Final Report 4

Identification of Effective Next Generation
Pavement Performance Measures and Asset

Management Methodologies to Support
MAP-21 Performance Management
Requirements
Contract Number: DTFH6115C00046
Final Report
Submitted to:
Federal Highway Administration
Guang Y. Zeng
Office of Acquisition and Grants Management
Office of Contracting Operations – Team B
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, E65-101
Washington, D.C. 20590
Submitted By:
Fugro Roadware, Inc.
8613 Cross Park Drive
Austin, Texas 78754
Tel. 512-977-1800 Fax. 512-973-9565
www.fugroroadware.com
Authored By:
Sirous Alavi, Ph.D., P.E., PTOE
Nima Kargah-Ostadi, Ph.D., P.E.
Michael P. Tavares, P.E.
Jerome Daleiden, P.E.
September 15, 2016

Performance Measures and Asset Management Methodologies Final Report
FHWA-DTFH6115C00046 September 15, 2016
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................... i
List of Figures ................................................................................................................ii
List of Tables..................................................................................................................ii
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 MAP-21 and Performance-Based Management ...................................................... 2
2.0 Task 1 – Identify or Conceptually Develop More Strategic Pavement Performance
Measure(s) .................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 State of the Practice in Pavement Performance Measurement ................................. 5
2.2 Search for Next Generation Performance Measure(s) .............................................. 8
2.3 Research Team Criteria for Selection of Next Generation Pavement Performance
Measure(s) ................................................................................................................ 9
2.4 Next Generation Network Level Pavement Performance Measure Using Traffic Speed
Deflection Devices (TSDD) ........................................................................................ 11
2.5 TSDD related Performance Measure based on Normalized Deflection Variation ...... 13
2.6 TSDD related Key Performance Indicator (KPI) ..................................................... 15
3.0 Task 2 – Methodologies to Guide Implementation of a Comprehensive Asset Management
Plan ............................................................................................................................ 17
3.1 Building Upon Findings of the NCHRP Project 08-91: “Cross-Asset Resource Allocation
and the Impact on System Performance” and its MS Excel Tool Prototype ..................... 19
3.1.1 Incorporating Risk in the Tool Prototype ......................................................... 23
3.1.2 Opportunities to Improve the NCHRP 08-91 Tool Prototype ............................. 24
3.2 Examples of Other Available Analytical Tools ....................................................... 25
3.3 A Conceptual Framework for Cross-Asset Transportation Asset Management ......... 29
3.3.1 Resource Allocation Problem Formulation ...................................................... 29
3.3.2 Multi-Objective Optimization.......................................................................... 31
3.3.3 Quantifying Objective Functions .................................................................... 33
3.3.4 Scaling Objective Functions .......................................................................... 35
3.3.5 Quantifying Constraints ................................................................................ 36
3.3.6 Incorporating Uncertainty and Risk ................................................................ 37
3.3.7 Conceptual Framework for Cross-Asset Resource Allocation ........................... 37
3.3.8 Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms ......................................................... 40
3.4 Organizational and Cultural Changes: Bottom-Up Analysis and Top-Down Integration
............................................................................................................................... 40
3.5 Visualization and Communication ........................................................................ 41
4.0 Task 3 – Develop Work Plans for Future FHWA Projects to Validate Task 1 And Task 2
Outcomes.................................................................................................................... 45
4.1 Work Plan for Task 1 .......................................................................................... 45
4.2 Work Plan for Task 2 .......................................................................................... 49
5.0 References ........................................................................................................... 51
6.0 Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 53
i
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Types of Pavement Condition Data Collected. ............................................... 7
Figure 2 – Types of Pavement Distress Data Collected. ................................................. 7
Figure 3 – TSD and Diagnostic Checks. ....................................................................... 12
Figure 4 – RWD. ........................................................................................................... 12
Figure 5 – Cumulative Distribution Function for the NDVR Crack Initiation Thresholds
Estimated for LTPP SPS-1 Sections in Oklahoma and Virginia ............................. 15
Figure 6 – Project Benefits from NCHRP Report 806.................................................... 21
Figure 7 – Bottom-Up Approach to Optimization in the NCHRP 08-91 Tool Prototype. 22
Figure 8 –Top-Down Analysis for Optimization in the NCHRP 08-91 Tool Prototype. .. 22
Figure 9 – Asset Manager NT Overview from NCHRP Report 545. .............................. 26
Figure 10 – Asset Manager PT Overview from NCHRP Report 545. ............................ 27
Figure 11 – METIS Cross-Asset Tool Overview. ........................................................... 27
Figure 12 – Example Framework for Using Multi-Objective Optimization in Asset
Management. ......................................................................................................... 28
Figure 13 – Objectives and Constraints in Cross-Asset Resource Allocation. .............. 30
Figure 14 – Example Cross-Asset Multi-Objective Transportation Asset Management. 31
Figure 15 – Example Illustration of a Two-Objective Pareto-Optimal Front. .................. 32
Figure 16 – Quantifying Uncertainty in Objective Functions. ......................................... 37
Figure 17 – Conceptual Framework for Cross-Asset Resource Allocation Using Multi-
Objective Optimization. .......................................................................................... 39
Figure 18 – Example Visualization of the Final Pareto-Optimal Front for Multi-Objective
Optimization. .......................................................................................................... 43
Figure 19 – Example Visualization of Multiple Performance Outcomes (Objectives) by
Agency Strategic Direction. .................................................................................... 43
Figure 20 – Example Matrix Scatter Plots to Demonstrate Trade-Offs Among Multiple
Objective Functions................................................................................................ 44
Figure 21 – Example Visualization of the Impact of Different Investment Levels on the
Multiple Performance Measures............................................................................. 44
List of Tables
Table 1 – Existing Pavement Performance Measures..................................................... 6
Table 2 – Pavement Performance Measures Under Research and Development. ....... 10
ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Fugro Roadware, Inc. (Fugro) is pleased to provide the final report for Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) contract number DTFH6115C00046, entitled “Identification of
Effective Next Generation Pavement Performance Measures and Asset Management
Methodologies to Support MAP-21 Performance Management Requirements.”
The primary objectives of this Contract are to:
1. Identify, or conceptually develop, more strategic pavement performance
measures, and their means of collection, in order to strengthen performance
management and better link investments to long term performance. Consideration
shall include how the data supporting the next generation method would be
collected, analyzed, and presented and the potential costs and benefits of using
this type of performance measure.
2. Identify, or conceptually develop, methodologies to enable full implementation of
a comprehensive asset management plan, including trade-off analysis from a
common ground among disparate assets that are traditionally individually
assessed and managed.
The specific tasks identified in the project work plan are:
 Task 1 – Identify or conceptually develop more strategic pavement performance
Measure(s).
 Task 2 – Identify, or conceptually develop, methodologies to enable full
implementation of a comprehensive asset management plan.
 Task 3 – Develop work plans for future FHWA projects to validate Task 1 and Task
2 outcomes.
 Task 4 – Develop and submit a final report to document the entire research effort.
This final report covers all the work activities accomplished under this contract.
1.1 Background
Infrastructure asset management refers to a data-driven decision support system that
helps authorities in making decisions among alternatives for further development of
assets or improvement of existing infrastructure. Increased infrastructure deterioration,
increased performance demands, and challenges posed by climate change, along with
limited budgetary and human resources have all made asset management a critical and
challenging task. To address these challenges, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the
21st Century (MAP-21) legislation requires performance-based management of
transportation systems and one of its national performance goals involves infrastructure
condition. In addition, MAP-21 recognizes preservation by allowing funding eligibility for
preservation projects. Under the new legislation, each state agency is required to develop
1
a “risk-based asset management plan” to improve or preserve the condition of existing

highway assets. These requirements are also carried forward into the current Fixing
America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act.
In order for a successful implementation of a performance-based management system,
appropriate quantifiable performance measures and corresponding targets need to be
established. Pavement condition on the Interstate System and non-Interstate National
Highway System (NHS), and bridge condition on the NHS, comprise three of the twelve
performance areas identified by the United States Department of Transportation
(USDOT). FHWA is disseminating its proposed rulemaking in various areas by
developing notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) documents. The NPRM process
provides an opportunity for stakeholders including State Departments of Transportation
(DOTs), and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to provide their comments and
feedback on the proposed procedures and measures. As of June 2016, FHWA has
developed five NPRMs related to safety performance measures, highway safety
improvement programs, planning, pavement and bridge condition performance
measures, and asset management plans. Of primary interest to the objectives of this
project are the FHWA NPRM on Asset Management Plan (RIN 2125-AF57)1 and FHWA
NPRM on National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Pavement Condition
for the National Highway Performance Program and Bridge Condition for the National
Highway Performance Program (RIN 2125-AF53)2. The primary objectives of this project,
which are the development of strategic pavement performance measure(s) and
methodologies to enable full implementation of a comprehensive asset management
plan, will need to complement the FHWA rulemakings and adhere to the MAP-21
performance-based asset management planning and programming.
MAP-21 has increased the awareness and involvement in transportation asset
management (TAM) as the key system for performance-based management of highway
infrastructure. MAP-21 defines TAM as “...a strategic and systematic process of
operating, maintaining, and improving physical assets…that will achieve and sustain a
state of good repair over the life cycle of the assets at minimum practicable cost.” 3 Core
principles of TAM are policy-driven planning, performance-based decisions, analysis of
options and tradeoffs across alternative projects and assets, supporting decisions based
on quality data and information, and providing transparent accountability and feedback
through monitoring of the infrastructure network. FHWA plans to take advantage of the
implementation of MAP-21 to increase the return of the public investment in our highway
infrastructure by maximizing overall performance of the highway network while minimizing
life cycle costs.
1.2 MAP-21 and Performance-Based Management

The performance-related provisions within MAP-21 have been categorized by FHWA into
the following six groups:
2
1. Establish National Goals to focus the Federal-Aid Highway Program on specific

areas of performance.
2. Establish Measures (by FHWA) to assess performance and condition of assets.
3. Establish Targets (by State DOTs and MPOs) to document expected future
performance.
4. Establish Plans (by State DOTs and MPOs) to achieve performance needs.
5. Develop Reports (by State DOTs and MPOs) to document progress toward
achieving targets.
6. Establish Accountability through developing requirements (by FHWA) to assist
State DOTs and MPOs to achieve or make significant progress toward reaching
performance targets.
The national goals were established in MAP-21 to focus on the following key aspects of
the transportation network, which could be summarized as safety, mobility, and
preservation goals:
 Safety
 Infrastructure Condition
 Congestion Reduction
 System Reliability
 Freight Movement and Economic Vitality
 Environmental Sustainability
 Reduced Project Delivery Delays
MAP-21 requires state agencies to develop plans that will layout the strategic direction
for identifying and addressing performance needs of their highway network. Plans ensure
that each agency’s priorities are aligned with the national goals at strategic, tactical, and
operational management levels. MAP-21 also requires biennial reports to the FHWA on
the condition of the NHS and the effectiveness of investment strategies to provide
feedback on the performance of the management program. This mechanism will
demonstrate the method for implementation of available resources to the public, elected
officials, and the stakeholders. Furthermore, MAP-21 has considered provisions to
require state DOTs to undertake actions if the set performance targets are not met
according to the plan for each state. These provisions encourage accountability of the
transportation management system.
3
2.0 TASK 1 – IDENTIFY OR CONCEPTUALLY DEVELOP MORE

