

MICRO-PAVER system. This system gives a Pavement Condition Index
(PCI) from 100 down to 0, where 100 is excellent and 0 is failed.

Page 27
 Engineering Bulletin

Another major finding of this study dealt with the

road system development. County A’s system developed
slower over a longer period of time and has had a little
need for rehabilitation. County B’s system developed at a
faster rate and was basically developed in the first 20
years. The last 20 years has been period of significant
overlays, rehabilitation and maintenance.

Kansas City Street Study

This is the oldest study(50) presented here and first
appeared as an article in the September 1986 issue of
Roads and Bridges Magazine. The article highlighted a
10-year study of nearly 1500 miles of residential con-
crete streets in six Kansas cities. The six cities whose
streets were investigated were:
• Topeka
• Manhattan
• Junction City
• Kingman
• Russell
• Wichita
The major performance result from this study was
that the streets in these cities had an average age of 40
years. In addition to highlighting the performance, the
study also compared maintenance costs of these 1500
miles of concrete streets to nearly 400 miles of asphalt
streets. In this comparison, the authors found that the
concrete streets had a maintenance cost of $425 per
mile. The asphalt streets’ maintenance cost averaged
$4000 per mile, or approximately 91⁄2 times higher than
the concrete streets.

Page 28
 Engineering Bulletin

Chapter 6
Summary

Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) is a procedure to Other factors, such as construction duration, ride-
economically compare competing design alternates ability over time, safety, and environmental friendliness
considering all significant costs and benefits over the can also enter into pavement type selection. However, it
economic life of each alternate. LCCA equates all present is difficult to relate these factors to cost or performance
and future costs (and benefits) over the life of a project and put them into an economic analysis. When
by accounting for the effects of the time value of money. possible, it is better to make adjustments on each
Because life cycle costing compares alternates, it is alternate to account for these factors while developing
necessary that each alternate is equivalently designed and the strategy before LCCA.
provides similar performance results. Comparing Enhancements to LCCA include probabilistic LCCA
alternates that do not provide similar performance results and network impact analysis. These techniques improve
is neither realistic nor reliable because the two alternates the understanding of the cost/benefit of specific projects
are not equivalent. An economic assessment between
or alternates and how they fit into the broader scope of
non-equivalent alternates yields erroneous results.
an agency’s decisions.
Present Worth (PW) and Equivalent Uniform Annual
Cost (EUAC) are the two most common methods to
express the time value of money. PW is the sum of all
costs over the project life in today's dollars. It combines
initial costs with the anticipated costs of future rehabili-
tation. Future costs are discounted to present costs using
the discount rate. Present worth analysis is limited to
comparisons of alternates with equal service lives.
EUAC spreads all costs (initial, rehabilitation, and
anticipated rehabilitation) to an annual cost over the
analysis period. EUAC is advantageous because it
more effectively compares alternates with different
service lives.
The fundamental factors that should be considered in
LCCA are:
• Agency costs (initial cost, rehabilitation and operation
costs, and maintenance costs)
• User costs (delay-of-use, roadway deterioration, and
accident costs)
• Discount rate
• Rehabilitation election and service life between
rehabilitations
• Comparable sections
• Analysis period

Page 29
 Engineering Bulletin

References 1. Kirk, Stephen J., and Dell’isola, Alphonse J., Life Cycle Costing for
Design Professionals, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1995.

2. Walls, J., and Smith, M., Life Cycle Cost Analysis in Pavement Design –
In Search of Better Investment Decisions, Demonstration Project 115,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C., 1998.

3. Cole, L., and Hall, M., Relative Costs of Various Concrete Pavement
Features, TRR 1574, TRB, NRC, Washington D.C., 1997.

4. Economic Investment Project Finds SHRP a Wise Investment, FOCUS,

Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C., March 1997.

5. Embacher, Rebecca A., and Snyder, Mark B., Case Study Comparisons of
the Life-Cycle Costs of HMAC and PCC Pavements on Lower Volume
Roads, University of Minnesota Dept. of Civil Engineering.

6. Banasiak, D., “Concrete Pavement Restoration: The Georgia Story,”

Roads and Bridges, Scranton-Gillette, Des Plaines, IL, April 1996.

7. Gulden, W., (unpublished) presentation at the CPR3 National

Workshop, Harrisburg PA, April 3, 1996.

8. The Concrete Pavement Restoration Guide: Procedures for Preserving

Concrete Pavements, TB020P, American Concrete Pavement Association,
Skokie, IL, 1998.

9. Guidelines for Full-Depth Repair, TB002P, American Concrete Pavement

Association, Skokie, IL, 1995.

10. Guidelines for Partial-Depth Repair, TB003P, American Concrete

Pavement Association, Skokie, IL, 1998.

11. Diamond Grinding and Concrete Pavement Restoration, TB008P,

American Concrete Pavement Association, Skokie, IL, 2000.

12. Joint and Crack Sealing and Repair for Concrete Pavements, TB012P,
American Concrete Pavement Association, Skokie, IL, 1993.

13. Guidelines for Slab Stabilization, TB018P, American Concrete Pavement

Association, Skokie, IL, 1994.

Page 30
 Engineering Bulletin

14. Concrete Pavement Rehabilitation: Guide for Load Transfer Restoration,

JP001P, American Concrete Pavement Association, Skokie, IL, 1998.

15. Guidelines for Bonded Concrete Overlays, TB007P, American Concrete

Pavement Association, Skokie, IL, 1990.

16. Guidelines for Unbonded Concrete Overlays, TB0005P, American

Concrete Pavement Association, Skokie, IL, 1990.

17. Whitetopping – The State of the Practice, EB210P, American Concrete

Pavement Association, Skokie, IL, 1999.

18. Reconstruction Optimization through Concrete Inlays, TB013P, American

Concrete Pavement Association, Skokie, IL, 1993.

19. Gharaibeh, N. G.; Darter, M. I.; LaTorre, F.; Vespa, J. W.; and Lippert,
D. L., Performance of Original and Resurfaced Pavements on the Illinois
Freeway System, Research Report 540-1, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, February 1997.

20. Chen, H.; Bendana, L.; and McAuliffe, D., Adapting the AASHTO
Pavement Design Guide to New York State Conditions, Research Report
164, Transportation Research and Development Bureau, New York
State DOT, 1995.

21. Packard, R. G., Pavement Costs and Quality, Concrete International,

American Concrete Institute, Detroit MI, August 1994.

22. Rao, S.; Yu, H. T.; and Darter, M. I., The Longevity and Performance of
Diamond-Ground Pavements, RD118P, Portland Cement Association,
Skokie, IL 1999.

23. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice #204: Portland Cement Concrete

Resurfacing, Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, Washington D.C., 1994.

2 4. Hall, K. T., Rehabilitation Strategies for Highway Pavements, Final Report,

NCHRP 1-38, May 2001.

25. Cole, L., Pavement Condition Surveys of Ultrathin Whitetopping Projects,

6th International Conference on Concrete Pavement Design and
Materials for High Performance, Purdue University, 1997.

Page 31
 Engineering Bulletin

26. 1996 Highway Funding Methods, Condition, and Use, The Road
Information Program (TRIP), Washington D.C., 1996.

27. Shober, S., (unpublished) presentation at the Transportation Research

Board Annual Meeting, Washington D.C., 1997.

28. Graham, J. L.; Paulson, R. J.; and Glennon, J. C., Accident Analysis of
Highway Construction Zones, Transportation Research Record 693,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington D.C., 1978.

29. Nemeth, Z. A., and Migletz, D. J., Accident Characteristics, Before,

During and After Upgrading Projects on Ohio’s Rural Interstate System,
Transportation Research Record 672, Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council, Washington D.C., 1978.

30. Wang, J. J., and Abrams, C. M., Planning and Scheduling Work Zone
Traffic Control – Technical Report, Report No. FHWA/RD/81/0049,
Federal Highway Administration, 1981.

31. Pigman, J. G., and Agent, K. R., Managing Highway Accidents in

Construction and Maintenance Work Zones, Transportation Research
Record 1270, Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, Washington D.C., 1990.

32. Andrew, L. B., and Bryden, J. E., Managing Construction Safety, and
Health: Experience of New York State Department of Transportation,
Transportation Research Record 1585, Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council, Washington D.C., 1997.

33. “How Fast Can We Built It? A Completion Time Comparison – PCC
vs. HMA,” Iowa Scene Project Report #25, Iowa Concrete Paving
Association, November, 2001.

34. Kerr, W. O., and Ryan, B. A, Avoiding the Pitfalls of Life Cycle Cost
Analysis, Washington Economic Research Consultants, October, 1987.

35. Tips for Retirement Planning, PC World Magazine, Volume 15, Number
1, January, 1997.

36. Federal Reserve Statistical Release, H.15 (519), Selected Interest Rates,
The Federal Reserve System, Washington D.C.

Page 32
 Engineering Bulletin

37. Bloom, M. S., and Bennett, N., US Highway Financing: Historical

Perspective and National Priorities, TR News, Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council, Washington D.C., Sep. – Oct.,
1998.

38. Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington D.C., 1993.

39. “Summary of Awarded Contract Prices 1991,” Iowa Department of

Transportation, Highway Division, 1991.

40. Illinois Project Bid Tabulation, Illinois Concrete Council, 1992.

41. Project Bid Tabulations, Wisconsin Department of Transportation,

1992.

42. 2001 Excellence in Concrete Pavement Awards, Nomination

Submittals for Projects Completed in 2000, American Concrete
Pavement Association, 2001.

43. Gharaibeh, N. G., and Crow, T. L., Comparative Performance and Costs
of In-Service Highway Pavements I-40, Tennessee, PCA R&D Serial No.
2209, Portland Cement Association, 2000.

44. Hoerner, T. E.; Darter, M. I.; Gharaibeh, N. G.; and Crow, T. L.,
Comparative Performance and Costs of In-Service Highway Pavements
I-15, Utah, PCA R&D Serial No. 2209a, Portland Cement Association,
2001.

45. Smith, K.; Gharaibeh, N. G.; Crow, T. L.; and Ayers, M. E.,
Comparative Performance and Costs of In-Service Highway Pavements I-
40, Oklahoma, PCA R&D Serial No. 2209b, Portland Cement
Association, 2001.

46. Shami, H.; Gharaibeh, N. G.; and Crow, T. L., Comparative

Performance and Costs of In-Service Highway Pavements I-985 and
SR 400, Georgia, PCA R&D Serial No. 2209c, Portland Cement
Association, 2001.

47. Snook, R., and Buch, N., Long-Term Cost Comparison of Pavement Types
in Michigan, Michigan State University, May, 1998.

Page 33
 Engineering Bulletin

48. Source Data from Michigan DOT Records, Unpublished Report,

Michigan Concrete Paving Association, Okemos, MI.

49. Cable, J. K., Impact of Pavement Type on County Road Systems,

Engineering Research Institute, Iowa State University. Portland Cement
Association, 1996.

50. Peterson, Lloyd, E., P.E., Kansas Rigid Pavements Serve Years Without
Ills, Roads and Bridges, Scranton-Gillette, Des Plaines, IL, September
1986.

Page 34
 Engineering Bulletin

APPENDICES
Appendices

Appendix 1 – LCCA Worksheet Example

PAVEMENT A A new undoweled rural concrete highway is to be built.
Pavement A – Rehabilitation Schedule The initial construction cost is $1.5 million. There are
two planned rehabilitation activities. The first occurs in
Determine the stream of flow for expenditures. The cash
year 20 and consists of diamond grinding for a cost of
flow diagram (below) shows the inflow and outflow of
$250,000. The second is a full CPR with second dia-
cash due to construction and rehabilitation. Arrows
mond grinding in year 30 at a cost of $750,000. The
indicate a major cash expenditure (construction, reha-
discount rate is 3.0% and the analysis period is 40 years.
bilitation, etc.). An up arrow indicates the outflow of
cash. Down arrows shown inflows. With pavements, the PAVEMENT A
inflow of cash only occurs at the end of the analysis Pavement A – Rehabilitation Schedule
period to slow either continued use or salvage value. Initial Cost End of
Full CPR with
The height of the arrow indicates the magnitude of the $1.5 million Diamond Grind Analysis Period
$750,000
expenditure. Diamond Grind
$250,000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 4 0 42 44 46 48 50

Pavement A — NPV Calculation Pavement A — NPV Calculation

Using the expenditure stream above, calculate the Net Using the expenditure stream above, calculate the Net
Present Value (NPV) for each rehabilitation activity Present Value (NPV) for each rehabilitation activity
(NPV for the initial cost is the initial cost). (NPV for the initial cost is the initial cost).
NPV is calculated using the following formula: NPV is calculated using the following formula:
NPV = Rehab Cost / (1 + i) n NPV = Rehab Cost / (1 + i) n
Where Where
i = discount rate i = discount rate
n = year rehab takes place n = year rehab takes place
Interest Rate = ____________ Interest Rate = 3%
Yr Cost (1 + i) n PW Yr Cost (1 + i) n PW
Initial Const. 0 1.000 Initial Const. 0 $1,500,000 1.000 $1,500,000
Rehab1. Rehab1. 20 $ 250,000 1.806 $ 138,419
Rehab2. Rehab2. 30 $ 750,000 2.427 $ 308,990
Rehab3. Rehab3.
Rehab4. Rehab4.
Rehab5. Rehab5.
Rehab6. Rehab6.
Rehab7. Rehab7.
Rehab8. Rehab8.
Rehab9. Rehab9.
Rehab10. Rehab10.
Salvage Salvage
Total Cost Total NPV Total Cost $2,500,000 Total NPV $1,947,409

Page 35
 Engineering Bulletin

Appendix 2
The following timelines show the expenditure streams used by several states in their LCCA procedures. As can be
seen, some states have clearly defined and detailed guidelines, while others are much broader. The timelines herein
are not to be interpreted as suggestions for your use. ACPA does not endorse these timelines. Rather, they are shown
here to demonstrate the variety of practice by state agencies.

