Enhancing life cycle cost analysis with a novel cost classification framework for pavement rehabilitation projects

Abdelaty, A; Jeong, H D; Dannen, B and Todey, F (2016) Enhancing life cycle cost analysis with a novel cost classification framework for pavement rehabilitation projects. Construction Management and Economics, 34(10), pp. 724-736. ISSN 0144-6193

Abstract

Life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) procedures have been used over the past decades to justify the choice of one pavement design alternative over the others. However, many ambiguities associated with the life cycle cost input values, such as the discount rate and future cost estimates have questioned the credibility of the analysis results. Another unrecognized source of errors in pavement LCCA is the misunderstanding of pavement treatment costs when historical costs are typically used for estimating those costs. The historical costs of pavement rehabilitation projects typically include a significant amount of non-pavement-related costs, which may result in a wrong LCCA if not treated appropriately. This paper addresses this specific point of error and proposes a solution to eliminating this error by using a novel cost classification framework that successfully differentiates mainline roadway costs from non-pavement cost items. A case study using Monte Carlo simulation is conducted to evaluate the probabilistic LCCA results. The results of the case study indicate that the conventional approach of using total rehabilitation project costs in LCCA may even lead to a wrong investment decision. The findings of this study will help practitioners and researchers better understand the nature of pavement rehabilitation project cost distributions.;Life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) procedures have been used over the past decades to justify the choice of one pavement design alternative over the others. However, many ambiguities associated with the life cycle cost input values, such as the discount rate and future cost estimates have questioned the credibility of the analysis results. Another unrecognized source of errors in pavement LCCA is the misunderstanding of pavement treatment costs when historical costs are typically used for estimating those costs. The historical costs of pavement rehabilitation projects typically include a significant amount of non-pavement-related costs, which may result in a wrong LCCA if not treated appropriately. This paper addresses this specific point of error and proposes a solution to eliminating this error by using a novel cost classification framework that successfully differentiates mainline roadway costs from non-pavement cost items. A case study using Monte Carlo simulation is conducted to evaluate the probabilistic LCCA results. The results of the case study indicate that the conventional approach of using total rehabilitation project costs in LCCA may even lead to a wrong investment decision. The findings of this study will help practitioners and researchers better understand the nature of pavement rehabilitation project cost distributions.;

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: highway infrastructure; stochastic life cycle cost analysis; asset management; monte carlo simulation; pavement maintenance and rehabilitation; construction; rehabilitation; cost analysis; cost estimates; life cycles
Index terms: Monte Carlo simulation, cost analysis, estimating, stochastic life cycle cost analysis, case study, rehabilitation project, pavement design, life cycle cost, investment decision, practitioner, life cycle, life cycle cost analysis, pavement maintenance and rehabilitation, cost estimate, asset management, highway infrastructure
Subjects: research methods, health conditions and diseases, financial and cost management, maintenance engineering, modelling and simulation, economics, transportation engineering, value management, financial analysis, practitioner, data collection methods, asset management, economic analysis, civil engineering
Topics: Business Strategy, Research Practice, Project Management, Cost Management, Health and Safety, Engineering Principles, Roles and Professions
Descriptive scope: 4 PCEA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here