STRATEGIC PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE MEASURE(S)
“Performance measure” is a relatively broad term that can encompass subjective and
objective data to account for pavement distresses and surface characteristics that may
influence pavement performance. Pavement performance measures have traditionally
been related to metrics that describe physical characteristics of the pavement structure
(e.g., International Roughness Index (IRI), rutting, faulting, cracking percent). Physical
characteristics of pavement structures have been measured by various data collection
methods including visual condition surveys (automated, manual), non-destructive testing
and also destructive testing. In order to identify more strategic pavement performance
measures, one has to first understand the current status of pavement performance
measures and define the need for more strategic pavement performance measures.
There are three very distinctive and important characteristics that define the nature and
attributes of pavement performance measures. These are:
1. Project level performance measures versus network level measures - The
need for performance measures at the project level are very specific as the
objective is to identify the exact causes of pavement distresses to develop the most
cost-effective maintenance/rehabilitation strategy. At the project level, the impact
of data collection on the traveling public is contained and localized. Pavement
condition data (both automated and manual) and non-destructive testing such as
falling weight deflectometer (FWD) testing are frequently utilized for pavement
performance data collection. Often times it is possible to conduct even more
invasive destructive materials sampling and testing with proper advanced
planning. At the network level however, pavement performance data collection
often covers thousands of miles of agency roadway network. At the network level,
the pavement performance data collection is often needed to provide critical input
for development of performance models in support of prioritization of maintenance
or rehabilitation efforts and funding. The impact of data collection on the traveling
public in forms of delay and safety are major concerns. Therefore, routine
pavement performance measures and evaluations at network level are often
performed by the automated pavement distress/condition data collection
equipment traveling at prevailing roadway speed. Other auxiliary information such
as climatic and traffic data are also collected by devices that have no impact on
user travel times.
2. Functional performance measures versus structural measures - From an
agency point of view, pavements need to meet certain thresholds in functionality
and structural adequacy in order to provide an acceptable Level of Service (LOS)
to the traveling public. Pavement functional attributes are primarily based on ride
quality and safety. Measurements of pavement smoothness and pavement/tire
noise are examples of attributes that impact user’s perception of ride quality.
4
Pavement performance measures associated with pavement texture (friction)

and/or the propensity for hydroplaning are associated with safety. Structural
performance measures such as deflection, layer thickness, materials properties
and load related surface distresses are associated with the structural capacity of
a pavement section. Pavement performance measures related to the structural
capacity of a pavement section are used in conjunction with traffic loading and
environmental data to determine the structural adequacy of an in-service
pavement.
3. “Lagging” versus “leading” performance measures - The current proposed
pavement performance measures for MAP-21 (i.e., IRI, cracking percent, rutting,
faulting) are all lagging measures as they are based on metrics, which measure
outcomes or results. Surface distresses are all reactive measures to a pavement
investment (i.e., the existing roadway) that has already been made. On the other
hand, measurements of pavement structural layer properties are leading indicators
as they are based on metrics that measure input and can be used to predict and
influence the desired output (e.g., adequately designed pavement structure to
withstand loading at a desired LOS). Lagging indicators (output indicators) such
as pavement surface distresses are relatively easy to measure as compared to
leading indicators (input indicators) such pavement structural layer properties.
However, leading indicators are input oriented and can track potential performance
issues before a problem arises, and thus are easier to influence compared to
lagging indicators.
The following discussion on the current state-of-practice in pavement performance
measures is an important gateway to the identification of next generation network-level
pavement performance measures that are leading indicators of long term performance
and influential factors in achieving minimum practical cost over a pavement’s life cycle.
2.1 State of the Practice in Pavement Performance Measurement

Obviously, the practice of network-level pavement performance measurement is different
among various highway agencies. Table 1 shows the existing performance measures
that are being collected and used in some form by various national or international
agencies. Not all of the agencies are using all of the following measures and there are
vast differences in the implementation methodologies among agencies.
In NCHRP Synthesis Report 401 on quality management of pavement condition data
collection4, researchers surveyed 45 states and nine Canadian provinces regarding
pavement management practices and found that more than 95 percent of these agencies
collect network-level surface distress data and smoothness data. Furthermore, 34
percent collect network-level friction data and 16 percent collect network-level structural
capacity data. Moreover, among those agencies that collect network-level distress data,
more than half collect data on rutting, transverse cracking, fatigue cracking, longitudinal
5
cracking, map/block cracking, raveling, faulting, spalling, and bleeding/flushing. Figure 1

and Figure 2 depict results from this survey.
Table 1 – Existing Pavement Performance Measures.
National Goal Objective Type Measure Typical Repair Strategy
Friction Number (FN)

Sideways Force
Functional Coefficient (SFC)
Skid Chip Seal, Micro-
Resistance Macro-Texture Depth Surfacing, Thin Overlay
(MPD, MTD, SMPD)
Bleeding/
Surface
Flushing Area
Safety Avoid Micro-Surfacing, Thin
Rut Depth
Hydroplaning Overlay, Mill & Inlay
Gradient
Functional
Vehicle Cross-Slope
Geometry Correction
Handling Curvature
Sight Distance
International Micro-Surfacing, Thin
Functional
Provide Ride Roughness Index Overlay, Mill & Inlay
Quality Raveling/ Chip Seal, Micro-
Surface
Weathering Area Surfacing, Thin Overlay
Micro-Surfacing, Thin
Rut Depth Overlay, Mill & Inlay, Mill &
Overlay
Wheel Path Cracking
Area
FWD Deflection Overlay, Mill & Overlay
Remaining Service
Life
Structural Load Transfer
Infrastructure Dowel Bar Retrofit
Efficiency
Condition Diamond Grinding, Dowel
Structural Joint Faulting
Bar Retrofit
Health
Pumping Area Localize Repair
Punchouts
Patching
Potholes
Non Wheel Path
Crack Seal
Cracking Area
Crack/Joint Spalling Crack/Joint Seal, Patching
Surface
Thermal Cracking Crack Seal
Map Cracking Area No Treatment
6
Figure 1 – Types of Pavement Condition Data Collected.
Figure 2 – Types of Pavement Distress Data Collected.
7
Some key elements regarding pavement sustainability revolve around the need to keep
smoother pavements smooth and a reduction in positive macro-texture without
compromising safety. Both these elements contribute to reduced fuel consumption and
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Positive macro-texture also contributes to noise,
which has both environmental and societal impacts. There are well established
relationships between road surface condition (primarily roughness and macro-texture)
and GHG emissions. For heavily trafficked roadways, the savings in GHGs incurred when
keeping a road smooth are magnitudes greater than the GHG emissions generated in the
maintenance operations (including both maintenance materials and traffic delays
resulting from maintenance operations) needed to keep them smooth. This has to be an
element in any asset management system. Similarly, long-lasting infrastructure often has
a huge life cycle environmental benefit even if the initial environmental costs might be
slightly higher. The use of life cycle assessment (LCA) is needed to establish
environmental impacts.
The traditionally used pavement performance measures (e.g., IRI, cracking indices,
composite pavement condition index, and rutting indices) do not necessarily reflect the
immediate positive influence of applying preservation treatments. Nevertheless, the long-
term benefits of timely preservation tend to manifest in decreased deterioration rates,
which have not been fully studied for all existing performance measures. Past research
(NCHRP Report 5235) has validated the increased cost-effectiveness and performance
benefits in the timely application of preservation treatments as opposed to a strategy of
corrective maintenance and rehabilitation alone. However, most performance indicators
are more sensitive to rehabilitation treatments and cannot be used for triggering
preventive maintenance or preservation treatments. There is a need for evaluating the
long-term effect of preservation on the deterioration rates of existing performance
measures. Furthermore, there is a need for existing and new performance measures that
reflect the impact of preservation treatments on the calculated service life and life cycle
costs. The ongoing NCHRP Project 14-33 is aiming to develop such performance
measures. This way the scenario analyses of pavement management systems will be
equipped with the necessary tools to influence decision making towards strategic
incorporation of preservation treatments.
2.2 Search for Next Generation Performance Measure(s)

Over the years several pavement composite indices have been developed to combine
various structural and functional measures into one pavement performance measure.
The latest of these efforts was a FHWA study published in May 2013, which reported on
the “Development of Next Generation Pavement Performance Measures” as part of
FHWA ongoing effort to improve FHWA’s ability to assess highway infrastructure health
(FHWA-HIF-042).6 The objective of the study was to develop a “next generation
pavement performance measure that provides an accurate and repeatable assessment
of the functional condition of the roadway.” The aim was to solely rely on the Highway
Performance Management System (HPMS) database and develop a combined measure
8
based on ride quality, cracking, rutting and faulting. At the initial stages of the report, it
became apparent that pavement performance measures describing the physical
conditions of a pavement (i.e., rutting, cracking, faulting) provide “very different
information” about the condition of a pavement as compared to functional measures (e.g.,
IRI). Ride quality measures provide information on the user’s perception of pavement
condition, while physical performance measures provide specific information about the
physical condition of a pavement. A decision was made to change the course of that
study to evaluate rutting, faulting, cracking and ride quality as four separate pavement
performance measures using the HPMS database. The study also concluded that
consideration of pavement structural condition as a performance measure is “highly
desirable” but there are technological deficiencies at the current time to collect such data
nationally at the network level. For each of the four performance measures under study,
the report also provided requirements for data collection, data processing, data QC/QA,
data storage, and condition rating.
Moving ahead from these reactive measures, there is a need for strategic performance
measures that assess the long-term impact of investment scenarios on infrastructure
condition. Such indicators would aid TAM procedures to maintain pavements in a State
of Good Repair (SGR), in compliance with the MAP-21 performance-based management
concept.
Several data elements are critical to identify available performance measures that could
be implemented towards more strategic measures. Condition or performance measures
being considered by FHWA and SHAs are a logical starting point. Table 2 represents a
sample list of numerous pavement performance measures under research and
development by various agencies across the US and internationally.
2.3 Research Team Criteria for Selection of Next Generation

Pavement Performance Measure(s)
Pavement performance measures have traditionally been within one of the following three
categories:
1. Pavement performance measures based on individual distresses (e.g., average
rut depth, %of slabs that are cracked, etc.)
2. Pavement performance measures based on multiple distresses (e.g., pavement
condition index, structural condition index, etc.)
3. Pavement performance measures based on deflection data (e.g., Indiana
Structural Strength Index, Texas Structural Condition Index, etc.)
9
Table 2 – Pavement Performance Measures Under Research and Development.
National Goal Objective Type Measure Comments

Simulated Macro-
Texture Depth and Transverse MTD, MPD
Skid Variation using 3D and RMS
Safety Functional
Resistance Imaging
Micro-Texture Only Stationary Devices
Road Impact Factor
Provide Ride calculated using Independent of vehicle
Functional
Quality accelerometers in suspension system
mobile devices
Facilitates network-level
Highway-Speed
continuous structural
Deflection Data
Infrastructure monitoring
Condition Ground Penetrating
Current practice at project-
Structural Radar (GPR)
Structural level
Health Thickness
Current practice at project-
GPR detected voids
level
Remaining Service Current practice at project-
Life/Interval level
Not
Agency Costs
Applicable
Reduce Life- Vehicle Operating Wear/Tear, Fuel, traffic
Cycle Costs Functional
Costs (User Costs) congestion cost
Financial
Surface Rolling Resistance MIRIAM project
Considerations
Cost of providing the
Economic [a] highway level of service
Functional TBD
Vitality versus the provided
economic opportunity
Close Proximity
Surface Affected by Macro-Texture
Noise (CPX)
Emissions from
Environmental
Reduce Impact GHG Emissions construction activities, user
Impact
Functional traffic, and end-of-life
Depletion of natural
Fuel Consumption
resources
[a]
TBD: To be determined
The research team developed the following general criteria for selection of the next
generation pavement performance measures in the current project:
1. For the performance metric and its measure to become practical and widespread
at network level, an agency should be able to collect the pertinent data at or near
highway speed with no interruption to traffic flow. Of course, the data required for
the performance metric should not be cost prohibitive for the agency to collect.
2. The performance metric and its measure should be a leading indicator of pavement
performance.
10
3. The performance metric and its measure should have significant impact on the
selection of performance enhancement strategies that are prescribed to
preserve/extend the life of the pavement at minimized life-cycle costs.
4. The performance metric and its measure should have the potential to become fully
developed technically, analytically, and economically practical within a 5-10 year
time horizon.
As described earlier, pavement performance measures utilizing deflection data would
provide a “leading” performance measure as it would result in valuable information with
regard to pavement structural layers. At the project level, knowledge of deflection data is
consistently used in structural evaluation to enhance the pavement management system
(PMS) decision making process. A recent FHWA study on “Simplified Techniques for
Evaluation and Interpretation of pavement Deflections for Network-level Analysis”
(FHWA-HRT-12-023, December 2013)7 states that the incorporation of structural analysis
on PMS (in that specific study) changed the outcome of prescribed treatments on
approximately 60 percent of study sections. This is another confirmation that
consideration of pavement structural condition as a performance measure meets the
research team criterion 3 above on the significant impact on selection of M& R strategy.
Deflection data, however, has been acquired by performing Falling Weight Deflectometer
(FWD) testing, which does not meet the research team criterion 1 above on being a
practical test at the network level. As indicated in Figure 1, only a small percentage of
agencies in the US collect structural capacity data at the network level. Hence, pavement
management has historically lacked the structural capacity information needed to
measure the remaining service life of pavements at the network level.
2.4 Next Generation Network Level Pavement Performance Measure

