Life Cycle Cost Anaysis of CRCP

LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS OF CONTINUOUSLY
REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENTS (CRCP)

Final Report
Prepared for
Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute

933 North Plum Grove Road
Schaumburg, Illinois 60173
Prepared By
Kelly L. Smith, Nasir G. Gharaibeh, and Michael I. Darter

ERES Consultants
A Division of Applied Research Associates, Inc.
505 W. University
Champaign, Illinois 61820
February 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVES
KEY CRCP DESIGN FEATURES
TYPICAL CRCP DESIGN CROSS-SECTIONS
CRCP COST DATA6

State Highway Agency and PCC Contractor Surveys
Documented Unit Cost Data
Other Costs
Check on Reasonableness of Initial Construction Unit Costs
CRCP PERFORMANCE DATA

State Highway Agency Surveys
Performance Studies
NCHRP 1-37A (ERES and ASU, 2003)
Illinois (Gharaibeh et al., 1999)
Performance Model Predictions
Best Estimates of CRCP Service Life
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS
LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS

Background
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Strategies and Costs
Results
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A—STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY SURVEY FORM
APPENDIX B—PCC CONTRACTOR SURVEY FORMS
APPENDIX C—LCCA WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX D—LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
i
LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS OF CONTINUOUSLY
REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENTS
INTRODUCTION
Continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP) has been and continues to be chosen by several State
highway agencies (SHAs) for key highway pavement facilities. Its highly durable nature translates into a
smooth, long-lasting, and low-maintenance pavement well suited for heavily trafficked routes within a
wide range of climatic and topographical conditions, ranging from Texas to Illinois and Virginia to
Oregon.
Major experimental sites were constructed in the 1940’s and 1950’s, which led to widespread adoption on
the Interstate highway system in the 1960’s and 1970’s. However, during this time period several design
and construction problems occurred that led to performance issues, and several States stopped building
CRCP. Other States corrected these issues and continued to build CRCP successfully. Today, CRCP is
used extensively by some SHAs (e.g., Texas and Illinois Departments of Transportation [DOTs]) and
frequently by several others (e.g., Virginia, Oregon, Oklahoma, and South Dakota DOTs). These
agencies have had outstanding success with CRCP when proper design and construction practices were
followed. However, the lack of a valid CRCP design procedure and its higher initial construction cost
compared to other pavement types have limited its consideration for more widespread use.
Nevertheless, as a result of favorable research results coming out of the Long-Term Pavement
Performance (LTPP) program (CRCP has shown very long life and smooth surfaces) and other important
studies undertaken in recent years (particularly in Illinois, Texas, some European countries, and by the
Federal Highway Administration [FHWA]), the knowledge base for CRCP is greatly expanded. Existing
empirical design methods for CRCP are based on jointed portland cement concrete (PCC). However,
these methods focus primarily on PCC slab thickness, and they are widely suspected to be overly
conservative for the design of CRCP.
These procedures are soon to be replaced with mechanistic-empirical procedures developed specifically
for CRCP (as part of the 2002 Pavement Design Guide being developed under National Cooperative
Highway Research Program [NCHRP] Project 1-37A) that incorporate many important variables and
analysis procedures found to influence performance. These variables include certain environmental
conditions and construction aspects, as well as design features such as PCC and steel reinforcement
material properties, base type and stiffness, and foundation and shoulder support characteristics
(Selezneva, et al., 2001).
For many agencies, several of these design features are not allowed to vary. For instance, agency policy
may require a certain percentage of steel reinforcement or reinforcing bar size, or the type and thickness
of base may be pre-established, based on experiences with other pavement types. This practice can lead
to less-than-optimal designs when considering the performance and overall life-cycle cost of the
pavement structure. It is expected that the 2002 Design Guide procedure will lead to much improved
designs for CRCP, which may increase their reliability and cost-effectiveness.
OBJECTIVES
