Pavement systems reconstruction and resurfacing policies for minimization of life‐cycle costs under greenhouse gas emissions constraints

Abstract

Pavement management systems, designed to minimize total lifecycle costs, will need to evolve to meet the needs of the future. Environmental concerns are likely to add an additional consideration for the state DOTs when allocating their financial resources. Transportation agencies will be concerned with determining maintenance, resurfacing and reconstruction policies for pavement segments in their systems while also addressing the environmental impact of these activities. In this paper, we propose an efficient solution to solve for pavement resurfacing and reconstruction policies that minimize societal (agency and user) costs under a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions constraint. The main methodological contribution of this work relative to the state of the art is that we formulate the problem to include multi-dimensional pavement segment states and heterogeneous management activities. It allows for a more realistic representation of the majority of current pavements in the world. For example, the assumption that pavements are perpetual, i.e., do not need reconstruction during their lifetime, can be relaxed. A case study using California roads is performed; we find that, for that specific group of pavement segments, the optimal policies to minimize societal costs do not vary greatly from the policies that minimize GHG emissions. An agency can use these results to determine what GHG emission budgets are feasible for the highway system that it manages.

Optimal policies for greenhouse gas emission minimization under multiple agency budget constraints in pavement management

“…At the pavement system level, research has focused on both minimizing GHG emissions (Wang et al, 2014) and minimizing lifecycle societal costs under a constraint of total GHG emissions (from users and agencies). Examples of the latter include Reger et al (2014), who solved for the optimal 4 rehabilitation policy, and Lee et al (2016), who solved for the optimal mix of rehabilitation and reconstruction strategies. One limitation of this line of work is that the objective function, minimizing societal costs under an emissions budget, may not be a realistic representation of a highway agency's problem.…”

“…If we use the time correction factor to consider this effect, the GHG minimization problem with the budget constraint can be formulated as a mixed-undiscounted-anddiscounted problem. The solution methodology for such a problem can be found in Lee and Madanat (2016). In this paper, we focus on the undiscounted problem that has not been addressed and solved in the literature.…”

“…Since = ∞, the problem (4) is a general average problem, where the optimal average values are independent of the initial state (Lee et al 2016). Therefore, the initial state (0) is omitted from the representation of the function and the inner problem is expressed as (A.1), where |Λ * is the optimal value of ( ) + ∑ • , ( )…”

“…In this paper, we briefly present the relative value iteration algorithm, which is equivalent to the value iteration method, and the policy iteration algorithm. In the algorithms, refers to the best state, typically achievable by reconstruction; it is known to be a recurrent state as shown in Lee et al (2016). A mathematical proof of this result can be found in Bertekas (1998).…”

Model Optimasi Pemeliharaan Jalan Multi Tahun dengan Batasan Anggaran

“…Sehingga, kegiatan ini dianggap sebagai kegiatan serupa yang berulang setiap tahun pada level segmen jalan, padahal setiap kegiatan pemeliharaan memiliki dampak terhadap perubahan pola perjalanan dalam jaringan. Oleh karenanya, pendekatan pemeliharaan pada level jaringan menjadi perhatian yang besar pada banyak peneliti dalam beberapa dekade ini (e.g., Chan et al, 1994;Fwa et al, 1996;Lee dan Madanat, 2014Lee et al, 2016;Santos et al, 2017). Menempatkan konteks pemeliharaan pada level jaringan kemudian berkorelasi secara langsung adanya keterbatasan pendanaan atau anggaran untuk pemeliharaan.…”