Using Traffic Speed Deflection Devices (TSDD)
Structural evaluations have historically been done only at the project level due to the high
cost of collecting data and safety concerns regarding the lane closures during testing.
Agencies have been looking for an alternative approach to measure structural condition
at the network level that can be reliable, cost-effective, and collected safely. Surface
distress measurements alone are not enough to capture the actual rate of pavement
deterioration and do not provide adequate information to develop optimal structural
rehabilitation strategies. In addition, pavement preservation activities such as chip
sealing or thin overlays may also temporarily hide signs of structural (load) related
distresses such as fatigue cracking.
For over a decade, there has been continuous interest and technological advancement
in developing equipment that can be used for structural evaluation of pavements at or
near highway speed. Extensive literature is readily available on the use and evolution of
various traffic speed deflection devices (TSDD). A number of studies including the
Second Strategic Highway Research Program, Project R06(F) and FHWA study on
Pavement Structural Evaluation at the Network Level (FHWA-HRT-15-074)8 suggest that
11
the Traffic Speed Deflectometer (TSD) and the Rolling Wheel Deflectometer (RWD) are
the two most promising devices at this time. The TSD (Figure 3) is an articulated truck
with a rear dual-wheel axle of about 20,000 lbs. This device measures the velocity of the
road surface resulting from the load applied by the truck. The RWD (Figure 4) has a
series of displacement lasers mounted on a semi-trailer that collects nondestructive
pavement deflections caused by an 18-kip single axle load. The deflection is calculated
by comparing the laser scan profile as the RWD moves forward. Both RWD and TSD
provide continuous measurements at intervals as small as a few inches. Both devices
also allow for monitoring multi-lane and high traffic roads without the need to have
extensive traffic control. This results in increased safety for road users and testing crews
since no lane closures are needed during data collection. This also keeps traffic moving
and reduces user delays.
Figure 3 – TSD and Diagnostic Checks.
Figure 4 – RWD.
A recent FHWA study has confirmed that TSD measurements provide a robust
assessment of pavement structural conditions at the network level. The RWD device is
also promising especially with improvements in the number of sensors and their locations
(FHWA-HRT-15-075)9. This FHWA study also shows that TSDD data can be utilized to
develop promising deflection indices for further structural evaluation of pavements at the
12
network level. For example, the study considered and developed a series of deflection
indices (e.g., radius of curvature, deflection slope index, tangent slope, etc.) that exhibit
a good correlation with critical pavement responses (in their case with maximum tensile
strain at the bottom of asphalt concrete (AC) layer for fatigue cracking).
At the minimum, this network level structural evaluation is a screening tool to identify and
locate weaker and inadequate sections and to estimate pavement rehabilitation or
maintenance needs. It can also be integrated with other data collection devices such as
Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) and an inertial profiler to significantly improve data
collection efficiencies and reduce collection costs.
Of particular interest is the Transportation Pooled Fund study number TPF-5(282) titled
“Demonstration of Network Level Pavement Structural Evaluation with Traffic Speed
Deflectometer.” As a part of this study, TSD data was collected in nine participating States
to demonstrate the use of TSD for network-level pavement structural evaluation. Among
the primary objectives of this pooled fund study is the “exploratory analysis in the use of
TSD derived pavement structural parameters for use in the participating SHA’s pavement
management system and applications.” This information is also expected to further
research on the understanding of these measurements. The objective is to work towards
an understanding of how the TSD can be used to estimate the structural condition
(adequacy) of a pavement given anticipated loading and environmental considerations.
2.5 TSDD related Performance Measure based on Normalized

Deflection Variation
In a paper presented at the 2016 TRB Annual Meeting, an alternative idea was presented
to develop a network-level deflection-based leading performance measure22. This pilot
study developed a new performance measure based on the variation of deflection across
the length of each test section normalized to the variation in pavement thickness. The
trends of the resulting performance measure with time was compared against the trends
in cracking data in order to determine the crack initiation threshold for the new measure.
Pavement deterioration rate is not uniform across each pavement management section.
This is in part due to the initial construction variability in thickness, materials composition,
and compaction of different pavement layers. Other sources of variability in structural
integrity across pavement length include presence of water and drainage structures,
dynamic loads due to surface roughness, proximity to other structures (bridges, culverts,
etc.), lack of confinement (ineffective shoulder), and water intrusion due to joint/crack
sealant issues and other surface openings. As a result of the variation in structural
integrity along pavement sections, there are weaker areas that exhibit lower stiffness.
This localized lower stiffness is reflected by higher deflections measured on the pavement
surface. Consequently, the variation in surface deflection along the pavement section
increases with time from the initial variation caused by construction inconsistencies. In
this preliminary study, the variation in surface deflection normalized to the average
13
deflection value, which is the coefficient of variation (CoV) in deflection was proposed as
an indicator of pavement deterioration.
The coefficient of variation in deflection reflects the initial variation in the deflection basin
immediately after construction, and the increase in deflection variation as a result of non-
uniform deterioration of the pavement section with time. In an effort to benchmark this
normalized deflection variation index to the initial construction variability in pavement
thickness, the CoV of the deflection basin was divided by the CoV of the total pavement
thickness using ground GPR data. The resulting pavement structural index was called
the “Normalized Deflection Variation Ratio (NDVR)”, which is calculated as follows:
𝐶𝑜𝑉𝐷
𝑁𝐷𝑉𝑅 =
𝐶𝑜𝑉𝐺𝑃𝑅
where
𝑁𝐷𝑉𝑅 = normalized deflection variation ratio
𝐶𝑜𝑉𝐷 = coefficient of variation of the entire deflection basin along the section
𝐶𝑜𝑉𝐺𝑃𝑅 = coefficient of variation of the total pavement thickness along the section
Since the highway speed deflection measurement devices collect pavement surface
deflections at more frequent intervals, such continuous measurements (accompanied
with GPR data) would be ideal to capture the full picture of variation in structural integrity
across pavement length. However, due to the lack of adequate number of years with
deflection data collected through these devices and the lack of accompanying distress
data, this preliminary study was conducted using FWD data extracted from the FHWA’s
Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program.
For each test section, a sigmoidal function is fitted to the NDVR values, and to the
progression of the combined cracking distresses initiated in the wheel path. The time of
initiation of longitudinal or fatigue cracking in the wheel paths and on the pavement
surface was estimated using the distress sigmoidal function for each test section and the
corresponding value of NDVR at that point in time was estimated based on the fitted
NDVR sigmoidal function. The calculated NDVR at the time of crack initiation can be
used as an estimate of the threshold which indicates potential cracking. Figure 5 shows
the cumulative distribution function (CDF) for the crack initiation NDVR threshold values
estimated on all LTPP SPS-1 test sections in the Oklahoma and Virginia sites. The NDVR
threshold value corresponding to a CDF of 0.5 shows a mean of 19.3 for these test
sections (the standard deviation of these NDVR thresholds is 11.1). In other words, when
the coefficient of variation in the FWD deflection basin increases to be about 19 times the
coefficient of variation in total pavement thickness, cracking can be anticipated within the
wheel paths. This threshold range could potentially be used to determine if the pavement
structure is in a good condition to trigger pavement preservation treatments. Of course,
this number is based on the assumptions in this pilot study and further investigation using
deflection data on other test sections is warranted to determine pertinent threshold values
for this newly developed potential performance index.
14
1.0
0.8
0.6
CDF 0.4
0.2 19.30
0.0
0 10 20 30 40
CoVFWD/CoVGPR
CoVFWD/CoVGPR distribution Normal Distribution
Figure 5 – Cumulative Distribution Function for the NDVR Crack Initiation Thresholds
Estimated for LTPP SPS-1 Sections in Oklahoma and Virginia
The presence of some scatter in the NDVR values could lead one to conclude that the
fitted sigmoidal function might not be a perfect representation of its trend. This scatter
could be due to seasonal temperature and moisture differences between FWD test dates,
also random measurement errors due to the FWD and GPR devices. Of course, there is
also some scatter in the distress values which could be attributed to the subjectivity of
measurement methods and the inherent variation in distress ratings. As a result of this
scatter and lack of fit of the sigmoidal model, the coefficient of variation in the NDVR crack
initiation threshold values is about 57 percent. With the future collection of continuous
traffic speed deflection data along with GPR and distress data, larger data pools will be
available and a statistical analysis can be conducted to determine the significance of the
correlation between NDVR and crack initiation. In addition, with larger data pools, a better
performance prediction model (similar to the fitted sigmoidal functions) can be developed
for applications in pavement management systems.
2.6 TSDD related Key Performance Indicator (KPI)

As discussed before, structural evaluation of network pavements using TSDD provide the
means for developing “leading” pavement performance measures. However, it does take
more than TSDD measures (or TSDD driven deflection indices) to develop a “leading”
performance indicator, which provides an assessment of the need for further rehabilitation
versus maintenance/preservation forecasting strategies at the network level. This is
because other important factors namely; pavement layer thicknesses, anticipated traffic
loads, and environmental conditions all impact the remaining pavement life (or service
interval). Therefore, the conceptual next generation pavement performance measure
would be a KPI consisting of the following parameters:
15
 TSDD deflection measures (or deflection indices). There are ongoing FHWA
research studies that have already proposed corresponding network-level
deflection-based performance measures. The alternative conceptual performance
measure based on deflection variation (discussed in section 2.5) should also be
further evaluated for this purpose.
 Anticipated traffic loading to the next service interval.
 Consideration of environmental impact and variation (e.g., temperature, moisture).
 Pavement structural layer thickness information from GPR readings.
Surface distresses and roughness are not included as they are captured by other NPRM
MAP-21 pavement performance measures. It is envisioned that the TSDD KPI would be
used to compliment the current typical network PMS approach, which is based on metrics
related to roughness and surface distress measures. It is also important to note that
metrics chosen or combined erroneously can produce misleading indicators that yield
incorrect and/or low performance measures. Inaccurate measures will produce bad
management decisions.
The FHWA pooled fund study on demonstration of network level pavement structure
evaluation with TSD, FHWA study on pavement Structural Evaluation at the Network
Level, and several other TSD data collection efforts nationally and internationally can be
used for the development of the KPI. The project team is also aware of current efforts by
the FHWA team to develop similar performance measures utilizing the pooled fund TSD
data.
16
3.0 TASK 2 – METHODOLOGIES TO GUIDE

IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE ASSET
MANAGEMENT PLAN
In recent years, State DOTs and regional agencies have been utilizing asset management
plans and system performance measures to various degrees to manage their systems,
evaluate project-level investment scenarios and transportation and land-use issues. With
MAP-21 legislation in place and the subsequent Fixing America's Surface Transportation
Act ("FAST Act"), States are required to develop a risk-based Transportation Asset
Management Plan (TAMP) for their NHS infrastructure. To facilitate this process, FHWA
has published a NPRM for Asset Management Plan (RIN 2125-AF57)1. Among the main
objectives of this NPRM is establishing the process for developing an asset management
plan by a State DOT. Another important objective is to “establish the minimum content
requirements of a State DOT asset management plan including minimum standards for
developing and operating bridge and pavement management systems.” Some key
attributes of the NPRM on Asset Management Plan are:
 State DOTs are required to develop and implement asset management plans for
the NHS relating to physical assets. At the minimum the asset management plan
should encompass pavement and bridge assets.
 State DOTs are required to include performance measures and targets for all
assets included in their asset management plans.
 Performance measures for bridges and pavements are the national measures
established by FHWA (i.e., NPRM 2125-AF53)
 Target values for performance measures are the desired future value of
performance measures given the existing conditions, budget constraints and short
and long term goals. Targets are set by State DOTs and are used to guide their
resource allocations and program delivery.
The FHWA NPRM reaffirms State DOTs consensus that transportation asset
management systems should be developed around performance-based decision making
processes. AASHTO Transportation Asset Management Guide (2013) 10 states: “an
agency must be able to demonstrate that they are making progress on established goals
and objectives and set goals and objectives tied to measurable metrics; make resource
allocation decisions based on these goals and objectives and the funding available using
the metrics to guide the decision making; and then demonstrate to its customers the
results of the investments.”
According to the FHWA Asset Management Plan NPRM, there are six required processes
for a State DOT Asset Management Plan:
17
1. Conducting performance gap analysis and identifying strategies to close

gaps – NPRM defines the performance gap as the gap between actual and desired
condition and performance of the NHS.
2. Conducting life-cycle cost analysis for an asset or asset sub-group at the
network level – The intended asset management life-cycle cost analysis is
different than the life-cycle cost analysis in the design process as it includes the
cost of managing an asset over its entire life. In this context, the life-cycle cost
analysis is used to determine a strategic treatment plan (i.e., preservation,
rehabilitation, and reconstruction along with routine and corrective maintenance)
for an asset during its entire life while attempting to minimize costs and maintain
or enhance the asset condition.
3. Incorporating risk management analysis in the asset management plan – The
literature review conducted by Fugro’s research team revealed that there is a
significant amount of misinterpretation of the concept of risk management analysis
in the context of an asset management plan. The risk management analysis as
intended by FHWA for a State DOT asset management plan is based on the
measure of uncertainties in achieving the set performance targets given changes
in current and future funding levels and unforeseen environmental events. The
risk management plan will also include the process by which a State DOT
manages the uncertainties in order to achieve its set performance targets. The
risk management analysis will also take into consideration if reasonable
alternatives exist for assets (i.e., roads, bridges) that repeatedly require treatment
activities due to emergency events.
4. Developing a 10-year period financial plan – A State DOT will develop a
methodology to determine the estimated costs of expected future work and
estimated available funding for a 10-year financial plan. It is important to note that
the definition of “work” does include actions to improve the physical condition of
highways and bridges following the SGR concept, as well as to improve other
aspects of their performance such as functionality and LOS.
5. Establishing a process to develop investment strategies – State DOTs are
tasked to evaluate funding options and anticipated impact of those funding options
on conditions and performance of NHS assets. The evaluation of various
investment strategies will enable a State DOT to assess its progress towards
achieving the States’ performance targets.
6. Using pavement and bridge management systems to analyze the condition
of Interstate highway and non-Interstate NHS pavements and NHS bridges,
and to determine optimal management and investment strategies – State
DOTs have been using various pavement and bridge management systems for
their agency planning process for years and are familiar with data collection,
processing, and analyzing schemes.
18
Following the MAP-21 legislation directives and the FHWA NPRMs, the research team
has created a conceptual framework for full implementation of a comprehensive asset
management plan. The research team has also investigated other potential challenges
with respect to implementation of TAMP, which include data availability and data quality.
In addition, due to the cross-asset nature of TAM data, pertinent governance and
stewardship practices are very important to facilitate data access and update for all
parties involved.
The major goal of a TAMP is to create strategies leading to a program of projects that
would satisfy the national goals and the State specific set performance targets. Using the
performance measurement concepts identified in Task 1 and the measures proposed by
FHWA NPRMs, the research team has considered a framework for addressing agency
goals and objectives such as maximizing overall performance of a highway network, while
minimizing life-cycle costs and environmental implications, and optimizing social impacts.
The following sections first describe the research team’s understanding and insight from
the NCHRP 08-91 project. Building upon the findings of that project and other previous
research, a conceptual framework is proposed for full implementation of a comprehensive
asset management plan.
3.1 Building Upon Findings of the NCHRP Project 08-91: “Cross-