2" Asphalt overlay (3" high volume urban areas)

Concrete
20 yr design 5 10 15 20 25 30

Grinding, joint resealing & 1% slab replacement

Colorado

Concrete
30 yr analysis
30 yr design 5 10 15 20 25 30

2" Asphalt overlay 2" Asphalt overlay

Asphalt
5 10 15 20 25 30

CPR & 3% slab replacement CPR & 5% slab replacement

Concrete
Urban 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

CPR & 3% slab replacement Crack & seal with 100 mm asphalt overlay
Concrete
Rural 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Mill 50 mm & 30 mm binder & Mill 50 mm & 30 mm binder &
25 mm wearing asphalt overlay 25 mm wearing asphalt overlay
Florida

Asphalt
40 yr analysis
Urban 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Mill 50 mm & 80 mm binder & Mill 50 mm & 80 mm binder &
15 mm wearing asphalt overlay 15 mm wearing asphalt overlay
Asphalt
Rural 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Mill 80 mm & 100 mm binder & Mill 80 mm & 100 mm binder &
15 mm wearing asphalt overlay 15 mm wearing asphalt overlay
Asphalt
Limited 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Access

Joint resealing
Concrete
5 10 15 20 25 30
Georgia

Mill & overlay Mill & overlay 30 yr analysis

Asphalt
5 10 15 20 25 30

Reseal transverse joints

Concrete
Minnesota

5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Asphalt overlay
1" Aslphalt overlay (1/3 original thickness -1") 35 yr analysis
Asphalt
>10,000 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
ADT

Page 36
 Engineering Bulletin

CPR (pressure grout 70% of joints & Rout & seal all joints, pavement
Rout & seal all joints, grind pavement surface), rout & seal patching 2.5%, shoulder patching 1.5%
pavement patching 1%, all joints, pavement patching 4%,
shoulder patching 1% shoulder patching 4%
Pavement Pavement Pavement patching 1.5% Pavement patching 3.5%
patching 0.5% patching 1.5% shoulder patching 1% shoulder patching 2%
Concrete
All Traffic 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Levels

Pavement Pavement patching 3% Policy overlay (mill .75" & lay 3.25" Rout & seal all longitudinal shoulder
patching shoulder patching 2% or 2" of AC surface), pavement & centerline cracks, 100% of thermal/
0.5% patching 4%, shoulder patching transverse cracks,
Rout & seal all
4% & 50% of random cracks
longitudinal
shoulder & Rout & seal
centerline 50% of Rout & seal all longitudinal Rout & seal all longitudinal
cracks & 15% of thermal/ shoulder & centerline cracks, shoulder & centerline cracks,
thermal/trans- transverse 100% of thermal/transverse 100% of thermal/transverse Pavement patching 3%
verse cracks cracks cracks, & 50% of random cracks, & 50% of random shoulder patching 3%
cracks cracks
Asphalt
Traffic factor 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
<15.0 (rural)
<10.0 (urban)

Pavement Surface mill .75" & 1.5" asphalt Policy overlay (mill .75" & lay 3.25" Surface mill .75" & 1.5" asphalt
patching overlay, pavement patching 3%, or 2" of AC surface), pavement overlay, pavement patching 3%,
Rout & seal all 0.5% shoulder patching 2% patching 4%, shoulder shoulder
longitudinal patching 4% patching 3%
shoulder & Rout & seal
centerline 50% of Rout & seal all longitudinal Rout & seal all longitudinal
cracks & 15% of thermal/ shoulder & centerline cracks, shoulder & centerline cracks,
thermal/trans- transverse 100% of thermal/transverse 100% of thermal/transverse
verse cracks cracks cracks, & 50% of random cracks, & 50% of random
Illinois

cracks cracks
Asphalt
40 yr analysis
Traffic factor 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
>15.0 & <24.5 (rural)
>10.0 & <16.3 (urban)

Surface mill .75" & 1.5" asphalt Policy overlay (mill .75" & lay Surface mill .75" & 1.5" asphalt
overlay, pavement patching 3.25" or 2" of AC overlay, pavement patching
3%, shoulder patching 2% surface), pavement 3%, shoulder patching 3%
Pavement patching 0.5% Rout & seal all patching 4%,
Rout & seal all longitudinal longitudinal shoulder patching 4%
Rout & seal all shoulder & centerline cracks, shoulder &
longitudinal 50% of thermal/transverse centerline
shoulder & cracks, & 50% of random cracks, 100% Rout & seal all longitudinal Rout & seal all longitudinal
centerline cracks of thermal/ shoulder & centerline cracks, shoulder & centerline cracks,
cracks & 15% of transverse 100% of thermal/transverse 100% of thermal/transverse
thermal/trans- Rout & seal 50% of cracks, & 50% cracks, & 50% of random cracks, & 50% of random
verse cracks thermal/transverse of random cracks cracks
Asphalt cracks cracks
Traffic factor 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
>24.5 & <34.0 (rural)
>16.3 & <22.7 (urban)

Surface mill Surface mill Policy overlay (mill .75"

.75" & 1.5" asphalt .75" & 1.5" asphalt & lay 3.25" or 2" of AC Surface mill .75" & 1.5" Surface mill .75" & 1.5"
overlay, pave- overlay, pave- surface), pavement asphalt overlay, pave- asphalt overlay, pave-
ment patching 0.5%, ment patching 2%, patching 4%, shoulder ment patching 2%, ment patching 2%,
shoulder patching 1% shoulder patching 2% patching 2% shoulder patching 2% shoulder patching 2%
Rout & seal all
longitudinal Rout & seal all Rout & seal all Rout & seal all Rout & seal all Rout & seal all
shoulder & longitudinal shoulder longitudinal shoulder longitudinal shoulder longitudinal shoulder longitudinal shoulder
centerline & centerline cracks, & centerline cracks, & centerline cracks, & centerline cracks, & centerline cracks,
cracks & 15% of 50% of thermal/ 100% of thermal/ 100% of thermal/ 100% of thermal/ 100% of thermal/
thermal/trans- transverse cracks, transverse cracks, transverse cracks, transverse cracks, transverse cracks,
verse cracks & 50% of & 50% of & 50% of & 50% of & 50% of
random cracks random cracks random cracks random cracks random cracks
Asphalt
Traffic factor 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
>34.0 (rural)
>22.7 (urban)