The main objective of this study is to examine the cost-effectiveness of five of the more influential CRCP
design features—PCC slab thickness, longitudinal steel reinforcement percentage, base type and
thickness, shoulder type and thickness, and PCC slab width. A detailed life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA)
of 13 current CRCP designs utilizing different combinations of these five design features was conducted
using best estimates of the relative costs and performance effects of each of these design features. Note
that the results of the LCCA are not specifically intended to apply universally, but rather to prompt
designers to perform their own investigations into the cost-effectiveness of key CRCP design features and
determine the optimum reliable CRCP design (i.e., the design with the lowest total life-cycle cost at an
acceptable level of reliability).
KEY CRCP DESIGN FEATURES
It is well established that slab thickness and longitudinal steel percentage are major factors in how well a
CRCP performs and how much it costs to build. Thicker slabs have an increased capacity to resist critical
bending stresses and to provide adequate load transfer across cracks. As a result, the development of the
primary form of distress in CRCP, punchouts, is reduced and pavement service life is increased.
For given construction and materials conditions, higher percentages of longitudinal steel reinforcement, in
general, result in closer crack spacing and narrower crack width. Although shorter crack spacing may be
perceived to increase the potential for punchouts, field surveys in Illinois and other places have shown
that the reverse is true—fewer punchouts have occurred because of the very narrow crack widths that
keep the cracks very tight and increase long-term crack load transfer efficiency (LTE) (Dhamrait and
Taylor, 1979). Naturally, increases in both slab thickness and longitudinal steel percentage translate into
higher construction costs.
Research shows that CRCP performance is also affected significantly by base course characteristics.
Treated base course materials are less likely to erode and result in the poor support conditions along the
slab edge that lead to punchouts under heavy traffic. Hence, although an untreated aggregate base may be
less expensive to build, its higher potential for erosion may lead to sooner and more widespread
punchouts. On the other hand, interlocking or bonding of the cement-treated base (CTB) with the PCC
slab may have an adverse effect on the transverse crack pattern.
Research also shows that a wider PCC slab keeps truck axles away from the free edge (shoulder), greatly
reducing bending stresses and deflections and perhaps reducing the occurrence of edge punchouts.
Although the added cost of building a widened lane can be substantial, it may be outweighed by the extra
years of pavement service life provided by the widening.
The effect of a properly tied PCC shoulder on CRCP performance may be significant because the added
edge support can help reduce deflections and stresses along the edge and decrease the likelihood for edge
punchouts. More important, however, is the fact that the expense associated with paved shoulders makes
up a considerable portion of the overall life-cycle cost of the pavement facility. Thin asphalt shoulders
may have a low initial cost, but will likely require much maintenance and rehabilitation in the future. In
contrast, the cost of full-depth tied PCC shoulders can increase initial construction costs significantly, but
they generally require little maintenance and can serve for a long time before rehabilitation is needed.
Though other design features, such as subdrainage systems and PCC material characteristics, can and
should be considered for overall cost-effectiveness, slab thickness, steel reinforcement, base type,
shoulder type, and slab width have been chosen for examination in this study. Variations of each of these
features have consequences in total life-cycle costs. Hence, when comparing a CRCP design with other
pavement type options, it is important to identify the design feature settings that help make the CRCP
design more cost-competitive.
TYPICAL CRCP DESIGN CROSS-SECTIONS
Current practice with respect to the five selected CRCP design features is illustrated in Table 1. The
information presented in this table was reported in the Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI)
Research Series No. 8. The six States shown represent those most active in the design and construction of
CRCP.
Table 1. CRCP design features by State (CRSI, 2001)
State Highway Agency

Design Feature
Illinois Oklahoma Oregon South Dakota Texas Virginia
Thickness, in 10 to 13 9 to 12 8 to 12 8 to 11 8 to 15 10 to 11
Longitudinal 8-in. slab:

