I - 1

1
PROGRESS ASSESSMENT OF PMS1967-1987 THE
EARLY BIRTH YEARS1987-2007 PREDICTION VS
REALITY2007-2027 THE VISIONSUCCESS IS UP TO
YOURonald Hudson and Ralph Haas
2
PRESENTATION

• Motivation behind the birth of PMS and key
  components
• Project and network levels of PMS
• Key things learned from first 20 years of PMS
• Looking ahead in 1987
• PMS development, progress, and issues 1987-2010
• PMS now basis for growing AMS
• Closing thoughts

I - 2
3
Subgrade Strength
2 KIPS
10 KIPS
Pavement Thickness
18 KIPS
Load
CBR DESIGN CHART
4
BIRTH OF AND MOTIVATION FOR PMS

• First concepts 1960s
• Too many early failures, US Interstate
• Inadequate recognition of maintenance
  on performance and life cycle analysis
• US space program and use of systems methods
• Innovative engineers who saw need to integrate
  planning, design, construction, maintenance and
  rehabilitation

I - 4
5
Pavement Management
Is a coordinated systematic process for
carrying out all activities related to providing
pavements
6
Components of PMS
Broader Asset Management Concerns
PMS
NETWORK LEVEL
PROJECT LEVEL
Programming
Design
DATA
Construction
Planning
BASE
Maintenance
Budget
Rehabilitation
Engineering Analysis Research - Special Studies
7
Data Collection
Data Process Storage
PMS Software Data Analysis Performance Prediction
Budget Prediction Engineering Plan Action Plan
8
Major Components of a PMS
Inputs
Models
Distress
Behavior
Performance
Traffic
Friction
Costs
Decision Criteria
Ordered Set of
Implementation
Choices
9

• INPUTS
• Traffic
• Materials
• Thickness

Costs
Models
Behavior
Distress
Performance
Safety
Condition Surveys
Roughness PSI
Deflection
Traffic Counts Weights
Update Models

• Test Pits
• Lab Tests

• RECORD
• Construction
• Maintenance

• Count
• Weigh
• Classification

LONG-TERM DATABASE ANALYSIS

• Rainfall
• Temperature

10
Types of Evaluation Information
Structural
Costs
Models
Inputs
Behavior
Distress
Performance
Safety
Friction
Condition
Maintenance
Measures
Cost
Cores, Construction Records
Surveys
Records
Deflection
Roughness
etc.
Measurements
Serviceability

History

Various monitoring methods
11
INPUTS
MEASURE
OUTPUTS
Estimate Structural Strength Time/History S of
Distress
BEHAVIOR Stress Strain DEFLECTION
Prediction Models
Load
(Predicted and/or Measured)
Calculated Condition Index Predicted
Roughness Predicted Maintenance
DISTRESS Cracking Deformation Disintegration
S Loads
PERFORMANCE (Predicted/Measured Annual
Roughness Analysis/Prediction Historical
Trends (Service Level)
Optimization and Decisions
S Load History
12
SUMMARY EARLY WORKSHOPS, CONFERENCES, BOOKS

• Workshops in Austin, Phoenix and Charlotte
  (1970s)
• A Management System for Highway Pavements (ARRB
  1970)
• First text books (1977 and 1978)
• First ICMPA Conferences (1985 and 1987)

I - 12
13
Major Concern 1987-2007 High-Quality Data
Collection Processes
Data Collection Phase Data Collection Element
Prior to start of data collection Guidelines, standards, protocols Operator training accreditation Equipment calibration checks
During data collection Ambient conditions Data collection field review activities
After completion of data collection QC/QA checks Time series data studies Formal feedback mechanisms
14
DRIVING FORCES FOR EARLY NETWORK LEVEL PMS (circa
1970s)

• Early failure of 1,000s km of pavements
• Primary interest of Chief Engineers
• AASHTO, FHWA, Can. Austin other initiatives
• Workshops and Conferences