Page 37
 Engineering Bulletin

Reseal joints Maintenance 2-1/2" Overlay

Concrete
New York

5 10 15 20 25 30
Additional
Maintenance 2-1/2" Overlay Maintenance 1" Overlay maintenance 33 yr analysis
Asphalt
5 10 15 20 25 30

Saw & reseal joints Saw & reseal joints and grind
Concrete
North Carolina

5 10 15 20 25 30

30 yr analysis
Mill 2-1/2" & overlay 2-1/2" Mill 2-1/2" & 4-1/2" asphalt overlay
Asphalt
5 10 15 20 25 30

Clean & reseal joints

Clean & reseal joints with 2% patching
Concrete
South Carolina

5 10 15 20 25 30

30 yr analysis
1-1/4" asphalt overlay Mill 1" & 2-3/4" asphalt overlay
Asphalt
5 10 15 20 25 30

Grinding & joint resealing

Concrete
Washington

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

40 yr analysis
Asphalt overlay Asphalt overlay Asphalt overlay
Asphalt
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Repair & overlay or

Repair & grind mill, repair & overlay Mill, repair & overlay
Concrete
Undrained 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Repair & overlay or

Repair & grind mill, repair & overlay
Concrete
Washington

Drained 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

50 yr analysis
Overlay Mill & overlay Mill & overlay Reconstruct
Asphalt
Undrained 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Overlay Mill & overlay Mill & overlay

Asphalt
Drained 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Page 38
 Engineering Bulletin

Appendix 3
Case 1: Existing 4-Lane Interstate
Alternative A – Unbonded PCC Overlay
Timing of Rehabilitation Activities
Avg. Daily Traffic (ADT) 20,000
Growth Rate 3%
Life Estimate of Original Pavement 20 years
Yearly Cumulative Traffic Carried by
Year Traffic Traffic Pavement/Rehab. Activities
1 7,300,000 7,300,000
2 7,519,000 14,819,000
3 7,744,570 22,563,570
4 7,976,907 30,540,477
5 8,216,214 38,756,691
6 8,462,701 47,219,392
7 8,716,582 55,935,974
8 8,978,079 64,914,053
9 9,247,422 74,161,475
10 9,524,844 83,686,319
11 9,810,590 93,496,909
12 10,104,907 103,601,816
13 10,408,054 114,009,870
14 10,720,296 124,730,166
15 11,041,905 135,772,071
16 11,373,162 147,145,234
17 11,714,357 158,859,591
18 12,065,788 170,925,378
19 12,427,761 183,353,140
20 12,800,594 196,153,734 196,153,734 1st Rehab
21 13,184,612 209,338,346 13,184,612
22 13,580,150 222,918,496 26,764,762
23 13,987,555 236,906,051 40,752,317
24 14,407,182 251,313,233 55,159,499
25 14,839,397 266,152,630 69,998,896
26 15,284,579 281,437,208 85,283,475
27 15,743,116 297,180,325 101,026,591
28 16,215,410 313,395,734 117,242,001
29 16,701,872 330,097,606 133,943,873
30 17,202,928 347,300,535 151,146,801
31 17,719,016 365,019,551 168,865,817
32 18,250,587 383,270,137 187,116,403 2nd Rehab
33 18,798,104 402,068,241 18,798,104
34 19,362,047 421,430,289 38,160,151
35 19,942,909 441,373,197 58,103,060 End
36 20,541,196 461,914,393 78,644,256
37 21,157,432 483,071,825 99,801,688
38 21,792,155 504,863,980 121,593,842
39 22,445,919 527,309,899 144,039,762
40 23,119,297 550,429,196 167,159,059
41 23,812,876 574,242,072 190,971,935 3rd Rehab
Year 35 End of Analysis — 6 Years of Salvage Value

Page 39
 Engineering Bulletin

Example – Case 1
Alternative A – 4-Lane Interstate, Unbonded PCC Overlay Expected Life: 35 yrs. Discount Rate: 3.0%
Total Total Year Present
Cost Units Quantity Cost/Mile Applied Worth
Pavement Items:
9 PCC Unbonded OL, Furnish/Mainline $65.00 CY 4693.3 $305,067 $305,067
9 PCC Unbonded OL, Placement/Mainline $6.00 SY 14080.0 $84,480 $84,480
1.5 Epoxy Coated Dowel Bars, Mainline $1.50 SY 14080.0 $21,120 $21,120
9 PCC Unbonded OL, Furnish/Shoulder $65.00 CY 2737.8 $177,956 $177,956
9 PCC Unbonded OL, Placement/Shoulder $6.00 SY 8213.3 $49,280 $49,280
Full-Depth Repair (1% of Mainline) $65.00 SY 70.4 $4,576 $4,576
1.0, Asphalt Concrete Separation Layer $22.00 Ton 1254.0 $27,588 $27,588
Prime Coat, Mainline $0.80 Gallons 7431.1 $5,945 $5,945
Edge Drains $3.50 LF 5280.0 $18,480 $18,480
TOTAL COST PAVEMENT ITEMS = $694,491
Non-Pavement Items:
Select Fill (Trucked) $8.00 CY 7335.0 $58,680 $58,680
Guard Rail Beam, Posts, and Anchors
(Remove and Replace) $7,500.00 LS 1.0 $7,500 $7,500
Delineators, Mileposts, and Signs
(Remove and Replace) $750.00 LS 1.0 $750 $750
24 Concrete Culvert (Extend) $25.00 LF 40.0 $1,000 $1,000
24 Dia. Concrete Apron
(Remove and Replace) $120.00 Each 5.0 $600 $600
User Delay Cost $27,000.00 Day 2.0 $54,000 $54,000
Traffic Control $12,500.00 Mile 1.0 $12,500 $12,500
TOTAL COST NON-PAVEMENT ITEMS = $135,030
1st Rehab — CPR and Diamond Grinding (Year 20)
PCC Joint Saw & Seal — Transverse $1.00 LF 8448.0 $8,448 20 $4,677
Centerline $1.00 LF 5280.0 $5,280 20 $2,923
Shoulder, Long $1.00 LF 10560.0 $10,560 20 $5,847
Shoulders, Trans. $1.00 LF 4928.0 $4,928 20 $2,729
Full Depth Repair (1.5% of Area) $65.00 SY 211.2 $13,728 20 $7,601
Partial Depth Repair (0.5% of Area) $16.50 SF 633.6 $10,454 20 $5,788
Diamond Grind entire surface $3.50 SY 14080.0 $49,280 20 $27,285
User Delay Cost $27,000.00 Day 6.0 $162,000 20 $89,695
Traffic Control $2,000.00 Mile 1.0 $2,000 20 $1,107
Engineering (@ 10%) $26,667.84 LS 1.0 $26,668 20 $14,765
TOTAL COST YEAR 20 ITEMS = $293,346
2nd Rehab — CPR and Diamond Grinding (Year 32)
PCC Joint Saw & Seal — Transverse $1.00 LF 8448.0 $8,448 32 $3,281
Centerline $1.00 LF 5280.0 $5,280 32 $2,050
Shoulder, Long $1.00 LF 10560.0 $10,560 32 $4,101
Shoulders, Trans. $1.00 LF 4928.0 $4,928 32 $1,914
Full Depth Repair (3.0% of Area) $65.00 SY 422.4 $27,456 32 $10,662
Partial Depth Repair (1.0% of Area) $16.50 SF 1267.2 $20,909 32 $8,120
Diamond Grind entire surface $3.50 SY 14080.0 $49,280 32 $19,137
User Delay Cost $27,000.00 Day 6.0 $54,000 32 $20,970
Traffic Control $2,000.00 Mile 1.0 $2,000 32 $777
Engineering (@ 10%) $18,286.08 LS 1.0 $18,286 32 $7,101
TOTAL COST YEAR 32 ITEMS = $201,147
Residual Life Value (6 years) -$120,688.13 LS 1.0 -$120,688 35 -$42,891
*Example costs are for use in the examples presented in this bulletin. Initial Cost: $829,521
They are not intended as a guideline. Actual costs vary based on Present Worth: $1,027,162
local project conditions, material and labor costs. IC/PW 80.8%
R1/PW 15.8%
R2/PW 3.4%
100%