Steel 0.4 to 0.5;
0.7 0.71 to 0.73 0.6 to 0.7 0.7 0.7
Reinforcement, 15-in. slab:
% 0.71 to 0.78
4-in. ATB,
Base Type and 4- to 6-in. 4-in. OGPB, 4-in. ATB, 6-in. CTB, 6- to 8-in.
6-in. Granular
Thickness ATB 4-in. 6-in. Granular 4-in. ATB CTB
Econocrete
Full-Depth Partial-Depth Full-Depth
Shoulder Type Tied PCC PCC Tied PCC
AC AC, Tied PCC AC, Tied PCC
Outside Lane
12 12 14 12 or 14 12 12 or 14
Width, ft
Table 2 shows the matrix of possible CRCP design combinations, based on the five selected design
features. Although there are 270 design combinations, only a fraction of these combinations are
considered to be realistic and somewhat representative of agencies’ current or past design practices.
Thirteen such design combinations are the focus of this investigation into the cost-effectiveness of CRCP
design features. These 13 representative designs are designated 1 through 13 in Table 2.
To help assess the cost-effectiveness of the representative designs, a questionnaire survey was developed
and sent to selected SHAs and PCC paving contractors. The survey asked for the relative cost of altering
a particular design feature, such as slab thickness or base type, from one overall reference design (a 10-
inch thick by 12-feet-wide CRCP, with 0.65 percent longitudinal steel reinforcement, resting on a 4-
inch asphalt-treated base [ATB] and adjoined by a full-depth aspaltic concrete [AC] shoulder).
Thus, as indicated by the asterisks in Table 2, survey recipients were asked to estimate the percent relative
cost of each of the variations from the reference CRCP design, as shown in Table 3.
Included with the cost questionnaire were inquiries about the expected performance of the reference
design and each alternative design. Based on a specified initial traffic loading level of 750,000 equivalent
18-kip single-axle loads (ESALs) and an annual ESAL growth rate of 3 percent, survey recipients were
asked to estimate the life of each design until a major structural improvement would be needed.
Results of the CRCP cost/performance survey are presented in the sections that follow. The survey forms
are shown in Appendixes A and B.
Table 2. Matrix of CRCP design combinations evaluated

for initial construction cost and performance
Lane 8-in. CRCP 9-in. CRCP 10-in. CRCP 11-in. CRCP 12-in. CRCP
Base Shoulder
Width,
Type Type 0.6% 0.65% 0.7% 0.6% 0.65% 0.7% 0.6% 0.65% 0.7% 0.6% 0.65% 0.7% 0.6% 0.65% 0.7%
Ft
Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel
12 4
5-in. AC
14
FDAC
12 *
6-in.
(tapered) 14 6
DAB
Full-
12 8
Depth
Tied
PCC 14
(tapered)
12 *
5-in. AC
14
*
FDAC
12 * * 5 * * 13
4-in. (ref.)
ATB (tapered)
14 *
Full-
Depth 12 2 * 7 10
Tied
PCC 14
(tapered)
12
5-in. AC
14
6-in.
CTB FDAC
12 * 9
(w/ (tapered)
asphalt 14 1 11
breaker)
Full-
12 3 12
Depth
Tied
PCC 14
(tapered)
* Design feature variation presented in SHA and PCC Paving Contractor surveys for estimating relative cost and performance.
Table 3. Design variations
Design Feature Reference Design Design Variations