Asset Resource Allocation and the Impact on System Performance”
and its MS Excel Tool Prototype
The objective of the NCHRP 08-91 research project was to provide a data-driven decision
analysis tool based on a performance management concept. 11 The project report
provides a literature review that is representative of the state of the art regarding the
various steps involved with such a data-driven analysis. In addition, the state of the
practice in eight State DOTs was reviewed, but the focus was mainly on general
characterization of the existing hurdles regarding cross-asset resource allocation.
Traditionally, State DOTs’ investment and resource allocation decisions have been based
on geographical areas (i.e., districts) and/or program units (e.g., pavements, bridges,
safety) with very little consideration of overall system-wide implications of resource
allocation decisions. Under this traditional approach, project planning, project selection,
and program development occur in program units and/or geographical areas in what is
called a “siloed” approach. In addition, statewide transportation improvement program
(STIP) allocations are commonly based on historical distributions and funding restrictions
rather than the achievement of performance goals.
NCHRP Project 08-91 has concentrated on developing guidelines and an MS Excel tool
prototype for a system-wide cross-asset performance-based investment decision and
resource allocation strategy.
The NCHRP report states that the cross-asset allocation framework integrates the
following:
19
1. Goals and objectives describing agency priorities and vision.

2. Performance measures to gauge progress toward agency goals and objectives.
3. Predictive models to forecast likely project impacts on system performance.
4. Prioritization to screen feasible projects, and optimization for project selection
based on performance and budget constraints.
5. Trade-off analysis to compare priorities with fiscal constraints.
The study recommends a five step framework for performance-based management and
suggests some guidelines regarding each step based on the best practices reviewed in
the literature. The project team has investigated the NCHRP tool prototype and focused
on the following tool characteristics:
1. What it does,
2. What input information is included,
3. Various elements of the tool and the relationships between them,
4. Algorithms behind the decision making process, and
5. Inherent deficiencies.
The following segments describe the above tool characteristics for each of the five steps
in implementation of the tool prototype:
1. Goals and objectives identification: this step has been left for the agencies to
develop according to the national goals created under MAP-21.
2. Performance metric evaluation: the tool contains a limited set of network-level and
project-level performance measures, but also allows for adding other measures, as long
as the user provides the corresponding impact assessments. The user needs to identify
the impact of each considered treatment project on each of the considered performance
measures. Performance targets are defined as the state-of-good-repair thresholds for
physical assets and level-of-service (LOS) thresholds for system operations.
3. Project impact assessment: The tool allows for assigning project impacts to multiple
performance measures, including the measures that are not traditionally considered for
each project type. For example, a pavement resurfacing project could improve safety in
addition to pavement performance. The benefits of a transportation project could be
realized in an improvement in performance measures within a short time frame, or in a
reduced rate of performance deterioration over a longer time horizon (Figure 6)11. The
developed tool only allows for the short term benefits as it allows the user to enter
performance values with and without each project. It could be argued that improved
performance could lead to reduced deterioration rates as majority of infrastructure
condition prediction models are very sensitive to initial condition values. In addition, there
could be a time lag between application of treatments and the performance improvement.
Therefore, the project impact assessment needs to allow for a corresponding modification
20
in deterioration rates or other aspects of performance prediction models following an

improvement project.
Figure 6 – Project Benefits from NCHRP Report 806.

4. Decision science application: this step is comprised of
a) Assigning weights through the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) during which,
the relative importance of each performance measure for the decision makers is
determined based on qualitative pairwise ratings of performance measures. These
pairwise ratings can be conducted in a collaborative group setting or through a
Delphi process.
b) Scaling to convert project benefits (in terms of performance measures) into a
dimensionless unit that can be compared among assets; the scaling can be applied
linearly or based on a utility function which allows agencies to assign relative
importance to varying levels of performance. For example, a project that improves
asset condition from poor to fair might be assigned a greater utility than a project
that improves the same asset from fair to good condition.
c) Scoring of projects calculated as the weighed sum of the scaled values.
d) Prioritizing projects according to their rank which is calculated by dividing their
scores (benefits) to costs (benefit to cost ratio).
e) Optimizing to select the most cost-beneficial projects with respect to budget and
performance constraints.
The report discusses three possible optimization approaches: bottom-up (project-level),
top-down (network-level), and a hybrid of the two. The optimization routine that is
implemented in the tool and suggested by the report is the bottom-up approach (Figure
7) in which, all projects regardless of the asset category compete against each other
according to the prioritization to comprise the final list of projects that would be possible
given the budget constraints. The tool can also be used for top-down analysis by
21
identifying the minimum and maximum allowable budget, and/or the desired performance
outcomes for each asset category. This way, the optimization routine can be used to
monitor the impact of different investment levels on the performance of each asset
category and then adjust allowable budgets accordingly (Figure 8). The report
recommends a hybrid approach of blending top-down and bottom-up approaches but it is
not clear how the tool can be used for this hybrid approach.
Figure 7 – Bottom-Up Approach to Optimization in the NCHRP 08-91 Tool Prototype.
Figure 8 –Top-Down Analysis for Optimization in the NCHRP 08-91 Tool Prototype.
5. Trade-off analysis: the tool includes six example trade-off analyses:
a) Trade-off between two individual projects
b) Trade-off between two portfolios of projects
22
c) Trade-off between performance and investment level

d) Minimum investment level to achieve performance targets
e) Resource allocation scenario analysis (shifting budgets from one asset group to
the other and monitoring the resulting performance outcomes)
f) Trade-off between weighting scenarios
3.1.1 Incorporating Risk in the Tool Prototype

MAP-21 legislation and FHWA NPRM on Asset Management Plan call for state
transportation agencies to develop risk-based transportation asset management plans for
highway infrastructure. Risk analysis is the process of evaluating the probability of
attaining the desired performance outcomes (i.e., performance targets) given various
potential uncertainties. Risk evaluation is based on understanding the likelihood,
consequence, and impact of an unforeseen event.
In the current NCHRP 09-81 tool prototype, risk analysis has been incorporated by
including standard deviation around the budget and performance impacts. By doing so,
the uncertainty of various investment decisions on performance outcomes such as
average IRI, percentage of pavements in good condition, percentage of bridges in good
condition, total jobs created, total number of crashes, and percentage of congested roads
can be investigated. NCHRP 08-91 identifies the following categories of risks:
 Hazard risks – due to aging structures or vulnerability to extreme events (e.g.,
extreme weather, seismic activities). The report recommends using the project
development and impact assessment process to account for this type of risk. For
example, selection of critical projects as “must-do” and incorporating a higher
standard deviation of performance improvement impacts of projects which are
prone to hazard risks.
 Financial risks – due to insufficient funding. The tool prototype provides trade-
offs for various levels of investments. However, the impact of delaying an
improvement project cannot be evaluated using any of the trade-off analyses.
 Operational risks – due to ineffective maintenance program or inaccurate
forecasting models. The report recommends using the project impact assessment
to account for this type of risk by incorporating a higher standard deviation of
performance improvement impacts.
 Strategic risks – due to weak program management and data collection
processes. The report recommends using the trade-off analyses to test the
sensitivity of varying performance preferences, targets, and resource allocation
strategies.
23
3.1.2 Opportunities to Improve the NCHRP 08-91 Tool Prototype

There are limitations in the NCHRP 08-91 tool prototype that need to be addressed by
more advanced tools; namely:
 The current tool prototype is a stand-alone decision tool. There is no linkage to
other agency management systems and/or database to extract information on
performance predication models, or life-cycle cost analytical tools to evaluate
project alternatives. Therefore, in its current form, the life-cycle cost analysis and
prediction modeling occurs at project level outside the framework of the tool. A
link to management systems such as AASHTO PONTIS (for bridge management)
would also allow for automatic generation of the required improvement projects
and the corresponding performance impacts of them.
 The tool could be linked to other available analytical tools such as FHWA RealCost
and NCHRP BLCCA to incorporate user costs such as vehicle operating costs into
the optimization process and/or trade-off analyses.
 The tool prototype has to be modified to automatically be updated with project
decisions made for each year as it goes through the planning cycle (e.g., 10-year
period) year by year. This dynamic update feature needs to be built into the tool
prototype.
 For bottom-up analysis, which is preferred for a cross-asset management process,
the current tool supports short-term planning cycles of 4-5 years (i.e., STIP
horizon). However, FHWA NPRM is asking for a 10-year plan. The tool has to be
enhanced to incorporate long-term planning cycles.
 There is currently no easy way to evaluate the impact of delaying a recommended
project due to fiscal constraints on the overall system performance. Extending the
horizon of the tool prototype beyond its current 4-5 year cycle, will result in the
ability to consider the consequences of delaying a project recommended by the
applicable individual asset management system during the trade-off analysis
under constraint resources. For example, delaying a recommended bridge
rehabilitation may result in future required action of bridge replacement. Similarly,
delaying preventive maintenance of a pavement will result in costlier repairs in the
future. Delaying a recommended action has the potential risk of dramatically
increasing project costs in the future, which must be considered and analyzed as
part of the asset management optimization process.
 The developed tool only allows for identifying the short term benefits of
improvement projects as it allows the user to enter performance values with and
without each project. It could be argued that improved performance could lead to
reduced deterioration rates. In addition, there could be a time lag between
application of treatments and the performance improvement. Therefore, the
project impact assessment needs to allow for a corresponding modification in
24
deterioration rates or other aspects of performance prediction models following an

improvement project.
 There are other trade-off analyses that could prove informative for the decision
making process. The tool needs to be improved to provide more options for trade-
off analyses, such as asset sustainability ratio, indicating the annual sustainability
of the investments. In other words, how much service life was put back into the
system as a result of the treatment projects versus how much life was spent each
year.
 Including standard deviation around the budget and performance impacts is a good
simplified approach for accounting for uncertainty, but it does NOT address risks.
Ideally, risks need to be estimated as the consequences in dollar amount of losses
multiplied by the threat likelihood and by the asset vulnerability to that threat (the
probability of the specific consequences given that the threats are happening).
 A web-based tool would facilitate system governance and thereby communication
and visualization of the information.
3.2 Examples of Other Available Analytical Tools

Developed under NCHRP Project 20-57, Asset Manager NT analyzes the long-term (10-
20 years) impact of investment decisions versus performance across up to 4 asset
categories in the highway mode (Figure 9).12 This process can be based on asset type
(e.g., Investment in Pavement vs bridges), geographic areas (e.g., Investment in Districts
vs regions), system sub-networks (e.g., NHS, primary corridors etc.). The performance
measures produced by the existing management systems can be either asset specific
(e.g., PCI) or asset-independent measures (e.g., User cost, work backlog etc.). The
software uses two ‘robot’ tools (pre-processor analysis routine and the ‘what-if’ tool) to
take inputs from FHWA’s Highway Economic Requirements System for State Use
(HERS/ST) program and also from AASHTO PONTIS bridge management system.
The pre-processor tool prepares 4-D (i.e., time, investment category, performance
measures array, and budget level) matrix of results and creates a scenario file that is used
by the what-if tool. The what-if tool provides interactive on-screen views of the
relationship between investment levels and performance measures by investment
category. These are presented in four views: budget, targeting, dashboard, and
allocation. The Budget view provides relationship between average level of investment
over time and the value of a single performance measure for a selected asset and portion
of network. The Targeting view provides the expenses needed to achieve target value of
a specified performance measure. The Dashboard view allows user to appreciate the
sensitivity of various performance measures towards overall budget levels and cross-
asset budget allocation. The Allocation view allows user to simulate various resource
allocation scenarios and compare performance over time.
25
Figure 9 – Asset Manager NT Overview from NCHRP Report 545.

Another tool developed under NCHRP Project 20-57 is Asset Manager PT (Figure 10),
which helps demonstrate the impacts of investment choices on candidate projects being
considered from implementation over a one to three-year period (screening and
nomination of pavement preservation projects) and evaluates the impact of different
project mixes using a multi-objective evaluation criterion (cross-project impacts,
performance objectives based impacts etc.). Asset Manager PT allows user to
understand the impact of basic indicators on program output and network performance
by manually shifting projects out of the program and replacing with alternative projects,
letting the user adjust the available budget level for a given program category and have
the system automatically filter projects based on this on a ranking-basis, and by having
the option to shift funds from one program category to the other and have the system
eliminate the lowest ranked project and hence adding the next highest ranked project for
the program category being increased.
26
Figure 10 – Asset Manager PT Overview from NCHRP Report 545.