Page 40
 Engineering Bulletin

Example – Case 1
Alternative A – 4-Lane Interstate, Unbonded PCC Overlay
The cash flow diagram (below) shows the inflow and outflow of cash due to
construction and rehabilitation. Arrows indicate a major cash expenditure
(construction, rehabilitation, etc.). An up arrow indicates the outflow of cash.
Down arrows show inflows.
Initial Construction
$829,521
CPR 2
CPR 1 $201,147
$293,346

End of Analysis Period

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 4 0 42 44 46 48 50

-$120,688
Salvage Value
IC 9" Unbonded PCC Overlay
Doweled Joints. 15' joint spacing
CPR 1 Reseal PCC Joints
Full Depth Repair (1.5% of Area)
Partial Depth Repair (0.5% of Area)
Diamond Grind Entire Surface
CPR 2 Reseal PCC Joints
Full Depth Repair (3.0% of Area)
Partial Depth Repair (10% of Area)
Diamond Grind Entire Surface
PW is calculated using the following formula:
PW = Rehab Cost / (1 + i) n
Where
i = discount rate
n = year rehab takes place
Discount Rate = 3.0%
Yr Cost (1 + i) n PW
Initial Const. 0 $829,521 1.000 $829,521
Rehab1. 20 $293,346 1.806 $162,419
Rehab2. 32 $201,147 2.575 $ 78,113
Rehab3.
Rehab4.
Rehab5.
Rehab6.
Rehab7.
Rehab8.
Rehab9.
Rehab10.
Salvage 35 -$120,688 2.814 -$ 42,891
Total Cost $1,203,326 Total NPV $1,027,162

Page 41
 Engineering Bulletin

Example – Case 1
Alternative B – Crack and Seat PCC with AC Overlay
Timing of Rehabilitation Activities

Avg. Daily Traffic (ADT) 100

Growth Rate 3%
Life Estimate of Original Pavement and New Construction 10 years

Yearly Cumulative Traffic Carried by

Year Traffic Traffic Pavement/Rehab. Activities
1 7,300,000 7,300,000
2 7,519,000 14,819,000
3 7,744,570 22,563,570
4 7,976,907 30,540,477
5 8,216,214 38,756,691
6 8,462,701 47,219,392
7 8,716,582 55,935,974
8 8,978,079 64,914,053
9 9,247,422 74,161,475
10 9,524,844 83,686,319 83,686,319 1st Rehab
11 9,810,590 93,496,909 9,810,590
12 10,104,907 103,601,816 19,915,497
13 10,408,054 114,009,870 30,323,551
14 10,720,296 124,730,166 41,043,847
15 11,041,905 135,772,071 52,085,752
16 11,373,162 147,145,234 63,458,915
17 11,714,357 158,859,591 75,173,272
18 12,065,788 170,925,378 87,239,059 2nd Rehab
19 12,427,761 183,353,140 12,427,761
20 12,800,594 196,153,734 25,228,356
21 13,184,612 209,338,346 38,412,968
22 13,580,150 222,918,496 51,993,118
23 13,987,555 236,906,051 65,980,673
24 14,407,182 251,313,233 80,387,854 3rd Rehab
25 14,839,397 266,152,630 14,839,397
26 15,284,579 281,437,208 30,123,976
27 15,743,116 297,180,325 45,867,092
28 16,215,410 313,395,734 62,082,502
29 16,701,872 330,097,606 78,784,374 Reconstruction
30 17,202,928 347,300,535 17,202,928
31 17,719,016 365,019,551 34,921,944
32 18,250,587 383,270,137 53,172,531
33 18,798,104 402,068,241 71,970,635
34 19,362,047 421,430,289 91,332,682
35 19,942,909 441,373,197 111,275,591 End
36 20,541,196 461,914,393 131,816,787
37 21,157,432 483,071,825 152,974,218
38 21,792,155 504,863,980 174,766,373
39 22,445,919 527,309,899 197,212,293 1st Rehab
Year 35 End of Analysis - 4 Years of Salvage Value