Where?
The Network
15
Components of PMS
Broader Asset Management Concerns
PMS
NETWORK LEVEL
PROJECT LEVEL
Programming
Design
DATA
Construction
Planning
BASE
Maintenance
Budget
Rehabilitation
Engineering Analysis Research - Special Studies
16
PMS
NETWORK LEVEL Programming Planning Budgeting
DATA BASE
Project Level
Engineering Analysis
Size of boxes shows relative use as of 2011.
17
SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS As seen 1970-1987

1. Skills needed Pavement, Software Development,
   Optimization, Database Handler ?
2. In-house development ?
3. Use of Outside Professionals ?
4. Specialized Software Providers ?

I - 17
18
Key Things Learned from 20 Years (1967-1987) of
P.M.
From P.M. Process Itself

• The component activities for P.M. can be
  described on a generic basis.
• Existing and new technology can be organized
  within PMS framework.
• PMS framework allows complete flexibility for
  different models, methods and procedures.
• P.M. operates at two basic levels network and
  project.
• Sound technology is critical to PMS process and
  its effective use.

II - 18
19
Key Things Learned from 20 Years (1967-1987) of
P.M. (continued)
From Using the P.M. Process

• Development and implementation of a PMS must be
  staged.
• Staging promotes understanding and acceptance by
  various users.
• Options always exist they should be evaluated on
  a life-cycle basis.
• We need models for predicting deterioration
  effect of rehabilitation and maintenance.
• P.M. can make efficient use of available funds
  but it will not save a network if funding is
  inadequate.
• Good, effective PMS data.

II - 19
20
BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR AN EFFECTIVE AND
COMPREHENSIVE PMS (Circa ICMPA 1987 Future
Prospects for Pavement Management)

• Coordinated direction of resources and labour
• Serving different levels of users in the
  organization
• Effective decision making for network level
  programs and individual projects based on good
  data
• Making good use of existing and new technologies
• Having a structure / framework for activities and
  decisions

II - 20
21
PMS Structure for ACTIVITIES AND DECISIONS (Circa
ICMPA 1987 Future Prospects for Pavement
Management
II - 21
22
PMS Structure for ACTIVITIES AND DECISIONS (Circa
ICMPA 1987 Future Prospects for Pavement
Management
Cont/d.
II - 22
23
LOOKING AHEAD IN 1987 MAJOR ISSUES

• Effects of different organizational structures
  recognizing various levels of users
• Local area PMS needs vs. State and Federal
  systems
• Establishing PMS benefits in quantitative terms
• Integrating PMS with transport system management
• Relationships between PMS and other
  infrastructure management systems

II - 23
24
II - 24
25
LOOKING AHEAD IN 1987 OPPORTUNITIES

• Generic framework for (network and project) PMS
• Improved public and senior administrative
  awareness of PMS value
• Better incentive programs contractors,
  researchers, etc.
• Identification of high payoff areas for
  technology advancements
• Programs for improved technical capabilities
  contractors, practitioners, etc.
• Better consistency between sophisticated analysis
  and basic materials, traffic, environmental and
  other inputs
• Substantial funded program (similar to AASHTO
  Design Guide) to develop next major level of PMS

II - 25
26
II - 26
27
SUMMARY OF OPPORTUNITIES
II - 27
28
SUMMARY OF OPPORTUNITIES
II - 28
29
SUMMARY OF OPPORTUNITIES
II - 29
30
1975-1995 States with Good PMS Software
ARIZONA KANSAS MINNESOTA
ONTARIO, CANADA WASHINGTON PARANA,
BRAZIL TOCANTINS, BRAZIL Weak
in-house systems in 10-15 states. Little or
nothing in other states.
31
Where Were We in 2000?

• North America has invested US 2.3 trillion in
  highways
• South American has invested US 1.6 trillion /-
  in Highways
• The World has invested US 10 trillion

32
(No Transcript)
33
What Are The Issues, 2000-Now?