Slab Thickness, in. 10 8, 12
Longitudinal Steel Amount, % 0.65 0.6, 0.7
Base 4-in. ATB 6-in. Aggregate, 6-in. CTB
Shoulders FDAC Tied PCC, 5-in. AC
Slab width, ft 12 14
CRCP COST DATA
One of the key aspects to a properly performed LCCA is the availability and accuracy of differential
construction cost data. To best estimate the costs of constructing the 13 representative designs given in
Table 2, the relative cost data obtained through SHA and paving contractor surveys were supplemented
with bid tabulation unit prices from recently let highway paving contracts. This section presents the cost
information furnished by survey respondents and actual unit cost data obtained from SHA bid tabulation
records.
State Highway Agency and PCC Contractor Surveys
Of 22 questionnaires sent to SHAs and PCC paving contractors, 6 sets of responses were received back.
Table 4 summarizes the statistics of the relative cost estimates provided in these responses. Besides the
obvious effects of increasing or decreasing slab thickness or steel percentage, it can be seen that using a
6-inch dense-aggregate base (DAB) instead of a 4-inch ATB or reducing the AC shoulder thickness,
results in a markedly lower cost of construction. In contrast, use of a 6-inch cement-treated base (CTB),
full-depth tied PCC shoulders, or a widened slab, generally results in a higher initial cost.
Documented Unit Cost Data
To supplement the relative cost estimates provided by SHAs and contractors alike, SHAs were also asked
to provide any available unit cost data associated with CRCP construction. Though some data were
furnished by two agencies, searches of on-line bid tabulation files unearthed more complete cost data
from five of the six States
surveyed. To the extent possible, pay item bid price data obtained from these files centered around
sizeable CRCP paving contracts let within the last three years for primary and Interstate highways. For
several States, however, the available data consisted of the average pay item bid prices for all contracts let
within the last twelve months.
Table 4. Relative cost statistics from CRCP cost survey
Mean
Design Standard
Estimated No. of
Feature Description Deviation, Range, %
Relative Responses
Variation %
Cost, %
10-in. CRCP, 0.65% steel,
Ref. 100.00
4-in. ATB, FDAC shoulder, 12-ft lane
A 8-in. CRCP 84.80 3.70 80 - 90 5
B 12-in. CRCP 111.50 4.93 104 - 118 6
C 0.6% Steel 99.00 0.00 99 - 99 5
D 0.7% Steel 101.60 0.55 101 - 102 5
E 6-in. DAB 92.80 5.40 84 - 98 5
F 6-in. CTB (w/ asphalt interlayer) 104.75 7.27 98 - 115 4
G 5-in. AC shoulder 95.17 2.79 90 - 98 6
H Full-depth tied PCC shoulder 107.33 4.27 102 - 113 6
I 14-ft lane 104.33 3.27 101 - 110 6
Table 5 provides a summary of the unit cost data compiled from the SHAs. The data are listed by pay
item and are given in terms of a range because of the variability within and among States. The number of
projects and number of agencies comprising each range are given, along with the pay item unit of
measure.
Figure 1 shows the unit cost data collected for in-place CRCP (including reinforcement). The vast
majority of these data are represented by Texas CRCP projects, which were bid on by contractors in 2001.
The minimum, maximum, and average bid prices for the Texas projects are depicted by the three dashed
lines. Considering both the average bid prices from Texas and the individual bid prices from projects in
Illinois, Oklahoma, and Virginia, a best-fit trend line relating CRCP thickness and unit cost was
developed and is shown as the solid line in Figure 1.
Based on the unit cost data collected and exhibited in Table 5 and Figure 1, best estimates of the unit
costs of several construction-related pay items were developed and used in the CRCP LCCA. These costs
are listed in the far right column of Table 5 and, with the exception of PCC shoulders, they largely reflect
the documented average value of the pay item. As noted at the bottom of the table, adjustments were
made to the unit costs of CRCP, to separate out the cost of reinforcing steel. A similar adjustment was
made to the unit costs of PCC shoulder to separate out the cost of longitudinal shoulder joint sealing.
Table 5. Summary of CRCP construction unit cost data collected from SHAs
Unit of Range in No. Agencies/ Unit Costs Used in LCCA,