Page 42
 Engineering Bulletin

Alternative B – 4-Lane Interstate, Crack & Seat PCC with AC Overlay Expected Life: 35 yrs. Discount Rate: 3.0%
Total Total Year Present
Cost Units Quantity Cost/Mile Applied Worth
Pavement Items:
3" Asphalt Concrete Surface, Mainline $31.50 Tons 2376.0 $74,844 $74,844
9" Asphalt Concrete Binder, Mainline $30.00 Tons 7128.0 $213,840 $213,840
Prime Coat, Mainline $0.80 Gallons 4693.3 $3,755 $3,755
3" Asphalt Concrete Surface, Shoulder $31.50 Tons 1386.0 $43,659 $43,659
9" Asphalt Concrete Binder, Shoulder $30.00 Tons 4158.0 $124,740 $124,740
Prime Coat, Shoulder $0.80 Gallons 2737.8 $2,190 $2,190
Crack and Seat, Mainline $1.00 SY 14080.0 $14,080 $14,080
Crack and Seat, Shoulder $1.00 SY 8213.3 $8,213 $8,213
Edge Drains $3.50 LF 5280.0 $18,480 $18,480
TOTAL COST PAVEMENT ITEMS = $503,801
Non-Pavement Items:
Select Fill (Trucked) $8.00 CY 8150.0 $65,200 $65,200
Guard Rail Beam, Posts, and Anchors
(Remove and Replace) $7,500.00 LS 1.0 $7,500 $7,500
Delineators, Mileposts, and Signs
(Remove & Replace) $750.00 LS 1.0 $750 $750
24" Concrete Culvert (Extend) $25.00 LF 40.0 $1,000 $1,000
24" Dia. Concrete Apron (Remove & Replace) $120.00 Each 5.0 $600 $600
User Delay Cost $27,000.00 Day 6.0 $162,000 $162,000
Traffic Control $12,500.00 Mile 1.0 $12,500 $12,500
TOTAL COST NON-PAVEMENT ITEMS = $249,550
1st Rehab — Overlay at Year 10:
3" Cold-Milling $1.50 SY 14080.0 $21,120 10 $15,715
3" Asphalt Surface, Mainline $31.50 Tons 2376.0 $74,844 10 $55,691
Tack Coat, Mainline $0.80 Gallons 4693.3 $3,755 10 $2,794
3" Cold-Milling, Shoulders $1.50 SY 8213.3 $12,320 10 $9,167
3" Asphalt Surface, Shoulders $24.00 Tons 1386.0 $33,264 10 $24,752
Tack Coat, Shoulders $0.80 Gallons 2737.8 $2,190 10 $1,630
User Delay Cost $27,000.00 Day 6.0 $162,000 10 $120,543
Traffic Control $2,000.00 Mile 1.0 $2,000 10 $1,488
Engineering (@ 10%) $31,149.29 LS 1.0 $31,149 10 $23,178
TOTAL COST YEAR 10 ITEMS = $342,642
2nd Rehab — Overlay at Year 18:
3" Cold-Milling $1.50 SY 14080.0 $21,120 18 $12,406
3" Asphalt Surface, Mainline $31.50 Tons 2376.0 $74,844 18 $43,963
Tack Coat, Mainline $0.80 Gallons 4693.3 $3,755 18 $2,205
3" Asphalt Surface, Outer Shoulder $1.50 SY 8213.3 $12,320 18 $7,237
3" Asphalt Surface Inner Shoulder $24.00 Tons 1386.0 $33,264 18 $19,539
Tack Coat, Shoulders $0.80 Gallons 2737.8 $2,190 18 $1,287
User Delay Cost $27,000.00 Day 6.0 $162,000 18 $95,158
Traffic Control $2,000.00 Mile 1.0 $2,000 18 $1,175
Engineering (@ 10%) $31,149.29 LS 1.0 $31,149 18 $18,297
TOTAL COST YEAR 18 ITEMS = $342,642

Page 43
 Engineering Bulletin

(Continued)

Total Total Year Present

Cost Units Quantity Cost/Mile Applied Worth
3rd Rehab — Overlay at Year 24:
3" Cold-Milling $1.50 SY 14080.0 $21,120 24 $10,390
3" Asphalt Surface, Mainline $31.50 Tons 2376.0 $74,844 24 $36,818
Tack Coat, Mainline $0.80 Gallons 4693.3 $3,755 24 $1,847
3" Asphalt Surface, Outer Shoulder $1.50 SY 8213.3 $12,320 24 $6,061
3" Asphalt Surface Inner Shoulder $24.00 Tons 1386.0 $33,264 24 $16,364
Tack Coat, Shoulders $0.80 Gallons 2737.8 $2,190 24 $1,077
User Delay Cost $27,000.00 Day 6.0 $162,000 24 $79,693
Traffic Control $2,000.00 Mile 1.0 $2,000 24 $984
Engineering (@ 10%) $31,149.29 LS 1.0 $31,149 24 $15,323
TOTAL COST YEAR 24 ITEMS = $342,642
Reconstruct at Year 29:
3" Asphalt Concrete Surface, Mainline $31.50 Tons 2376.0 $74,844 29 $31,760
9" Asphalt Concrete Binder, Mainline $30.00 Tons 7128.0 $213,840 29 $90,742
Prime Coat, Mainline $0.80 Gallons 4693.3 $3,755 29 $1,593
3" Asphalt Concrete Surface, Shoulder $31.50 Tons 1386.0 $43,659 29 $18,527
9" Asphalt Concrete Binder, Shoulder $30.00 Tons 4158.0 $124,740 29 $52,933
Prime Coat, Shoulder $0.80 Gallons 2737.8 $2,190 29 $929
User Delay Cost $27,000.00 Day 6.0 $162,000 29 $68,744
Traffic Control $12,500.00 Mile 1.0 $12,500 29 $5,304
Engineering (@ 10%) $63,752.79 LS 1.0 $63,753 29 $27,053
TOTAL COST YEAR 30 ITEMS = $701,281
Residual Life Value (6 years) -$280,512.27 LS 1.0 -$280,512 35 -$99,689
*Example costs are for use in the examples presented in this bulletin. Initial Cost: $753,351
They are not intended as a guideline. Actual costs vary based on Present Worth: $1,576,029
local project conditions, material and labor costs. IC/PW 47.8%
R1/PW 16.2%
R2/PW 12.8%
R3/PW 10.7%
R4/PW 12.6%
100%

Page 44
 Engineering Bulletin

Example – Case 1
Alternative B – 4-Lane Interstate, Crack and Seat PCC with AC Overlay
The cash flow diagram (below) shows the inflow and outflow of cash due to
construction and rehabilitation. Arrows indicate a major cash expenditure
(construction, rehabilitation, etc.). An up arrow indicates the outflow of cash.
Down arrows show inflows.