Several cross-asset TAM tools in practice have been identified in the NCHRP Report
632.13 Multi-Objective Evolutionary Tool for Interactive Solutions (METIS) is one that was
developed by Cambridge Systematics and is capable of considering multiple objectives
across various assets. The example screenshot in Figure 11 shows four objectives of
pavement condition, corridor capacity, bridge condition, and seismic risk being optimized
simultaneously to arrive at a Pareto-optimal solution for fund allocation.
Figure 11 – METIS Cross-Asset Tool Overview (NCHRP Report 632).
27
The NCHRP Report 590 describes a research effort to improve bridge management
system (BMS) tools through multi-objective optimization models.14 The network-level
decision-making tool optimizes bridge activities for multiple criteria, including cost,
condition, risk, highway bridge replacement and rehabilitation program eligibility, and
bridge health index. The bridge-level model evaluates the effect of alternative bridge
improvements on life-cycle cost and other performance criteria in order to select projects
that are consistent with network goals. The two models can operate independently or in
tandem. The multi-objective optimization system developed in this study could be
deployed as an add-on to the AASHTO PONTIS software or integrated into the database.
In an FHWA NEXTRANS study15 conducted by Purdue University, innovative techniques
were presented for carrying out multiple-criteria project selection and tradeoff analysis
among the different management systems that comprise highway asset management
(Figure 12). In addition, methods for incorporating uncertainty in the tradeoff analyses
were discussed. A key product of this study is the development of a novel project
selection framework formulated as a multi-objective optimization problem. This
framework can use any one of the several statistical measures of network-level
performance as its objectives.
Figure 12 – Example Framework for Using Multi-Objective Optimization in Asset

Management15.
28
Similar studies on strategic long-term planning for mixed assets have been carried out for
the Canadian New Brunswick province16 and for the Australian Department of
Transportation (Austroads)17. The research team will explore these and a series of other
relevant research studies to collect viable ideas and concepts for cross-asset optimization
and tradeoffs in TAM in addition to building upon the findings of NCHRP 08-91.
3.3 A Conceptual Framework for Cross-Asset Transportation Asset

Management
Typically, improvement projects for various segments of highway infrastructure assets
are identified according to needs assessment processes based on the corresponding
performance measures or performance predictions. Alternative investment scenarios can
be evaluated to identify the best scenario which minimizes the life-cycle cost of treatments
while keeping the performance of the asset above a set target. Each of these investment
scenarios which are the solutions to this resource allocation problem are comprised of a
program of projects.
3.3.1 Resource Allocation Problem Formulation

Before formulating this problem, the corresponding considerations need to be identified.
Figure 13 shows the costs and benefits of the identified improvement projects which need
to be optimized to achieve agency objectives, subject to the involved constraints in solving
this resource allocation problem.
Highway agencies have practical experience in estimating the associated agency and
user (life-cycle) costs. In addition, the established management systems such as
pavement, bridge, and maintenance management systems include tools for estimating
project benefits in terms of short-term and long-term improvements in infrastructure
condition, safety, and mobility performance measures. In contrast, there is much less
agency experience in estimating environmental costs of improvement projects, and the
losses involved with various categories of project risks. There is also very little experience
with evaluating social benefits of improvement projects. This lack of experience and
subjectivity involved with some of the costs and benefits (added values) of improvement
projects can be compensated by value estimation techniques in the interim period while
agencies are gaining more experience and collecting practical information. Examples of
such techniques include the Delphi approach or the analytical hierarchy process (AHP).
29
Figure 13 – Objectives and Constraints in Cross-Asset Resource Allocation.

In an ideal cross-asset framework which is the bottom-up approach, these improvement
projects on various assets compete against each other in an optimization process to make
it to the final program (or portfolio) of projects (best “mix” of investments) given total
agency budget constraints. The goal is to capture the impact of investment decisions on
various disparate assets on overall Level-Of-Service (LOS) of a transportation system,
and to ultimately determine the investment scenario which maximizes LOS and minimizes
life-cycle costs of providing that LOS.
Figure 14 demonstrates an example conceptual framework for a cross-asset multi-
objective TAM. The agency goals and objectives comprise the multiple objectives
including life-cycle agency and user costs, which could be calculated using a life-cycle
cost analysis (LCCA) method, environmental costs estimated (at least the quantifiable
aspects) using a life-cycle assessment (LCA) approach, program risks, social factors, and
overall network infrastructure condition.
30
Figure 14 – Example Cross-Asset Multi-Objective Transportation Asset Management.
3.3.2 Multi-Objective Optimization

This cross-asset optimization involves multiple performance objectives to be maximized,
and multiple cost objectives to be minimized. There are several approaches to solve a
multi-objective optimization problem. One approach is the application of weighting factors
(which could be determined through an AHP) or utility functions, which determine the
relative importance of one objective (cost or performance measure) to the others, and
essentially transform the problem into a single-objective one. This approach, which was
incorporated in the NCHRP 08-91 study, requires several subjective assumptions
31
regarding the relative importance or significance of various performance measures. In

the NCHRP 08-91 study, the relative impact of investment decisions on various disparate
assets on overall LOS was determined using such weighing factors.
Another approach is a simultaneous multi-objective optimization, which optimizes various
objective functions at the same time and does not require weights or utility functions. This
approach results in Pareto-optimal tradeoffs between multiple objectives. It is called a
Pareto-optimal tradeoff after Italian economist, sociologist and engineer, Vilfredo Pareto,
and it identifies the best compensation among the multiple conflicting objectives.
Some of these optimization objective functions are in conflict with one another (Figure
15). For example, an increase in expected infrastructure performance might result in a
program that is initially costlier. In addition, a reduction in agency costs is likely to result
in increased user or environmental costs. Using a true (simultaneous) multi-objective
optimization approach allows escaping preconception, avoiding excessive concentration
on only one aspect of the problem, and combining multiple sources of information in an
objective manner. The final Pareto-optimal front contains the solutions (competing project
portfolios) that do not dominate each other in terms of all objective functions. One project
portfolio (program of projects) might be better than the other in terms of one objective
function but worse in terms of another. Once the final Pareto-optimal front is calculated,
then other subjective decision factors such as agency considerations, “must-do” projects,
and engineering judgment can be used to select the desired program of projects. This
way, none of the possible project portfolios (combinations of projects) are excluded from
the optimization process and they are all available for the final trade-off analyses.
Figure 15 – Example Illustration of a Two-Objective Pareto-Optimal Front.
32
3.3.3 Quantifying Objective Functions

The agency goals and objectives comprise the multiple objectives, which could be
classified into the following two major groups (Figure 13):
1. Performance measures to be maximized
a. Infrastructure condition
i. Pavements: existing performance measures such as the ones in the
FHWA NPRM (IRI, rutting, and percent cracking), or new measures
such as the one proposed in Task 1 of this research study.
ii. Bridges: existing measures such as the ones in the FHWA NPRM
(percentage of bridges classified as in good condition, and
percentage of bridges classified as in poor condition), or other
leading performance measures.
iii. Culverts: Culverts are rated based on their alignment, condition of
joints and condition of material (i.e., concrete, metal, or plastic).
FHWA has developed a rating system for evaluation of the condition
of culverts. The rating system is from 9 (new condition) to 0 (total
failure). The performance measure would be based on establishing
a range for what would be considered as Good, Fair, or Poor, based
on the FHWA rating system.
iv. Safety appurtenances: condition of guardrails and the energy
dissipating devices (cushions and barriers) could be rated as a
performance measure.
v. Signs: Agencies typically measure the retro-reflectivity of the signs
and pavement markings as a condition performance measure.
vi. Geotechnical assets: including slopes (stabilized and un-stabilized),
horizontal drains, buttresses, fences, and rock fall protection. For
example, at the Washington State DOT (WSDOT), monitoring of the
slopes includes a scoring scheme of 3, 9, 27, or 81 points for each
one of the categories of rock fall potential, sediment, landslide, and
debris. Then the points from all categories are summed up to
calculate the overall slope score.
b. Safety: existing performance measures such as the ones in the FHWA
NPRM (number of fatalities, rate of fatalities, number of serious injuries, and
rate of serious injuries) could be used to quantify the safety impacts of
improvement projects.
c. Mobility: the recent FHWA NPRM for congestion reduction, proposed the
Travel Time Reliability and Peak Hour Travel Times experienced by all
traffic, the Travel Time Reliability and Congestion experienced by freight
33
vehicles, and the amount of Excessive Delay experienced by all traffic as

the mobility performance measures.
d. Social factors: the estimated number of jobs created as a result of the
planned improvement projects could be used as a socioeconomic
performance measure.
e. Operations: performance measures to reduce project delivery delays have
been considered by several agencies. For example, Connecticut DOT uses
percent of contracts awarded within 60 days of bid opening, percent of
contracts completed within budget, and percent of contracts completed on
time as project delivery performance measures.
2. Life-cycle costs to be minimized
a. Agency costs: the FHWA RealCost, NCHRP BLCCA or a similar approach
could be used to quantify life-cycle agency costs involved with a program of
projects that would keep the assets at a desired level of performance.
b. User costs: the FHWA RealCost or a similar approach could be used to
quantify life-cycle user costs such as time value, and vehicle operating
costs.
c. Environmental costs: there are several tools available for life-cycle
assessment (LCA) of some quantifiable environmental costs. Examples
include the Pavement Life-cycle Assessment Tool for Environmental and
Economic Effects (PaLATE) worksheet, and similar tools to calculate the
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and evaluate the end-of-life value of
infrastructure assets. The recent FHWA NPRM proposed a measure that
reflects the Emission Reduction resulting through the delivery of projects.
d. Risks: risks need to be estimated as the consequences in dollar amount of
losses multiplied by the threat likelihood and by the asset vulnerability to
that threat (the probability of the specific consequences for that asset, given
that the threats are happening).
i. Hazard risk due to aging structures or vulnerability to extreme events
(e.g., extreme weather, seismic activities).
ii. Financial risk due to insufficient funding or deferred preservation of
assets. Washington State PMS implements an LCCA approach to
calculate the cost of inadequate funding. In other words, if the
agency does not currently have access to funds that would be
required for the lowest life-cycle cost scenario, how much of an
additional liability would be accrued in future. As the length of
underfunding extends, liability will increase exponentially.
Alternatively, the cost of delaying improvement projects, which could
be termed deferred preservation liability, is an estimate of the
34
funding needed to address the backlog of deferred M&R. This

estimate would take into consideration the higher cost to properly
rehabilitate assets as conditions deteriorate and need more
extensive repair, in addition to the higher costs due to inflation.
iii. Operational risk due to an ineffective maintenance program or
inaccurate forecasting models. The associated losses with this type
of risk are challenging to quantify. One possible approach is to use
AHP to amalgamate subjective evaluations of such risks by a panel
of experts. The approach used by the NCHRP 08-91 study was to
incorporate the uncertainty in performance improvement impacts
using higher standard deviations. This approach would be practical
to quantify the uncertainty, but it does not result in an estimate of
losses due to such operational risks.
iv. Strategic risk due to weak program management and data collection
processes. As recommended in the NCHRP 08-91 study, trade-off
analyses could be used to test the sensitivity of varying performance
preferences, targets, and resource allocation strategies. Similar to
other subjective estimates, these losses could also be evaluated
using an AHP methodology.
3.3.4 Scaling Objective Functions

If all performance measures and as a result objective functions could be converted into a
cost, then the dollar amounts would be the unifying index that facilitates comparison of
projects of disparate assets. While the costs for the projects within each asset category
can be quantified, the benefits are not always convertible to cost values, or comparable
among disparate assets. The NCHRP 08-91 study used scaling to convert project
benefits (in terms of performance measures) into a dimensionless unit that can be
compared among assets. The same approach is recommended within this multi-objective
optimization framework to ensure that the optimization algorithms do not lean heavily
towards objective functions that involve larger numbers (for example, number of jobs
created as a result of improvement projects), compared to objective functions that have
lower numerical values (for example, pavement condition index).
The scaling can be applied linearly or based on a utility function which allows agencies to
assign relative importance to varying levels of performance. For example, a project that
improves asset condition from poor to fair might be assigned a greater utility than a project
that improves the same asset from fair to good condition. This scaling methodology could
prove beneficial in converting the existing benefits and costs to comparable values which
would put all projects from different asset categories on a level playing field.
35
3.3.5 Quantifying Constraints