Pay Item Description
Measure Unit Cost, $ No. Projects $
23.90
8-in. CRCP yd2 18.02 - 26.78 a 1 / 43
(15.55) b
28.05
9-in. CRCP yd2 21. 96 - 34.98 a 2 / 19
(18.25) b
9.75-in. CRCP yd2 29.85 a 1/1 —
31.75
10-in. CRCP yd2 20.85 - 44.48 a 2 / 18
(20.65) b
10.5-in. CRCP yd2 48.44 1/1 —
35.10
11-in. CRCP yd2 30.96 - 37.22 a 1/3
(22.80) b
11.75-in. CRCP yd2 32.54 - 38.44 a 2/3 —
38.15
12-in. CRCP yd2 28.00 - 43.64 a 2/9
(24.80) b
12.5-in. CRCP yd2 44.28 a 1/1 —
2 a
12.75-in. CRCP yd 55.40 1/1 —
2 a
13-in. CRCP yd 32.00 - 46.45 1/9 —
DAB ton 7.71 - 22.63 5 / 52 15.05
CTB ton 18.70 - 28.23 2/6 25.90
ATB ton 28.95 - 37.54 3/7 30.15
AC Base/Binder Course ton 27.50 - 46.00 3 / 40 37.20
AC Surface Course ton 32.64 - 47.40 3 / 30 40.00
2
8-in. PCC Shoulders yd — — 21.00 d
9-in. PCC Shoulders yd2 — — 23.25 d
10-in. PCC Shoulders yd2 30.74 - 32.56 c 1/3 25.25 d
10.5-in. PCC Shoulders yd2 35.40 - 39.33 c 1/2 —
2
11-in. PCC. Shoulders yd — — 27.00 d
11.75-in. PCC Shoulders yd2 23.29 - 25.49 c 1/2 —
2
12-in. PCC Shoulders yd — — 28.50 d
12.75-in. PCC Shoulders yd2 33.66 c 1/1 —
a) Includes cost of furnishing and placing PCC and all associated items, including joint seal and steel reinforcement.
b) Values in parentheses represent estimated unit costs of CRCP without steel reinforcement. These values used in
LCCA and represent 65 percent of total unit cost of CRCP.
c) Includes cost of furnishing and placing PCC and all associated items, including tie bars and longitudinal and
transverse joint seal.
d) Estimated unit cost of nondoweled, jointed plain concrete (JPC) shoulder, tied to mainline slab with #6 [#19] bars on
30-inch spacings. Does not include cost of longitudinal shoulder joint seal.
Other Projects (IL, OK, VA) TX Projects (minimum)
TX Projects (maximum) TX Projects (average)
60
50
2
CRC Unit Cost, $/yd
40
30
Best-Fit
Trendline
20 (all projects)
10
0
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
CRC Thickness, in
Figure 1. CRCP unit cost data for different slab thicknesses (2001 dollars)
Other Costs
In addition to the cost recommendations given in Table 5, the following initial construction unit costs
were deemed suitable for use in the LCCA:
• Select Material for Subgrade—$8.00/ton
• Asphalt Tack/Prime Coat—$0.10/yd2
• In-place Reinforcing Steel—$0.55/lb
• Longitudinal Shoulder Joint Sealing—$1.50/foot
The “Select Material for Subgrade” pay item was included with each alternative pavement structure and
its thickness was varied as necessary to make all structures have the same total thickness.
Check on Reasonableness of Initial Construction Unit Costs
To ensure that the unit costs derived from actual bid tabulation data produced relative costs consistent
with State and contractor estimates, the overall pavement structure costs for the 10 design feature
variations were computed. Table 6 lists the resulting structure costs (generated from the bid tab unit
costs) and the corresponding relative costs, as compared to the reference design. It also shows the mean
relative costs computed from the survey responses.
Table 6. Comparison of relative pavement structure costs
generated from bid tab data and survey responses
Total Initial Relative Cost, Mean Relative

Design Feature
Design Feature Cost, $million % Cost, % Differenceb
Variation
(from bid tabs) (from bid tabs)a (from survey)
A (8-in. CRCP) 1.525 85.96 84.80 1.16
Slab Thickness Ref. (10-in.

