Computerized Equipment Replacement Methodology

Author(s):  
José Weissmann ◽  
Angela Jannini Weissmann ◽  
Srinivas Gona

The Texas Department of Transportation (DOT) owns and maintains an active fleet inventory of approximately 17,000 units and replaces about 10% of them annually. Any methodology that can improve Texas DOT’s replacement procedures could potentially save millions of dollars. Private and public agencies do not routinely use life-cycle cost as a replacement criterion because the only way to automate inspection of thousands of life-cycle cost histories has been to define an acceptability threshold for annualized costs. Most fleet managers consider this practice too inaccurate. The most relevant information provided by a lifecycle cost graph is its trend. Units whose life-cycle costs have been increasing longer or at a faster rate should have higher replacement priority. The trend score concept allows a computer to mimic replacement decisions made by a person visually inspecting a series of life-cycle cost histories. A new economically sound methodology for assisting with equipment replacement at Texas DOT is presented. This new method takes full advantage of Texas DOT’s comprehensive equipment operating system database, can prioritize the units on the basis of comparisons among all units within any desired class of equipment, and uses life-cycle cost trends as a replacement criterion. This methodology was implemented through the Texas Equipment Replacement Model, a menudriven software that allows the fleet manager to efficiently apply the methodology.

Author(s):  
Michel B. Bouchedid ◽  
Dana N. Humphrey

Cutting the cost of road maintenance and reducing life-cycle costs are the main reasons the FHWA has increased its emphasis on drainage in the pavement structural section. Good drainage requires that the base and subbase drain freely and relatively quickly. Poor drainage is thought to cause the Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT) to spend millions of extra dollars each year maintaining its state highways. Improved specifications and design policies for subbase material were developed by investigating the gradation and permeability of the subbase currently used by MaineDOT. Eight field projects were selected to investigate the permeability and gradation of subbase material for Maine roads. Results indicate that typical MaineDOT subbase gradations have excess fines and sand-size fraction compared with FHWA recommendations. The standard subbase currently used by MaineDOT has an average coefficient of permeability of 5.9 × 10−4 cm/s (1.7 ft/day) whereas the FHWA recommends a minimum coefficient of permeability of 0.35 cm/s (1,000 ft/day) for permeable base material. With multivariable regression analysis, an equation was determined to estimate subbase permeability from percent fines and coefficient of uniformity. Life-cycle cost savings of up to $244,000/km ($406,000/mi) of road can be achieved in Maine with the use of permeable base.


Author(s):  
Muhammad Arif Beg ◽  
Zhanmin Zhang ◽  
W. Ronald Hudson

A rational procedure is presented for evaluating alternative pavement types for roadway projects. Agency costs, user delay costs, and performance levels are important factors for comparing alternative pavement strategies. These factors are included in the evaluation procedure. Economic evaluations are based on life-cycle cost analysis. Cost-effectiveness analysis is also included in the procedure and uses area under the performance curve as a measure of the effectiveness of a pavement design strategy. Limitations in economic evaluations and the role of other miscellaneous factors in pavement type selection are also discussed. A computer program, TxPTS, was developed to automate the evaluation procedure. Case studies are presented demonstrating the use of the program.


1994 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-56
Author(s):  
Virginia C. Day ◽  
Zachary F. Lansdowne ◽  
Richard A Moynihan ◽  
John A. Vitkevich

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 158-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Morfonios A. Morfonios ◽  
◽  
D. Kaitelidou D. Kaitelidou ◽  
G. Filntisis G. Filntisis ◽  
G. Baltopoulos G. Baltopoulos ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document