Initial Construction
$753,351 Reconstruct
$701,281
1st 2nd 3rd
Mill/AC Mill/AC Mill/AC
$342,642 $342,642 $342,642
End of Analysis Period

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 4 0 42 44 46 48 50
-$280,512
Salvage Value

IC 12" AC Overlay on Crack and Seat PCC

Mill/AC Overlay Mill 3" and replace
Reconstruct Remove entire AC layer and replace
PW is calculated using the following formula:
PW = Rehab Cost /(1 + i) n
Where
i = discount rate
n = year rehab takes place
Discount Rate = 3.0%

Yr Cost (1 + i) n PW
Initial Const. 0 $753,351 1.000 $753,351
Rehab1. 10 $342,642 1.344 $254,958
Rehab2. 18 $342,642 1.702 $201,266
Rehab3. 24 $342,642 2.033 $168,557
Rehab4. 29 $701,281 2.357 $297,586
Rehab5.
Rehab6.
Rehab7.
Rehab8.
Rehab9.
Rehab10.
Salvage 35 -$280,512 2.814 -$ 99,689
Total Cost $2,202,046 Total NPV $1,576,029

Page 45
 Engineering Bulletin

Appendix 4
Case 2: 2-Lane Rural/Local County Pavement
Alternative A – Whitetopping PCC Overlay Expected Life: 30 yrs. Discount Rate: 2.5%

Total Total Year Present

Cost Units Quantity Cost/Mile Applied Worth
Pavement Items:
5" PCC Overlay, Furnish/Mainline $36.00 CY 2607.4 $93,867 $93,867
5" PCC Overlay, Placement/Mainline $2.75 SY 14080.0 $38,720 $38,720
Granular Shoulders $8.00 Tons 1716.0 $13,728 $13,728
TOTAL COST PAVEMENT ITEMS = $146,315

Non-Pavement Items:
Guard Rail Beam, Posts, and Anchors
(Remove and Replace) $7,500.00 LS 1.0 $7,500 $7,500
Delineators, Mileposts, and Signs
(Remove & Replace) $750.00 LS 1.0 $750 $750
Traffic Control $12,500.00 Mile 1.0 $12,500 $12,500
TOTAL COST NON-PAVEMENT ITEMS = $20,750

Reseal Joints & Cracks at Year 20:

PCC Joint Saw & Seal - Transverse $1.00 LF 8448.0 $8,448 20 $5,156
Centerline $1.00 LF 5280.0 $5,280 20 $3,222
PCC Crack Saw & Seal $0.75 LF 300.0 $225 20 $137
Traffic Control $1,000.00 Mile 1.0 $1,000 20 $610
TOTAL COST YEAR 20 ITEMS = $14,953

Residual Life Value (0 years) $0.00 LS 1.0 $0 30 $0

*Example costs are for use in the examples presented in this bulletin. Initial Cost: $167,065
They are not intended as a guideline. Actual costs vary based on Present Worth: $176,190
local project conditions, material and labor costs. IC/PW 94.8%
R1/PW 5.2%
100.0%

Page 46
 Engineering Bulletin

Alternative B – AC Overlay Expected Life: 30 yrs. Discount Rate: 2.5%

Total Total Year Present

Cost Units Quantity Cost/Mile Applied Worth
Pavement Items:
4" Asphalt Surface, Mainline $24.00 Tons 3168.0 $76,032 $76,032
Granular Shoulders $8.00 Tons 1716.0 $13,728 $13,728
TOTAL COST PAVEMENT ITEMS = $89,760

Non-Pavement Items:
Guard Rail Beam, Posts, and Anchors
(Remove and Replace) $7,500.00 LS 1.0 $7,500 $7,500
Delineators, Mileposts, and Signs
(Remove & Replace) $750.00 LS 1.0 $750 $750
Traffic Control $12,500.00 Mile 1.0 $12,500 $12,500
TOTAL COST NON-PAVEMENT ITEMS = $20,750

Overlay Year 15:

3" Cold-Milling Asphalt, Mainline $1.25 SY 14080.0 $17,600 15 $12,152
3" Asphalt Surface, Mainline $24.00 Tons 2325.0 $55,800 15 $38,528
Traffic Control $5,000.00 Mile 1.0 $5,000 15 $3,452
Engineering (@10%) $7,840.00 LS 1.0 $7,840 15 $5,413
TOTAL COST YEAR 15 ITEMS = $86,240

Crack Sealing:
AC Crack Sealing (Year 10) $1.00 LF 95.0 $95 10 $74
Traffic Control $500.00 Mile 1.0 $500 10 $391
AC Crack Sealing (Year 25) $1.00 LF 950.0 $950 25 $512
Traffic Control $500.00 Mile 1.0 $500 25 $270

Residual Life Value (0 years) $0.00 LS 1.0 $0 30 $0

*Example costs are for use in the examples presented in this bulletin. Initial Cost: $110,510
They are not intended as a guideline. Actual costs vary based on Present Worth: $171,303
local project conditions, material and labor costs. IC/PW 64.5%
R1/PW 34.8%
R2/PW 0.7%
100.0%

Page 47
 Engineering Bulletin

Appendix 5
Case 3: City Street Reconstruction
Alternative A – City Street Reconstructed with Concrete Expected Life: 30 yrs. Discount Rate: 2.25%
Total Total Year Present
Cost Units Quantity Cost/Mile Applied Worth
Pavement Items:
5" Plain Concrete Pavement $8.00 SY 28160.0 $225,280 $225,280
TOTAL COST PAVEMENT ITEMS = $225,280

Non-Pavement Items:
Select Fill (Trucked) $8.00 CY 7040.0 $56,320 $56,320
Delineators, Mileposts, and Signs
(Remove & Replace) $750.00 LS 1.0 $750 $750
Traffic Control $12,500.00 Mile 1.0 $12,500 $12,500
TOTAL COST NON-PAVEMENT ITEMS = $69,570

CPR and Diamond Grinding (Year 25):

PCC Joint Saw & Seal Transverse $1.00 LF 25344.0 $25,344 25 $14,531
Longitudinal $1.00 LF 15840.0 $15,840 25 $9,082
Full Depth Repair (1.0% of Area) $65.00 SY 281.6 $18,304 25 $10,495
Partial Depth Repair (0.5% of Area) $16.50 SF 1267.2 $20,909 25 $11,988
Diamond Grind entire surface $3.50 SY 28160.0 $98,560 25 $56,509
Traffic Control $2,000.00 Mile 1.0 $2,000 25 $1,147
Engineering (@ 10%) $18,095.68 LS 1.0 $18,096 25 $10,375
TOTAL COST YEAR 25 ITEMS = $199,052

Residual Life Value (0 years) $0 LS 0.0 $0 $0

*Example costs are for use in the examples presented in this bulletin. Initial Cost: $294,850
They are not intended as a guideline. Actual costs vary based on Present Worth: $408,976
local project conditions, material and labor costs. IC/PW 72.1%
R1/PW 27.9%
100%

Page 48
 Engineering Bulletin

Alternative B – City Street Reconstructed with Asphalt Expected Life: 30 yrs. Discount Rate: 2.25%