1.774 — — —
CRCP)
B (12-in. CRCP) 1.996 112.53 111.50 1.03
C (0.6%) 1.756 99.02 99.00 0.02
Longitudinal
Ref. (0.65%) 1.774 — — —
Steel Amount
D (0.7%) 1.809 101.97 101.60 0.37
E (6-in. DAB) 1.638 92.80 93.00 -0.20
Base
Ref. (4-in. ATB) 1.774 — — —
Type/Thickness
F (6-in. CTB) 1.827 103.02 104.75 -1.73
G (5-in. AC) 1.745 98.39 95.17 3.22
Shoulder Ref. (FDAC 1.774 — — —
Type/Thickness
H (full-depth
1.885 106.26 107.33 -1.07
tied PCC)
I (14 ft) 1.792 101.01 104.33 -3.32
Slab Width
Ref. (12 ft) 1.774 — — —
a) Relative cost = Total Initial Cost of Design Alternative ÷ Total Initial Cost of Reference Design
b) Difference = Relative Cost Computed from Bid Tab Data – Mean Relative Cost Computed from Survey Responses
As can be seen, there is generally good consistency between the relative costs computed from bid tab data
and the mean relative costs computed based survey responses. Most are within 2 percentage points of
each other. Only the 5-inch AC shoulder and the 14-feet widened lane showed appreciable differences
between the bid tab data and survey responses.
CRCP PERFORMANCE DATA
Another important component of LCCA is the service life of the initial pavement structure. Service life is
best defined as the time (or number of ESALs) it takes for a new pavement to deteriorate to a condition
that warrants major structural improvement in the form of an overlay, extensive restoration work, or
reconstruction. Typically, a pavement needing structural improvement possesses a rough ride and has
become too expensive to maintain.
To best estimate the service lives of the 13 representative designs given in Table 2, the performance
estimates obtained through the SHA survey were supplemented with historical CRCP performance data
and two recently developed CRCP performance models. This section of the report presents the results of
the CRCP performance survey and discusses past research on CRCP performance. It also shows the
projected service lives of CRCP designs using both an empirical performance model (Illinois DOT) and a
mechanistic–empirical model (NCHRP Project 1-37A). Lastly, it provides overall recommendations for
the service life values to be used in the LCCA of the 13 representative designs.
State Highway Agency Surveys
Of the six questionnaire surveys sent to SHAs, three responses were received. The respondents included
two States located in a wet-nonfreeze climate and one in a wet-freeze climate. Table 7 lists the
performance estimates provided by each responding State, based on a specified traffic loading forecast
(750,000 ESALs per year initially, annual ESAL growth rate of 3 percent) representative of a moderately
heavy, 4-lane Interstate highway. As can be seen, there is significant variation in the responses,
particularly between States with different climates.
Performance Studies
Over the years, several studies have been conducted to investigate the performance of CRCP. Most of
these studies, including many investigations in Texas and Illinois and a few national studies sponsored by
the FHWA and the NCHRP, have sought to identify the mechanisms of transverse crack and punchout
development or develop a theoretical model for predicting system behavior (Dhamrait and Taylor, 1979;
Gharaibeh et al., 1997; Gharaibeh, et al., 1999; Tang et al., 1996; Tayabji et al., 1995; Zollinger, et al.,
1998, Hallin, et al., 2003).
Table 7. CRCP service life estimates from State surveys
Design Estimated Service Life, years