The problem constraints (Figure 13) could either be applied as limitations to the viable
solutions, or they could be applied as additional objective functions. For example, the
possible total cost of improvement projects in each selected solution (program of projects)
could be limited according to agency budget constraints.
The NCHRP Project 14-25 provides guidelines for setting LOS targets for highway assets.
Performance targets could be enforced as constraints in this optimization problem by
only allowing solutions that would result in a program of projects that maintain the
network-level performance measures at or above the set targets.
Another example is applicability of funding sources to improvement projects. For
example, safety funds might not apply to a capacity project. Therefore, each solution
should account for this limitation in the category of funding that could be utilized for each
of the projects included in that solution. An additional objective function could be to
balance the utilization ratio of all the funding categories. In this manner, a portfolio of
projects that would use a more diverse combination of funding categories would be further
favored.
As an example of constraints applied as objective functions, the number of project
locations or the distance between the locations of selected projects could be maximized
to advocate for higher geographical distribution of agency funds. Another approach
could be to use AHP methodology to determine the economic and social value that each
project would bring to various geographical regions or districts. This way, the program of
projects which would maximize geographical distribution of such socioeconomic values
would be favored. Also, the selected portfolio of projects could be adjusted to take
advantage of better contract prices in areas with more competition (i.e. more potential
bidders).
Another example would be the consideration of significant transportation corridors. It
might be a priority of an agency to ensure certain corridors are maintained efficiently.
Therefore, it would be beneficial if various improvement projects on adjacent assets (for
example bridges and pavements in their proximity) were planned to be conducted
together to accrue traffic control, mobilization, and user cost savings. Of course, if a
bridge fails, no structure will connect the adjacent pavement sections (no matter how high
quality those pavement sections are). This consideration could be incorporated as an
additional objective function by defining an ancillary value for each improvement project.
In this manner, a total ancillary value could be calculated for each solution as the sum of
the ancillary values of all the projects included in that solution (program of projects). This
would be considered as one of the benefit objective functions to be maximized at the
same time that other objective functions are being optimized.
There needs to be an effort to quantify the constraints and it is preferred to apply them as
additional objective functions. In mathematical terminology, these additional objective
functions are typically called penalty functions, which would allow for inclusion of border-
36
line viable solutions in the multi-objective optimization problem. In the penalty method,
which in fact converts a constrained optimization problem to an unconstrained one,
candidate solutions are chosen randomly from the pool and if any solution violates any
constraint, a penalty value is assigned to its fitness value.
3.3.6 Incorporating Uncertainty and Risk

Regarding the impact of an improvement project on a given performance measure, there
are two types of situations: one is the situation where the set of all possible outcomes of
a performance measure is known and the probability distribution of the outcomes is also
known; the other is the situation where only part of all possible outcomes of a performance
measure is known, but the probability distribution of such outcomes is not fully definable
for a lack of reliable information. Some studies refer to the former as the risk situation,
while the latter is referred to as the uncertainty situation.
As mentioned before, risk could be incorporated into the resource allocation framework
through an estimation of the cost (losses) associated with each type of risk. Uncertainty
on the other hand could be incorporated through a probabilistic analysis. For example,
Figure 16 shows a Monte Carlo simulation approach to estimate the distribution of the
objective functions (network-level performance measures) based on the distributions of
the input parameters (project-level performance measures).
Figure 16 – Quantifying Uncertainty in Objective Functions15.
3.3.7 Conceptual Framework for Cross-Asset Resource Allocation

Following quantification of the objective functions and constraints, scaling of the objective
functions, estimation of the uncertainty associated with each network-level performance
37
measure used as an objective function, the multi-objective optimization problem for cross-
asset resource allocation could be demonstrated according to the schematic in Figure 17.
The needed improvement projects from each individual asset management system are
proposed based on the current and predicted future asset conditions (Figure 14) and
subject to the total budget, performance targets, and funding source applicability to each
asset. The project impact assessment for each asset needs to allow for short-term
performance improvements and a corresponding modification in deterioration rates or
other aspects of performance prediction models following an improvement project.
The resulting projects compete against each other within the simultaneous multi-objective
optimization approach, which will produce a final non-dominated set of solutions (Figure
15), where each solution is a portfolio of projects. This final pool of solutions is used in a
trade-off analysis to select the most suitable portfolio of the projects, given context-
sensitive objectives and constraints. There are numerous trade-off scenarios which could
be investigated, but the following are the minimum key scenarios to consider:
1. Trade-off among portfolios of projects within the final pool of solutions. No solution
will be better than all other solutions in terms of all objective functions. However,
some objective functions might be more important to an agency compared to other
objectives. Therefore, each agency can evaluate solutions that are performing
better in terms of their most important objectives (e.g. condition, safety, mobility,
etc.) at the cost of lower performance in terms of other objectives (e.g.
socioeconomic, operational risks, etc.).
2. Minimum investment level required to achieve performance targets.
3. Resource allocation scenario analysis through shifting budgets from one asset
group to the other and monitoring the resulting performance outcomes. The results
of this analysis could indicate required changes in allocation of agency funds and
in applicability of funding sources.
4. Impact of changing investment levels. Typically, this change is a reduction in
investment which would result in deferred preservation costs captured by the
financial risk objective function. The agency could monitor the increase in financial
risks as a result of changing investment levels.
5. Impact of changing performance targets. This is a context-sensitive exercise that
informs agencies on the cost savings of relaxing various performance thresholds
to the extent that the agency would be comfortable with.
6. Asset sustainability ratio, indicating the annual sustainability of the investments. In
other words, how much service life was put back into the system as a result of the
treatment projects versus how much life was spent each year.
There are two feedback loops within this proposed framework. One is a feedback loop
between the trade-off analyses and improvement projects (individual AMS) to assess the
impact of a delayed project recommended action on future, potentially higher costs which
38
would be reflected in the increased financial risks of a solution. The other is a feedback
loop between the trade-off analyses and the constraints, which the agency might consider
modifying according to the results of the trade-off analyses.
Figure 17 – Conceptual Framework for Cross-Asset Resource Allocation Using Multi-

Objective Optimization.
39
3.3.8 Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms

Evolutionary algorithms are global optimization heuristics that do not require a
differentiable mathematical objective function, are population-based (they find several
members of the Pareto-optimal front in a single run of the algorithm instead of having to
perform a series of separate runs) and are less sensitive to the shape and discontinuities
in the objective function space. All of these characteristics have made evolutionary
algorithms an appealing tool for solving multi-objective optimization problems in a variety
of studies.
Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms (MOEA) have been used in pavement
management studies in order to optimize allocation of resources to various treatment
alternatives considering multiple criteria (Fwa et al. 2000; Deshpande et al. 2010; Gao et
al. 2012). They have also been vastly implemented in water resources research to design
long-term groundwater monitoring schemes (Reed et al. 2013) and to calibrate hydrologic
models (Tang et al. 2006). The multi-criteria framework provided by this kind of calibration
has enabled recognition and handling of errors and uncertainties, and detection of
prominent behavioral solutions with acceptable trade-offs in hydrologic modeling efforts
within the past decade (Efstratiadis and Koutsoyiannis 2010).
3.4 Organizational and Cultural Changes: Bottom-Up Analysis and

Top-Down Integration
Within many agencies, resource allocation for transportation assets are based on legacy
driven, worst-first, or soft optimization approaches. Other agencies such as the
Washington State DOT and the Connecticut DOT seem to be moving towards a
performance-based approach. Therefore, Fugro staff found their perspective very
beneficial in terms of the ongoing research project.
Currently, staff responsible for each asset category at WSDOT estimate their funding
needs for each biennium and prepare a report, which justifies their needs to achieve
corresponding performance targets. The Capital Program Development and
Management (CPDM) group determine which of the proposed projects could be funded,
considering available funding, various sources of funds, critical asset-specific network-
level performance targets, and overall agency goals and objectives. This process is
similar to several other State DOTs (Florida, Oregon, Utah, Virginia), where each asset
silo conducts a bottom-up analysis of their needs, but the resource allocation among
various assets is carried out through a top-down process. WSDOT staff have found that
this process has been mostly prioritizing projects based on freight routes, because their
economic value has been specifically emphasized in evaluating the benefits of projects
in most asset categories.
In addition to the issue of non-comparable performance metrics among different assets,
other factors need to be considered: equality (economic fairness across the entire state),
equity, taxes, development, sustainability, funding sources (preservation, safety,
40
mobility/capacity, etc.), and ancillary values of projects (since traffic control imposes a
high cost on the users, selecting projects from multiple assets that are in proximity of each
other could result in user cost savings). If a multi-objective optimization approach is to
be implemented for cross-asset projects to compete against each other, quantified
metrics and corresponding objective functions and/or constraints need to be determined
in order to include these considerations in the analysis. For example, one of the objective
functions could be to diversify and maximize the number of geographical locations of the
selected projects to address the equality concerns.
Due to all of the above issues and undeniable political considerations, a move towards a
complete and objective bottom-up approach might not be practical right away. Therefore,
Fugro staff suggested an interim approach where each asset category would give up on
a fraction (say 10%) of their funding to create a cross-asset resource pool which would
be allocated in a complete bottom-up approach. Projects from all assets would compete
for the funding that is available in the cross-asset resource pool. The fraction of funding
from each asset category that would be assigned to the pool could then be increased
through time if organizational culture and consensus is built on the effectiveness of a
bottom-up approach. The advantages of this proposed methodology for transition from
top-down to bottom-up analysis is that different asset silos need to work together and
cross the boundaries to agree on comparable performance metrics, and an organizational
culture is built towards a data-driven bottom-up approach. The disadvantage is that the
initial size of the resource pool (for example 10% of total funds) might not be adequate to
demonstrate the effectiveness of a bottom-up approach and this might discourage agency
staff.
In order to cross the boundaries of different asset silos, the Connecticut DOT has formed
a performance management group in addition to their asset management group. The
members of the performance management group come from different asset backgrounds
and are identifying performance measures for each asset type that would be comparable
among assets, meeting the FHWA proposed measures, and contributing to the
optimization process conducted by the asset management group.
Another idea that was suggested by WSDOT staff was to identify freight and passenger
corridors and then conduct the bottom-up analysis in each corridor. Projects from all
asset categories would compete within each identified corridor for the funds available for
that corridor. Funding for each corridor would be allocated at a planning level based on
the amount of freight and traffic crossing that corridor and also based on other
considerations such as equality. This suggestion is also combining a top-down funding
scheme with a bottom-up optimization approach similar to what is being conducted
currently with the difference that disparate assets are not treated as separate silos.
3.5 Visualization and Communication

Transportation Asset Management (TAM) systems provide a systematic, data-driven
approach to making decisions that will ultimately result in higher infrastructure
41
performance, increased longevity, and lower costs. While this might be common
knowledge in the transportation community, there is still a need for effective
communication of the return on investment from the implementation of TAM to the
stakeholders. A more effective visualization of the benefits will both justify the initial costs
of TAM implementation, and improve the user’s confidence in the developed decisions.
Graphing objectives such as agency savings, backlog reduction, and performance
increase will facilitate informed decision making strategies at the network level. Using
multi-dimensional diagrams to present the quantified influence of alternative decisions on
multiple objectives will provide a visual insight into possible decision trade-offs which
might not be evident otherwise. Ultimately, a comparison of the impact of developed
strategies against TAM implementation costs, through the use of high quality visual aids,
will shed light on the tangible benefits of asset management.
The WSDOT has recently encouraged a “performance journalism” approach among their
staff to increase the transparency and accountability of the decision process. Improved
transparency can facilitate data quality assurance and quality control by third parties who
have open access to performance data. Several success stories regarding pavement
preservation led the WSDOT Director to require one round of maintenance analysis
before making capital improvement decisions. If communicated effectively, such success
stories can create a motivation for staff from all asset silos to further collaborate together.
Communication tools similar to the straight line diagram visualization and the forecasting
tool integrated into the WSDOT web based pavement management software can facilitate
cross-asset bottom-up analysis. Using “after-the-fact” performance metrics such as the
deferred maintenance cost for “what-if” analyses will assist in fine-tuning the allocation of
funds among different assets. Communication tools, as shown in Figure 18 to Figure 21,
that demonstrate and visualize the trade-offs are crucial for the experts in the decision-
making process. In addition, such tools can assist in communicating the benefits of a
data-driven bottom-up analysis approach.
42
Figure 18 – Example Visualization of the Final Pareto-Optimal Front for Multi-Objective

Optimization (Kargah-Ostadi 2013).
Figure 19 – Example Visualization of Multiple Performance Outcomes (Objectives) by

Agency Strategic Direction (NCHRP Report 806).
43
Figure 20 – Example Matrix Scatter Plots to Demonstrate Trade-Offs Among Multiple

Objective Functions15.
Figure 21 – Example Visualization of the Impact of Different Investment Levels on the

Multiple Performance Measures (Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department).
44
4.0 TASK 3 – DEVELOP WORK PLANS FOR FUTURE FHWA

PROJECTS TO VALIDATE TASK 1 AND TASK 2 OUTCOMES
The research team has developed two separate and independent work plans to validate
or further develop the identified concepts and ideas from Task 1 and Task 2.
4.1 Work Plan for Task 1

