U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000
Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology
Coordinating, Developing, and Delivering Highway Transportation Innovations
REPORT |
This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information |
![]() |
Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-13-038 Date: November 2013 |
Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-13-038 Date: November 2013 |
PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®
Many important decisions are necessary in order to successfully provide and manage a pavement network. At the heart of this process is the prediction of needed future construction events. One approach to providing a single numeric on the condition of a pavement network is the use of pavement remaining service life (RSL). However, many issues exist with the current RSL terminology and resulting numeric that complicate proper interpretation, interagency data exchange, and use. A major source of uncertainty in the current RSL definition is the use of the term "life" to represent multiple points in the pavement construction history. The recommended path to consistency involves adopting terminology of time remaining until a defined construction treatment is required (i.e., RSL is replaced by remaining service interval (RSI)). The term "RSI" has the ability to unify the outcome of different approaches to determine needs by focusing on when and what treatments are needed and the service interruption created. This report presents the framework for replacing the current RSL terminology with one based on more exact construction event terms. It provides detailed information on the research performed concerning remaining pavement life. It explores many issues that exist with the current RSL terminology that complicate proper interpretation, interagency data exchange, and use. While this report focuses on pavements, it is also applicable to other types of transportation infrastructure. A companion document provides step-by-step guidelines for implementing the RSI terminology.(1) This report is intended for use by pavement managers and pavement investment decisionmakers across the United States.
Jorge E. Pagán-Ortiz
Director, Office of Infrastructure
Research and Development
Notice
This document is distributed under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the object of the document.
Quality Assurance Statement
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of the information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvements.
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No.
FHWA-HRT-13-038 |
2. Government Accession No. | 3 Recipient's Catalog No. | ||
4. Title and Subtitle
Reformulated Pavement Remaining Service Life Framework |
5. Report Date November 2013 |
|||
6. Performing Organization Code | ||||
7. Author(s)
Gary E. Elkins, Travis M. Thompson, Jonathan L. Groeger, Beth Visintine, and Gonzalo R. Rada |
8. Performing Organization Report No.
|
|||
9. Performing Organization Name and Address AMEC Environment and Infrastructure, Inc. |
10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) |
|||
11. Contract or Grant No. DTFH61-08-C-00033 |
||||
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Office of Infrastructure Research and Development |
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Final Draft Report, October 2009–April 2012 |
|||
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
|
||||
15. Supplementary Notes The Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) was Nadarajah Sivaneswaran, HRDI-20. |
||||
16. Abstract
Many important decisions are necessary in order to effectively provide and manage a pavement network. At the heart of this process is the prediction of needed future construction events. One approach to providing a single numeric on the condition of a pavement network is the use of pavement remaining service life (RSL). However, many issues exist with the current RSL terminology and resulting numeric that complicate proper interpretation, interagency data exchange, and use. A major source of uncertainty in the current RSL definition is the use of the term "life" to represent multiple points in the pavement construction history. The recommended path to consistency involves adopting terminology of time remaining until a defined construction treatment is required (i.e., RSL is replaced by remaining service interval (RSI)). The term "RSI" has the ability to unify the outcome of different approaches to determine needs by focusing on when and what treatments are needed and the service interruption created. This report presents the framework for replacing the current RSL terminology with one based on more exact construction event terms. A companion document provides step-by-step guidelines for implementing the RSI terminology.(1) |
||||
17. Key Words
Pavement remaining service life, Pavement remaining life, Pavement remaining service interval, Pavement construction events, Pavement construction triggers, Pavement threshold limits, Pavement performance curves, Pavement data collection, Pavement strategy selection |