Feature Description State 1 State 2 State 3
Variation
(Wet-Nonfreeze) (Wet-Nonfreeze) (Wet-Freeze)
10-in. CRCP, 0.65% steel,
Ref. 28 35 20
4-in. ATB, FDAC shoulder, 12-ft lane
A 8-in. CRCP 24 30 5
B 12-in. CRCP 30 40 50+
C 0.6% Steel 25 30 17
D 0.7% Steel 30 40 26
E 6-in. DAB 22 30 10
F 6-in. CTB (w/ asphalt interlayer) 30 28 9
G 5-in. AC Shoulder 28 30 20
H Full-Depth, Tied PCC Shoulder 33 40 20
a
I 14-ft lane 30 40
a) No estimate provided
Only two studies, the development of the 2002 Design Guide under NCHRP Project 1-37A and a 1999
statewide evaluation of CRCP in Illinois, have focused on the actual field performance effects of varying
specific design features. A general discussion of the findings of these studies as they relate to slab
thickness and width, steel percentage, base type, and shoulder type, is presented below.
NCHRP Project 1-37A (ERES and ASU, 2003)
The mechanistic-empirical 2002 Design Guide model developed under NCHRP Project 1-37A predicts
punchouts based on accumulated fatigue damage associated with the formation of a longitudinal crack
between two closely spaced transverse cracks. The longitudinal crack initiates at the top of the slab and
propagates downward through the CRCP slab after the transverse cracks have lost load transfer efficiency
(LTE).
The prediction period is divided into monthly time increments beginning with the traffic opening month.
Material properties, subgrade properties, axle loading, and climatic effects are predicted for each
increment. Within each increment a critical stress or deflection is calculated, as well as the damage
incurred in that increment. The incremental damage is accumulated month by month and is converted to
punchouts per mile using calibration models that relate the calculated damage to observed punchouts.
The general approach for selecting design inputs for materials and traffic in this model is based upon a
hierarchical (level) system. Level 1 normally involves comprehensive laboratory or field tests and data
collection. In contrast, level 3 uses default values or local experience to define the inputs. Level 3 inputs
were used in this study.
Illinois (Gharaibeh et al., 1999)
Using data on 786 CRCP construction sections throughout Illinois and collected from 5 field surveys
between 1977 and 1994, survival analyses were performed showing the influence of different design and
construction variables. Within each of four different levels of longitudinal steel percentage (< 0.6%, 0.6
to 0.64%, 0.65 to 0.69%, and ≥ 0.7%), it was found that increased slab thickness resulted in fewer failures
per mile. Also, a general reduction in the number of failures was found to exist corresponding to
increases in steel content and changes in base type (fewer failures noted for sections with ATB compared
to sections with granular and cement-treated bases). Note that the CTB material in Illinois was of
insufficient quality and CRCP with more durable CTB may be completely different.
The Illinois study also resulted in an empirical performance model relating the number of failures per
mile to three specific design parameters: traffic, a construction factor, and a materials durability factor.
The model is given as follows:
Loge FAIL = 11.57 - 2.11*SLABTHICK0.816 - 11.806*PSTEEL6.53 + 1.643*logeCESAL -

0.14*CAM - 1.534*BAM - 0.465*GRAN - 0.01*CHAIRS*logeCESAL +
0.397*DC
where: FAIL = Number of failures in the outside lane, #/mile