The final outcome would be a network-level pavement performance measure that is a
“leading” indicator and is based on network-level TSDD data collection. The new
pavement performance measure would be used by agencies in their network-level
pavement management systems to provide an enhanced level of accuracy in
maintenance/ rehabilitation strategy selections.
As discussed earlier the conceptual next generation pavement performance measure
would be a KPI consisted of the following parameters:
 TSDD deflection measures (or deflection indices). There are ongoing FHWA
research studies that have already proposed corresponding network-level
deflection-based performance measures. The alternative conceptual performance
measure based on deflection variation (discussed in section 2.5) should also be
further evaluated for this purpose.
 Anticipated traffic loading to the next service interval
 Consideration of environmental impact and variation (e.g., temperature, moisture)
 Pavement structural layer thickness information from GPR readings
As discussed earlier, TSDDs have been continuously improving for over a decade. The
recent data collection and analysis studies all confirm that these devises have the
potential to provide accurate and repeatable measurements of pavement structural
behavior under moving loads.
The FHWA pooled-fund study on demonstration of network level pavement structural
evaluation with TSD, FHWA study on pavement Structural Evaluation at the Network
Level, and several other TSDD data collection efforts nationally and internationally can
be used for the development of the KPI. The project team is also aware of the current
efforts by FHWA team to develop similar performance measures utilizing the pooled-fund
TSD data.
The objective would be to develop relationships between TSDD sensor data and
mechanistic-empirical parameters, which are used to predict pavement performance
parameters. For example, a recent publication by Senthilmurugan Thyagarajan et. al.,
reported on relationship between TSDD data and the critical tensile strain at the bottom
of AC layer, which is related to the propensity of AC pavement to experience fatigue
cracking under repeated traffic loading.20 The available field data for TSDD should be
utilized in various numerical mechanistic-empirical analysis to develop the TSDD KPIs.
45
As discussed in section 2.5, an alternative approach would be to relate the variation in

TSDD deflection along pavement sections to corresponding initiation of pavement surface
cracking. This empirical approach would relate a leading performance measure based
on TSDD data directly to lagging distress data.
As stated above, anticipated traffic loading to the next service interval (or remaining life),
environmental and structural thickness information would also be needed for analysis.
TSDD KPI in the context presented herein will provide an indication of “structural
adequacy” of the pavement for an anticipated traffic loading and based on the TSDD
deflection measures (or deflection indices). Relationships between TSDD sensor data
and mechanistic-empirical parameters (e.g., tensile strain at the bottom of AC layer) will
be used to predict pavement performance parameters (e.g., fatigue cracking) for an
anticipated traffic loading. Fugro staff believe that determination of structural adequacy of
a pavement to withstand the anticipated traffic loading while limiting “load related”
distresses such as fatigue cracking and rutting, will be a powerful “leading” pavement
performance indicator. The entire pavement management concept is based on applying
the right treatment to the right pavement at the right time during a pavement service
interval (or life cycle). The TSDD KPI will improve the timing of load related pavement
rehabilitation improvement in a “leading” manner and well before a pavement section
starts its rapid deterioration phase. The TSDD KPI will also facilitate the identification of
the “right” treatment for pavement structural enhancement based on the relational
analysis of load and pavement structure. In addition, the development of TSDD KPI will
go along with a key pavement management practice of keeping a good pavement in good
condition first. TSDD KPI has the potential to have a significant impact on optimizing life
cycle cost of a pavement structure by enabling the application of right load related
treatment to the right pavement at the right time.
Due to ever growing traffic demand on roadway networks and ever present climatic
impacts on pavement structural layers, there can be changes in TSDD deflection
measures (especially at upper pavement layers) and anticipated traffic loading. Changes
in deflection measures and anticipated loading do impact the structural adequacy of a
pavement over time. Therefore, there will be a need for periodic update of TSDD KPI
using new TSD deflection measures and a reassessment of anticipated traffic loading.
This periodic assessment of pavement structural adequacy will provide the means to track
and assess pavement performance in a “leading’ manner and before rapid pavement
deterioration occurs.
To be consistent with the other pavement performance metrics in the MAP-21 NPRM for
pavements and bridges, the TSDD KPI rating will be based on Good, Fair, and Poor.
Good rating refers to those pavements in the network that are most likely candidates for
pavement preservation strategies. Fair rating refers to those pavements in the network
that are most likely candidates for corrective pavement maintenance strategies. Poor
rating refers to those pavements that are most likely candidates for rehabilitation and/or
reconstruction strategies.
46
All the recent studies and associated reports clearly indicate that the potential of
developing sound deflection indices based on TSDDs is a real possibility. In fact, many
prototype indices have already been reported in the literature based on field
measurements and numerical analysis. There is now the need for a comprehensive study
for evaluating the TSDD sensor data and development of TSDD KPI for network PMS
M&R decision making process.
As stated earlier in this report, inclusion of pavement structural layer analysis in the
network-level PMS decision making process can have a significant impact on the final
strategy selections. A recent FHWA study on “Simplified Techniques for Evaluation and
Interpretation of Pavement Deflections for Network-level Analysis” (FHWA-HRT-12-023,
December 2013) found that the incorporation of structural analysis on PMS (in that
specific study) changed the outcome of prescribed treatments on approximately 60
percent of study sections.
The TSDD KPI and its measure should have the potential to become fully developed
technically, analytically, and economically practical within a 5-10 year time horizon.
Ultimately, any future TSDD KPI will be utilized in a comprehensive asset management
system. The following guidelines for identifying and using performance measures in a
transportation asset management context from NCHRP report 551 on “Performance
Measures and Targets for Transportation Asset Management”21 would be key indicators
of a complete TSDD KPI:
 Performance measures should be selected to cover established goals and
objectives.
 Predictive models for relating investment levels to future performance should be
available for each performance measure selected.
 Performance measures used to evaluate investment trade-offs should reflect life-
cycle benefits and costs, not just immediate impacts.
 Performance measures should describe not only physical asset condition but also
how assets are serving their intended functions with respect to comfort,
convenience, safety, and service.
 Performance levels should be selected with consideration of the cost of data
collection and available methods for maximizing efficiencies.
 Performance measures are needed that can serve as the basis for target setting
with respect to what various programs will accomplish.
 To the maximum extent possible, performance measures should be
understandable and meaningful to political leaders and general public.
The research team recognizes that in identifying the TSDD KPI, there will be challenges
especially, related to performance prediction models, life-cycle cost consideration, and
target settings.
47
Optimal treatment decisions in pavement management systems are made through a life-
cycle cost analysis, which requires reliable performance prediction models that capture
the short-term and long-term impacts of both traffic loads and applied maintenance and
rehabilitation treatments on pavement deterioration rate. The TSDD deflection data can
be utilized as inputs to the state-of-the-art mechanistic-empirical pavement performance
models to provide a more robust prediction of the life-cycle benefits of the agency
investments in pavement improvement projects. In this manner, agencies can select
investment decisions that lead to minimum practical life-cycle costs. TSDD KPI has the
potential to have a significant impact on optimizing life cycle cost of a pavement structure
by enabling the application of right load related treatment to the right pavement at the
right time.
Based on the above considerations, the research team proposes the following
overarching tasks in order to further develop and validate the leading pavement
performance measure concept:
1. Obtain network-level data:
a. Pavement inventory data including the section boundaries, construction
history, etc.
b. TSDD data, preferably in conjunction with temperature data.
c. Layer thickness data, preferably GPR data.
d. Surface distress data.
e. Traffic data, preferably including axle weight distributions.
2. Conduct mechanistic analyses to relate TSDD data to pavement responses.
3. Conduct empirical statistical analyses to relate TSDD data to pavement lagging
performance.
4. Develop temperature correction methodology to standardize the measured
index/metric to reference temperature.
5. Develop a KPI framework for utilizing the selected TSDD performance index in
conjunction with thickness, temperature, and traffic data to rate pavements as
good/fair/poor.
6. Identify methodologies and guidance for effectively incorporating the pavement
structural condition KPI framework within an agency’s PMS process and
demonstrates its value through application using one or more agency PMS. This
shall include approaches focused on:
a. Short-term implementation where only one cycle of continuous deflection
data is available.
b. Long-term application that makes use of time series continuous deflection
data that will become available over time.
48
It should be noted that this concept will initially be developed for flexible and composite
pavements, as the majority of the pavement structures across the country are either
flexible or composite systems, and also because the TSDD data has not demonstrated a
significant sensitivity to rigid pavement performance.
4.2 Work Plan for Task 2

The conceptual framework developed in Task 2 (Figure 17) can be implemented through
a web-based platform that can provide the following capabilities:
 Create or connect a database of improvement projects and their corresponding
costs.
 Select from a list of available performance measures (as identified in Task 2) or
determine a new performance measure.
 Select from available deterministic or probabilistic performance modeling
techniques to develop a performance prediction model for each of the identified
performance measures.
 Determine the impacts of each project on each of the selected performance
measures and on the corresponding future deterioration rates.
 Estimate the associated life-cycle costs (agency, user, environment, risks) for each
project.
 Provide a methodology to select the distribution type and corresponding statistics
for each of the performance and cost values involved in the analysis in order to
estimate the inherent uncertainty.
 Provide options to determine the type and parameters of the multi-objective
evolutionary algorithm to be used for solving the resource allocation problem.
 Provide visualization interfaces for several trade-off analyses to further fine tune
the investment scenarios.
There are existing tools that could be incorporated into this effort. For example, the FHWA
RealCost spreadsheet contains macros that could be incorporated on the web interface
in order to estimate life-cycle agency and user costs associated with pavement projects.
Such tools need to be expanded to include capabilities for other asset categories.
Based on the conceptual framework determined in Task 2 of this study, the research team
proposes the following overarching tasks to further develop and validate a cross-asset
resource allocation framework:
1. Collect sample project data and information, including cost and perceived agency
benefits from at least three transportation agencies (larger and smaller agencies).
2. Collect sample performance measure data and information, including calculation
methodology and performance prediction modeling approaches from at least three
agencies.
49
3. Conduct meetings with the staff responsible for various asset categories in the
three highway agencies to brainstorm on the context-sensitive feasibility of the
proposed framework, both in terms of the decision making process and in terms of
transforming organizational protocols.
4. Develop database links to agency data.
5. Create an interface for developing performance prediction models capable of
determining the short-term and long-term benefits of improvement projects.
6. Investigate the available tools and the possibility of including their source codes
within the web-based framework to build on past experience. Tools that have been
developed for one asset category need to be expanded to other asset categories.
Examples of existing tools include the LCCA and LCA tools.
7. Create an interface for developing AHP tools for estimating cost and/or benefit
values that do not have a readily available methodology for quantification.
8. Develop an interface to identify the distribution of corresponding cost and benefit
values for uncertainty analysis.
9. Create an interface for implementing a multi-objective evolutionary optimization
approach.
10. Provide visualization interfaces for several trade-off analyses to further fine tune
the investment scenarios based on final non-dominated solution sets.
50
5.0 REFERENCES
1. FHWA (2015). “Asset Management Plan; Proposed Rule,” 23 CFR Part 515, RIN
2125–AF57, Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 62, Federal Highway Administration,
Department of Transportation.
2. FHWA (2015). “Assessing Pavement Condition for the National Highway Performance
Program and Bridge Condition for the National Highway Performance Program;
Proposed Rule,” 23 CFR Part 490, RIN 2125–AF53, Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 2,
Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation.
3. AASHTO-FHWA (2013). “A Strategic Framework to Support the Implementation of
Transportation Asset Management in State Transportation Agencies,” Developed by
the Transportation Asset Management Expert Task Group (TAM ETG).
4. NCHRP (2009). “Quality Management of Pavement Condition Data Collection,”
Synthesis No. 401, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation
Research Board.
5. NCHRP (2004). “Optimal Timing of Pavement Preventive Maintenance Treatment
Applications,” Report No. 523, National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
Transportation Research Board.
6. FHWA (2013). Improving FHWA’s Ability to Assess Highway Infrastructure Health:
Development of Next Generation Pavement Performance Measures, Publication No.
FHWA-HIF-13-042, Federal Highway Administration.
7. FHWA (2012). “Simplified Techniques for Evaluation and Interpretation of Pavement
Deflections for Network-Level Analysis,” Publication No. FHWA-HRT-12-023, Office
of Acquisition Management, Federal Highway Administration.
8. FHWA (2015). “Pavement Structural Evaluation at the Network Level,” Publication No.
FHWA-HRT-15-074, Office of Acquisition Management, Federal Highway
Administration.
9. FHWA (2015). “Pavement Structural Evaluation at the Network Level,” Publication No.
FHWA-HRT-15-075, Office of Acquisition Management, Federal Highway
Administration.
10. FHWA (2011). “Transportation Asset Management Case Studies: The Washington
State Experience,” Publication No. FHWA-IF-07-011, Office of Asset Management,
Federal Highway Administration.
11. NCHRP (2015). “Guide to Cross-Asset Resource Allocation and the Impact on
Transportation System Performance,” Report No. 806, National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, Transportation Research Board.
12. NCHRP (2005). “Analytical Tools for Asset Management,” Report No. 545, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board.
13. NCHRP (2009). “An Asset-Management Framework for the Interstate Highway
System,” Report No. 632, National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
51
14. NCHRP (2007). “Multi-Objective Optimization for Bridge Management Systems,”