Total Total Year Present

Cost Units Quantity Cost/Mile Applied Worth
Pavement Items:
6" Asphalt Pavement $24.00 Tons 9504 $228,096 $228,096
TOTAL COST PAVEMENT ITEMS = $228,096
Non-Pavement Items:
Select Fill (Trucked) $8.00 CY 4693.3 $37,547 $37,547
Delineators, Mileposts, and Signs
(Remove & Replace) $750.00 LS 1.0 $750 $750
Traffic Control $12,500.00 Mile 1.0 $12,500 $12,500
TOTAL COST NON-PAVEMENT ITEMS = $50,797
Overlay at Year 15:
2" Cold-Milling of Asphalt $1.00 SY 28160.0 $28,160 15 $20,169
2" Asphalt Surface Course $24.00 Tons 3168 $76,032 15 $54,456
Traffic Control $5,000.00 Mile 1.0 $5,000 15 $3,581
Engineering (@10%) $10,919.20 LS 1.0 $10,919 15 $7,821
TOTAL COST YEAR 15 ITEMS = $120,111
Crack Sealing:
AC Crack Sealing (Year 10) $1.00 LF 95.0 $95 10 $76
Traffic Control $500.00 Mile 1.0 $500 10 $400
AC Crack Sealing (Year 20) $1.00 LF 950.0 $950 20 $609
Traffic Control $500.00 Mile 1.0 $500 20 $320
TOTAL COST CRACK SEALING = $2,045
Overlay at Year 25:
2" Cold-Milling of Asphalt $1.00 SY 28160.0 $28,160 25 $16,145
2" Asphalt Surface Course $24.00 Tons 3168 $76,032 25 $43,593
Traffic Control $5,000.00 Mile 1.0 $5,000 25 $2,867
Engineering (@10%) $10,919.20 LS 1.0 $10,919 25 $6,260
TOTAL COST YEAR 25 ITEMS = $120,111

Residual Life Value (0 years) $0.00 LS 0.0 $0 $0

*Example costs are for use in the examples presented in this bulletin. Initial Cost: $278,893
They are not intended as a guideline. Actual costs vary based on Present Worth: $435,190
local project conditions, material and labor costs. IC/PW 64.1%
R1/PW 19.8%
R2/PW 0.3%
R3/PW 15.8%
100.0%

Page 49
Metric Conversion Factors
The following table provides metric conversion factors for common English units used in pavement engineering, and
concrete pavement design and construction. Where possible the values given reflect standard conversions
provided by IEEE/ASTM SI-10.

CLASSIFICATION TO CONVERT FROM TO PRACTICAL METRIC UNIT MULTIPLY BY

Angle degree of curvature radians, (rad) 0.01745329
Area square feet, (ft2) square meter, (m2) 0.09290304
Area square inch, (in2) square millimeter, (mm2) 645.16
Area square yard, (yd2) square meter, (m2) 0.8361274
Area (land) Acre, (acre) square meter, (m2) 4046.873
Density (material) pounds/cubic foot, (lb/ft3) kilograms/cubic meter, (kg/m3) 0.593273246
Flow cubic feet/second, (ft3/s) cubic meter per second, (m3/s) 0.02831685
Flow gallon (liquid)/minute, (gal/min) cubic meter per second, (m3/s) 6.309020x10-5
Flow gallon (liquid)/minute, (gal/min) liter/second, (l/s) 0.06309020
Force kips (1000 lb), (KIP) newtons, (N) 4448.222
Horizontal curvature feet, (ft) meters, (m) round to 5 m 0.3048
Length inches, (in) millimeters, (mm) 25.4
Length feet, (ft) meters, (m) 0.3048
Length mile (U.S.), (mi) meter, (m) 1609.347
Length yard, (yd) meter, (m) 0.9144
Mass pounds, (lb) kilograms, (kg) 0.4535924
Mass ton (U.S. 2000 lb), (ton) kilogram, (kg) 907.1847
Power (engine) horsepower, (hp) kilowatt, (kW) 0.7456999
Rideability inches/mile, (in/mile) millimeter/kilometer, (mm/km) 15.782799
Stress (pressure) pounds/square inch, (psi) megapascals, (MPa) 0.006894757
Subgrade support, k pounds/square inch/inch, (psi/in) megapascals/meter, (MPa/m) 0.271447
Temperature degree Fahrenheit, (°F) degree Celsius, (°C) use: t°C = (t°F - 32)/1.8
Velocity (speed) miles/hour, (mph) kilometer/hour, (km/h) 1.609344
Viscosity poise Pascal second, (Pa·s) 0.10
Volume ounces, (oz) milliliters, (ml) 29.57353
Volume gallon (liquid), (gal) liter, (l) 3.785412
Volume, (admixture) ounces/cubic yard, (oz/yd3) milliliter/cubic meter, (ml/m3) 22.6122804
Volume, (admixture) ounces/100 weight (lbs) cement, milliliter/100 kilograms cement, 0.0153378
(oz/100 cwt) (ml/100 kgc)
Concrete Pavement Design & Analysis

WinPAS™
Pavement Analysis Software
ACPA’s Windows™ Pavement Analysis Software
(WinPAS™ ) includes the latest information and
design parameters for the pavement design
engineer. WinPAS incorporates the pavement
design methods from the 1993 AASHTO Guide
for Design of Pavement Structures.

Once equivalent pavement alternatives are

designed, a Life Cycle Cost Analysis module
included in the software program allows the
user to calculate the life cycle cost analysis for
the different pavement alternatives.

The WinPAS program is accompanied by a

comprehensive guide on pavement design
which includes background information and
guidance on the use of the program. Additional
Product Code No. MC016.01P copies of the users manual can be ordered
Retail Price: $495.00 each separately for $20.00.
Member Price: $ 95.00 each
Format: Win 9x, NT, 2000, XP

User’s Manual can be

ordered separately
for $20.00.
(Code MC016P)

ACPA offers four ways to order products:

ORDER ONLINE at ACPA’s home page
www.pavement.com – click on “Order Products”
and type in “MC016”

Alternatively,

you may order by telephone, fax, or mail your orders to

ACPA’s order processing department.

By phone: 1-800-868-6733 (Normal business hours apply)

By fax: 1-847-966-9666 (Fax orders may be sent 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.)

By mail: American Concrete Pavement Association, P.O. Box 726, Skokie, Illinois 60076-0726
 American
Concrete
Pavement
Association
5420 Old Orchard Road
Suite A100
Skokie, Illinois 60077-1059
Phone: 847-966-2272
Fax: 847-966-9970
www.pavement.com

Engineering Bulletin EB220P