• Pavement Preservation
• Throughout the world, there has been a shift
  from constructing new highways to preserving,
  maintaining, and maximizing the operation of what
  we have Madeleine Bloom, FHWA
• The right treatment on the right pavement at the
  right time Foundation for Pavement
  Preservation
• More reasons that good design is not enough

34
This Software Concept is Inadequate in 2010
Inputs
Models
Distress
Behavior
Performance
Traffic
Friction
Costs
Decision Criteria
Ordered Set of
Implementation
Choices
35
Actual Software Requirements - 2010
To Reports
To Reports
To Reports
To Reports
To Reports
Raw Condition
Roadway Inventory Data
Management Sections
Structure
Traffic Data
Conversion
Work Records
Distress Indexes
Pavement Layers
Aggregation to Distress Sections
AADT ESAL Trucks
Road Structure Stats.
Current PM Sections Define Sections for Data
Aggregation
Condition Measures
Aggregation of Data onto Management Sections
Aggregated Performance Information
Current Reporting
Aggregated Network Information
To Other Systems
Network Analysis
Master Work Program
Performance Historical Reports
Performance Models
Including PP plans and MMS
Scenario Work Pgm.
Including information for pavement preservation
treatments maintenance work
Projected Condition
36
Optimization Analysis 2010
Condition Data
Condition Indexes
Other Pavement Data
Output Projected Conditions Budgets
Integer Solver
Multi-Constraint Analysis
Predicted Condition
Decision Trees
Work Plan
Multi-Year Analysis
Models
Strategy Generation Engine
Section Strategies
37
Which Do You Use?

• Computer Operating System
• Develop in-house or use Microsoft
• Database
• In-house? or ORACLE/PeopleSoft
• Computer Map
• In-house? or Google Earth
• Internet
• In-house? or Commercial

38
Good Commercial PMS Software is Available 2000
to date

• About 20 US States now use commercial
• 50-60 of Agencies still use in-house PMS.
• In-house delays development inadequate,
  incomplete, slow
• Wastes 2-10 million per year of delay

39
DOT Asset Management
10
90 of Assets and Budgets
Other Buildings, Safety, etc.
PMS Pavements
BMS Bridges
MMS Maintenance
40
Data Collection
Data Process Storage
PMS Software Data Analysis Performance Prediction
Budget Prediction Engineering Plan Action Plan
41
Asset Management Modular Framework
External Data and Models
Common Data Model
Core AA Functions
Asset Inventory Base Linear Reference Security Use
r Organization Terminology
Data Management Reporting Graphing Communications
System Utilities
Maintenance Manager
External Systems (e.g., SAP. Advantage,
PeopleSoft, etc)
(Fleet, Equipment, Materials, Labor)

Network Manager
Mobile Apps
GIS

• Zero-Footprint, Web-based System
• All Transportation Assets
• Agency-specific models
• Integrated Asset Maintenance Management
• Input to Administrators

• Integrated GIS Mapping Capabilities
• Secure and scalable to thousands of users
• Easy-to-use with Sophisticated Analysis
• Powerful reporting tools
• User Friendly

42
Functional Areas

• Processes are identified by Functional Area
• Resource Management (RM)
• Labor Management
• Equipment Management
• Materials Management
• Linear Referencing Processes (LR)
• LRS Management
• Asset Inventory Processes (AI)
• Asset Acquisition
• Asset Condition Assessment
• Linear Construction History
• Linear Attribute Data Management
• Planning Processes (PL)
• Model Management
• Analysis and Optimization
• Planning
• Operations Management (OP)
• Projects / Contracts / Repair Orders

LR Linear Referencing Processes
RM Resource Management
AI Asset Inventory Processes
AgileAssets Core
PL Planning Processes
OS Org. Structure
OP Operations Management
System
Security
Reporting
43
Tradeoff Objectives - 2010
Tradeoff Utility Combinations of
individual Performance Measures
44
The Start of Asset Management in 5-7 States
2008
III - 44
45
Where Are We in 2011?