Report No. 590, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation
Research Board.
15. FHWA (2009). “Uncertainty-Based Tradeoff Analysis Methodology for Integrated
Transportation Investment Decision-Making,” NEXTRANS Project No. 020PY01,
Purdue University, Federal Highway Administration.
16. Mrawira, D.M., and Amador, L.E. (2009). “Cross-Assets Trade-off Analysis: Why Are
We Still Talking About It?” TRB 88th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers DVD,
Paper No. 09-1896.
17. Austroads (2007). “Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Road Asset
Management: User Manual,” Publication No. AP-T84-07, Austroads Limited.
18. NCHRP (2002). “Assessment and Rehabilitation of Existing Culverts,” Synthesis No.
303, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research
Board.
19. NCHRP (2015). “Service Life of Culverts,” Synthesis No. 474, National Cooperative
Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board.
20. Thyagarajan, Senthilmurugan, et. al., “Development of a Simplified Method for
Interpreting Surface Deflections for In-Service Flexible Pavement Evaluation.” Paper
ICMPA129, 8th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets.
21. NCHRP (2006). “Performance Measures and Targets for Transportation Asset
Management,” Report No. 551, National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
22. Kargah-Ostadi, N., Menendez, J.R., and Ravanshad, A. (2016). “Normalized
Deflection Variation as a Leading Performance Measure for Network-Level Pavement
Management Systems,” accepted for presentation at the 95th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board (TRB), Washington, D.C.
52
6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
 AASHTO (2011). Transportation Asset Management Guide – A Focus on
Implementation. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
 AASHTO-FHWA (2013). “A Strategic Framework to Support the Implementation of
Transportation Asset Management in State Transportation Agencies,” Developed by
the Transportation Asset Management Expert Task Group (TAM ETG).
 Abell R, Saunders, P, and Ramdas, V. (2000). “Preliminary Allocation of Budgets for
use in Pavement Management Systems,” 1st European Conference on Pavement
Management, Budapest, Hungary.
 Abell, R. (2001). “Whole Life Costing for Road Pavements,” Performance Pavements
Seminar, Wokingham: TRL.
 Abell, R. (2002). “Managing the Road Maintenance Budget with Cost Effective
Maintenance Treatments,” Conference on the Asset Management of Roads, IQPC,
London, England.
 Austroads (2007). “Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Road Asset
Management: User Manual,” Publication No. AP-T84-07, Austroads Limited.
 Austroads (2013). “A Generic Framework for the Management of Road Related
Assets,” Publication No. AP-R447-13, Austroads Limited.
 FHWA (1999). Asset Management Primer. Office of Asset Management, Federal
Highway Administration.
 FHWA (2003). “Transportation Asset Management Case Studies, Data Integration:
The Michigan Experience,” Publication No. FHWA-IF-03-027, Office of Asset
Management, Federal Highway Administration.
 FHWA (2005). “Transportation Asset Management Case Studies, Economics in Asset
Management: The New York Experience,” Publication No. FHWA-IF-03-039, Office of
Asset Management, Federal Highway Administration.
 FHWA (2005). “Transportation Asset Management in Australia, Canada, England, and
New Zealand,” Publication No. FHWA-PL-05-019, Office of International Programs,
Office of Policy, Federal Highway Administration.
 FHWA (2009). “Uncertainty-Based Tradeoff Analysis Methodology for Integrated
Transportation Investment Decision-Making,” NEXTRANS Project No. 020PY01,
Purdue University, Federal Highway Administration.
 FHWA (2010). “Beyond the Short Term: Transportation Asset Management for Long-
Term Sustainability, Accountability and Performance,” Publication No. FHWA-IF-10-
009, Office of Asset Management, Federal Highway Administration.
 FHWA (2011). “Transportation Asset Management Case Studies: The Washington
State Experience,” Publication No. FHWA-IF-07-011, Office of Asset Management,
Federal Highway Administration.
53
 FHWA (2012). “Risk-Based Asset Management: Achieving Policy Objectives by

Managing Risks; Report 3: Risks to Asset Management Policies,” Publication No.
FHWA-HIF-12-054, Office of Asset Management, Federal Highway Administration.
 FHWA (2012). “Risk-Based Asset Management: Evaluating Threats, Capitalizing on
Opportunities; Report 1: Overview of Risk Management,” Publication No. FHWA-HIF-
12-035, Office of Asset Management, Federal Highway Administration.
 FHWA (2012). “Risk-Based Asset Management: Examining Risk-based Approaches
to Transportation Asset Management; Report 2: Managing Asset Risks at Multiple
Levels in a Transportation Agency,” Publication No. FHWA-HIF-12-050, Office of
 FHWA (2012). “Transportation Asset Management Peer Exchange: A Focus on
Implementation,” Publication No. FHWA-HIF-12-041, Office of Acquisition
 FHWA (2012). “Transportation Risk Management: International Practices for Program
Development and Project Delivery,” Publication No. FHWA-PL-12-029, Office of
International Programs, Federal Highway Administration.
 FHWA (2013). “How to Improve Performance on Corridors of National Significance,”
Publication No. FHWA-HIF-13-058, Office of Transportation Performance
 FHWA (2013). Improving FHWA’s Ability to Assess Highway Infrastructure Health:
Development of Next Generation Pavement Performance Measures, Publication No.
FHWA-HIF-13-042, Federal Highway Administration.
 FHWA (2013). “Louisiana DOTD Work Plan for Developing a TAMP,” Office of Asset
 FHWA (2013). “Minnesota DOT Work Plan for Developing a TAMP,” Office of Asset
 FHWA (2013). “New York State DOT Work Plan for Developing a TAMP,” Office of
 FHWA (2013). “Reformulating Pavement Remaining Service Life Framework,”
Publication No. FHWA-HRT-13-038, Office of Infrastructure Research and
Development, Federal Highway Administration.
 FHWA (2013). “Risk-Based Asset Management: Managing Risks to Networks,
Corridors, and Critical Structures; Report 4: Managing Risks to Critical Assets,”
Publication No. FHWA-HIF-13-017, Office of Asset Management, Federal Highway
Administration.
 FHWA (2013). “Risk-Based Asset Management: Building Resilience into
Transportation Assets; Report 5: Managing External Threats through Risk-Based
Asset Management,” Publication No. FHWA-HIF-13-018, Office of Asset
54
 FHWA (2013). “Transportation Asset Management Peer Exchange: Integrating

Maintenance and Asset Management,” Publication No. FHWA-HIF-13-069, Office of
Acquisition Management, Federal Highway Administration.
 FHWA (2015). “Assessing Pavement Condition for the National Highway Performance
Program and Bridge Condition for the National Highway Performance Program;
Proposed Rule,” 23 CFR Part 490, RIN 2125–AF53, Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 2,
Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation.
 FHWA (2015). “Asset Management Plan; Proposed Rule,” 23 CFR Part 515, RIN
2125–AF57, Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 62, Federal Highway Administration,
Department of Transportation.
 Hawker, L.G. and Abell, R. (2000). “Selection and Prioritisation of Maintenance Works
on Major Roads in England,” 1st European Conference on Pavement Management,
Budapest, Hungary.
 Highway Maintenance Efficiency Programme, HMEP (2013). “Highway Infrastructure
Asset Management: Guidance Document,” UK Roads Liaison Group.
 Mrawira, D.M., and Amador, L.E. (2009). “Cross-Assets Trade-off Analysis: Why Are
We Still Talking About It?” TRB 88th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers DVD,
Paper No. 09-1896.
 NCHRP (2002). “Assessment and Rehabilitation of Existing Culverts,” Synthesis No.
303, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research
Board.
 NCHRP (2004). “Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance
Activities,” Report No. 511, National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
 NCHRP (2004). “Optimal Timing of Pavement Preventive Maintenance Treatment
Applications,” Report No. 523, National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
 NCHRP (2005). “Analytical Tools for Asset Management,” Report No. 545, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board.
 NCHRP (2006). “Performance Measures and Targets for Transportation Asset
Management,” Report No. 551, National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
 NCHRP (2007). “Multi-Objective Optimization for Bridge Management Systems,”
Report No. 590, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation
Research Board.
 NCHRP (2007). “U.S. Domestic Scan Program: Best Practices in Transportation Asset
Management,” Report for Project 20-68, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, Transportation Research Board.
55
 NCHRP (2009). “An Asset-Management Framework for the Interstate Highway

System,” Report No. 632, National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
 NCHRP (2009). “Quality Management of Pavement Condition Data Collection,”
Synthesis No. 401, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation
Research Board.
 NCHRP (2013). “Use of Transportation Asset Management Principles in State
Highway Agencies,” Synthesis No. 439, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, Transportation Research Board.
 NCHRP (2015). “Service Life of Culverts,” Synthesis No. 474, National Cooperative
Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board.
 Parkman, C. C., Abell, R., Bradbury, T., and Peeling, D. (2011). “Economic,
environmental and social impacts of changes in maintenance spend on roads in
Scotland,” Summary Report. Wokingham: TRL.
 Peeling D (2014). CPR1880: Highways Agency Network Pavement Condition
Performance Measure - Annual Report 2013/14. Wokingham: TRL
 Sinhal, R., Abell, R., and Ramdas, V. (2001). “Use of Whole Life Costs in Network
Level Assessments of Road Maintenance Budgets,” Fifth International Conference on
Managing Pavements. Seattle, USA.
 Transport Scotland. (2011). Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance. Glasgow:
Transport Scotland.
56

Final Report 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Report 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Identification of Effective Next Generation

Pavement Performance Measures and Asset

September 15, 2016

a “risk-based asset management plan” to improve or preserve the condition of existing

1.2 MAP-21 and Performance-Based Management

1. Establish National Goals to focus the Federal-Aid Highway Program on specific

2.0 TASK 1 – IDENTIFY OR CONCEPTUALLY DEVELOP MORE

Pavement performance measures associated with pavement texture (friction)

2.1 State of the Practice in Pavement Performance Measurement

cracking, map/block cracking, raveling, faulting, spalling, and bleeding/flushing. Figure 1

Table 1 – Existing Pavement Performance Measures.

National Goal Objective Type Measure Typical Repair Strategy

Friction Number (FN)

Figure 1 – Types of Pavement Condition Data Collected.

Figure 2 – Types of Pavement Distress Data Collected.

2.2 Search for Next Generation Performance Measure(s)

2.3 Research Team Criteria for Selection of Next Generation

Table 2 – Pavement Performance Measures Under Research and Development.

National Goal Objective Type Measure Comments

2.4 Next Generation Network Level Pavement Performance Measure

Figure 3 – TSD and Diagnostic Checks.

2.5 TSDD related Performance Measure based on Normalized

CoVFWD/CoVGPR distribution Normal Distribution

2.6 TSDD related Key Performance Indicator (KPI)

3.0 TASK 2 – METHODOLOGIES TO GUIDE

1. Conducting performance gap analysis and identifying strategies to close

3.1 Building Upon Findings of the NCHRP Project 08-91: “Cross-

1. Goals and objectives describing agency priorities and vision.

in deterioration rates or other aspects of performance prediction models following an

Figure 6 – Project Benefits from NCHRP Report 806.

Figure 7 – Bottom-Up Approach to Optimization in the NCHRP 08-91 Tool Prototype.

c) Trade-off between performance and investment level

3.1.1 Incorporating Risk in the Tool Prototype

3.1.2 Opportunities to Improve the NCHRP 08-91 Tool Prototype

deterioration rates or other aspects of performance prediction models following an

3.2 Examples of Other Available Analytical Tools

Figure 9 – Asset Manager NT Overview from NCHRP Report 545.

Figure 10 – Asset Manager PT Overview from NCHRP Report 545.

Figure 11 – METIS Cross-Asset Tool Overview (NCHRP Report 632).

Figure 12 – Example Framework for Using Multi-Objective Optimization in Asset

3.3 A Conceptual Framework for Cross-Asset Transportation Asset

3.3.1 Resource Allocation Problem Formulation

Figure 13 – Objectives and Constraints in Cross-Asset Resource Allocation.

Figure 14 – Example Cross-Asset Multi-Objective Transportation Asset Management.

3.3.2 Multi-Objective Optimization

regarding the relative importance or significance of various performance measures. In

Figure 15 – Example Illustration of a Two-Objective Pareto-Optimal Front.

3.3.3 Quantifying Objective Functions

vehicles, and the amount of Excessive Delay experienced by all traffic as

funding needed to address the backlog of deferred M&R. This

3.3.4 Scaling Objective Functions

3.3.5 Quantifying Constraints

3.3.6 Incorporating Uncertainty and Risk

Figure 16 – Quantifying Uncertainty in Objective Functions15.

3.3.7 Conceptual Framework for Cross-Asset Resource Allocation

Figure 17 – Conceptual Framework for Cross-Asset Resource Allocation Using Multi-

3.3.8 Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms

3.4 Organizational and Cultural Changes: Bottom-Up Analysis and

3.5 Visualization and Communication

Figure 18 – Example Visualization of the Final Pareto-Optimal Front for Multi-Objective

Figure 19 – Example Visualization of Multiple Performance Outcomes (Objectives) by

Figure 20 – Example Matrix Scatter Plots to Demonstrate Trade-Offs Among Multiple

Figure 21 – Example Visualization of the Impact of Different Investment Levels on the

4.0 TASK 3 – DEVELOP WORK PLANS FOR FUTURE FHWA