18. Distribution Statement
No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161. |
|||
19. Security Classification Unclassified |
20. Security Classification Unclassified |
21. No. of Pages 80 |
22. Price |
Form DOT F 1700.7 | Reproduction of completed page authorized |
SI* (Modern Metric) Conversion Factors
Chapter 2. Refocus of Pavement Remaining Life Vocabulary
Chapter 3. Future Construction Needs Analysis Framework
Chapter 4. Construction Triggers
Chapter 7. Collection of Inputs
Chapter 9. Assessment and Update
Appendix A. Pavement Design and Management Concepts
Appendix B. Pavement RSL Prediction Models
Figure 1. | Flowchart. Future pavement construction needs process |
Figure 2. | Graph. Conceptual relationship between agency repair costs as a function of pavement condition |
Figure 3. | Graph. Basic concept of modern pavement design |
Figure 4. | Graph. Illustrated service histories of trial pavement designs incorporating future overlays |
Figure 5. | Graph. Staged pavement construction design concept |
Figure 6. | Graph. Perpetual pavement design concept based on construction of a pavement where distresses occur in the pavement surface layer |
Figure 7. | Graph. Multiple distress-based pavement design where one of the distresses reaches a maximum threshold limit |
Figure 8. | Graph. Three treatment zones as a function of pavement condition |
Figure 9. | Graph. Conceptual tradeoffs among pavement resistive capacity, construction costs, and maintenance, repair, and restoration costs |
Figure 10. | Graph. Concept of increasing repair cost as a function of pavement deterioration |
Figure 11. | Graph. Classical bathtub curve of component failure rate versus time |
Table 1. | Role of RSL models in levels and types of pavement management business decisions |
Table 2. | PSR threshold values used in the HPMS analytical process for minimum tolerable conditions for overlay and reconstruction |
AASHO | American Association of State Highway Officials |
AASHTO | American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials |
AC | Asphalt concrete |
ADT | Average daily traffic |
ESAL | Equivalent single-axle load |
FN | Friction number |
FHWA | Federal Highway Administration |
FWD | Falling weight deflectometer |
HERS | Highway Economic Requirements System |
HMA | Hot mix asphalt |
HPMS | Highway Performance Monitoring System |
IRI | International Roughness Index |
JPCP | Jointed plain concrete pavement |
LCC | Life-cycle cost |
LCCA | Life-cycle cost analysis |
LTPP | Long-Term Pavement Performance |
MEPDG | Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide |
M&R | Maintenance and rehabilitation |
MTBF | Mean time between failures |
NAPCOM | National Pavement Cost Model |
NCHRP | National Cooperative Highway Research Program |
NCDC | National Climate Data Center |
NHS | National Highway System |
ODOT | Ohio Department of Transportation |
PCC | Portland cement concrete |
PCI | Pavement Condition Index |
Probability density function | |
PH | Proportional hazard |
PHT | Pavement health track |
PMS | Pavement management system |
PSI | Present Serviceability Index |
PSR | Present serviceability rating |
RSI | Remaining service interval |
RSL | Remaining service life |
SHA | State highway agency |
SI | Serviceability Index |
SN | Structural number |
The remaining service life (RSL) concept has been around for decades and is well entrenched in the pavement community. It is used at all levels of the pavement management decision process to plan for future field construction events. However, there is no single, clear, widely accepted definition of RSL. Moreover, there is a great deal of uncertainty associated with the definition, especially with the use of the term "life" to represent different points in a pavement's construction history In addition, "life" is interpreted differently by stakeholders.
To overcome the RSL shortcomings, this framework introduces terminology that removes the word "life" from the lexicon since it is the basis for confusion. Instead, the new terminology, known as the remaining service interval (RSI) introduces the concept of time remaining until a defined construction event is required. Pavements are comprised of interrelated structural parts that can be maintained, preserved, restored, rehabilitated, or reconstructed to serve the intended transportation needs.
The RSI concept does not provide an alternative to assessing the health of the network or making decisions about where to spend the available funds. It simply provides a clear terminology and a logical process that will create a consistent construction event-based terminology and understanding (i.e., types of construction events and the timing of those events within the concept of life-cycle cost (LCC), risk analyses, and other prioritization approaches based on streams of future construction events and benefits to facility users).