1. 20 agencies use complete detailed PMS
2. Many others worldwide still need to upgrade their
   PMS
3. Data collection is adequate will continue to
   improve

46
Where Are We in 2011? (cont.)

• Maintenance and preservation still need models
  and add to PMS
• PMS is acting as an anchor to develop full asset
  management 5 state
• Large Funding like SHRP and MEPDG is needed for
  large rapid improvement.

47
Initially, Management Systems Resisted by
Engineers

• 1967 Engineering Review Team vetoed PMS
  Concept
• 1980s Bridge designers would not use BMS
  concepts.
• Design covers all we need
• Use safety factor of 2.0
• 2000-2010 (Still resist)
• US has spent 15 million developing a
  mechanistic design system that requires 300
  variables.

48
Initially, Management Systems Resisted by
Engineers (cont.)

• All 3 groups ignore future variability in
  predicted traffic, environment, material
  properties.
• There has been little or no research on benefits
  of maintenance and preservation.
• More administrators, budget makers, planners,
  maintenance staff now support and demand
  PMS/BMS/MMS.

49
Historical and Current Limitations

1. Lack of Standard Nomenclature
2. Prioritize not True Optimization
3. Many use worst first funding
4. User Costs Not used
5. Life-Cycle Cost Partial use

50
Frontier Leading Edge

• True optimization
• 10-15-20 year planning Horizon Tools
• Corridor Analysis PMS, BMS, SMS, etc.
• Active Asset Management demonstrate to Admin.
  and Top Staff true interaction
• Benefits, not loss of Authority for them
• Examples North Carolina, Idaho, Virginia

51
Agency Needs

• Good linear reference system
• Proven software
• Totally flexible segmentation
• Full live-cycle analysis with user costs
• Consistent accurate data
• Web-based
• Server-based not central
• Interface with maintenance management
• Corridor analysis
• Handles lane additions
• Determine monitory benefits
• Automatic annual asset valuation
• Add other management systems, bridges, safety,
  etc.

52
What does the Future Hold?

• Convince more administrators to use what is
  already available.
• Corridor analysis optimum funding for
• Pavement Bridges
• Added Lane Capacity Level of Service
• Funds allotted among needs
• Long-term (20 years) optimization
• Life-cycle analysis
• Multi objectives
• Use annual predictions extend 20 years.
• Cities Integrate PMS with utility plans,
  maintenance, etc.

53
Potential Topics for Focused Conferences

1. Practical interface of PMS with Asset Management.
2. How do we reach and educate administrators and
   show benefits of PMS (still a vital topic).
3. Calculate and demonstrate benefits of PMS in
   monetary terms.
4. Difference between network project level PMS
   data.

54
Potential Topics for Focused Conferences (Cont.)

• Examine the guts of the black boxes provided by
  PMS software vendors case studies.
• Educate a new generation of PMS managers.
• Factors now ignored in PMS, 1 or 2 at a time,
  such as noise, societal effects, environmental
  effects, green pavements, asset valuation, and
  risk analysis
• You (THE ATTENDEES) can add others with some
  creative thought.

IV - 54
55
CLOSING THOUGHTS

• Pavement management includes but is not
  controlled by design
• Mechanistic methods alone will not solve the
  pavement problem
• LTPP core concept not yet realized
• PMS needs a team approach of engineers,
  statisticians, programmers, etc.

56
CLOSING THOUGHTS (Cont.)

• There are no perfect solutions for pavement they
  have to be managed
• PMS do not replace good design rather, actual
  variability must be balanced among design,
  construction, maintenance, preservation and
  rehabilitation
• Good commercial PMS software is now available
  use it.

57
THANKS TO ICMPA8 AND THE INTERNATIONAL PAVEMENT
COMMUNITY
IV - 57