SLABTHICK = CRCP slab thickness, inches
PSTEEL = Longitudinal steel reinforcement, percent
CESAL = Cumulative ESALs since construction, millions
CAM = 1 if base material is cement-aggregate mix, 0 otherwise
BAM = 1 if base material is bituminous-aggregate mix, 0 otherwise
GRAN = 1 if base material is granular, 0 otherwise
CHAIRS = 1 if chairs used in placement of reinforcement, 0 if tubes used
DC = 1 if D-cracking exists, 0 otherwise
Performance Model Predictions
Using the 2002 Design Guide and Illinois CRCP performance models and the traffic level established for
the study (750,000 ESALs per year initially, annual ESAL growth rate of 3 percent), the predicted service
lives of the 10 design feature variations presented in the CRCP cost/performance survey and the 13
representative designs were computed. A value of 5 failures per mile was used as the threshold for
determining the expected life, and it was assumed that all designs included chairs for supporting
reinforcement and had no D-cracking.
In using the 2002 Design Guide CRCP performance model, two different predictions of service life were
developed: one corresponding to a pavement in a wet-freeze climate (e.g., Chicago, Illinois) and the other
to a pavement in a wet-nonfreeze climate (e.g., Dallas, Texas). Predictions from the Illinois model
represent the wet-freeze climate that Illinois experiences.
Table 8 shows the resulting model predictions for each design feature variation. As can be seen, the
predictions from the models are fairly comparable, with most being within a few years of each other. In
comparison with the SHA service life estimates, the model-predicted values are mostly considerably
higher, suggesting that the respondents’ estimates are more conservative. It should be pointed out that
some of the predictions listed for feature variations F, G, and H are the same as the predicted values for
the reference design. This is because AC shoulder thickness is not a factor in the 2002 Design Guide
model and shoulder type and lane width are not factors in the Illinois model.
Figure 2 shows the performance model prediction results for the 13 representative designs. As expected,
better performance is predicted for designs with thicker slabs, higher steel percentage, and ATB.
However, it should be noted that Illinois model predictions for designs using CTB are probably low, since
that model does not take into account the positive effect of including an asphalt bond-breaker between the
base and the PCC slab and because Illinois CTB was not of sufficient quality to prevent erosion.
Table 8. Performance model service life predictions for ten design feature variations
Predicted Service Life, years

Design
Feature Description 2002 Design Guide Illinois
2002 Design Guide
Variation Performance Model
(Wet-Nonfreeze) (Wet-Freeze)
(Wet-Freeze)
10-in. CRCP, 0.65% steel, 4-in.
Ref. 33 33 33
ATB, FDAC shoulder, 12-ft lane
A 8-in. CRCP 5 3 12
B 12-in. CRCP 50+ 50+ 50+
C 0.6% Steel 27 29 30
D 0.7% Steel 36 39 39
E 6-in. DAB 19 19 21
F 6-in. CTB (w/ asphalt interlayer) 32 34 18
a a
G 5-in. AC Shoulder 33 32 33 a
H Full-Depth, Tied PCC Shoulder 39 43 33 b
I 14-ft lane 47 50+ 33 c
a) Prediction is same as reference design, since model does not distinguish between FDAC and 5-inch AC shoulder.
b) Prediction is same as reference design, since model does not distinguish between FDAC and Tied PCC shoulder.
c) Prediction is same as reference design, since model does not distinguish between standard and widened lane.
Best Estimates of CRCP Service Life
To develop best estimates of service life for the 13 representative designs, two steps were taken. First, the
SHA estimates provided in Table 7 for the 10 design feature variations were extrapolated to produce
service life estimates for the 13 representative designs. This was done by multiplying the service life of
the reference design by the individual service life ratios associated with each changed design feature. For
instance, for Design 7, the 28-year life estimated by State 1 was multiplied by the service life ratio
associated with increased percentage steel (30/28 = 1.07) and the service life ratio associated with the
shoulder structure change (33/28 = 1.18). Thus, the State 1 extrapolated life for Design 7 was computed
as 28*1.07*1.18 = 35.3 years.
Illinois Model (w-f) 2002 DG Model (wet-nonfreeze) 2002 DG Model (wet-freeze)

60
50+ yrs
}
}
}
}
50
Estimated Service Life, yrs
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 (Ref) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Representative Design
Figure 2. Performance model service life predictions for 13 representative designs
The second step involved averaging the three extrapolated State service life values and the three model-
predicted service lives to reach a reasonable final estimate of life. In the case of Design 7, for example, a
best estimate of 39.4 years was computed by averaging the following:
• State 1 (wet-nonfreeze) extrapolation = 35.3 years.
• State 2 (wet-nonfreeze) extrapolation = 45.7 years.
• State 3 (wet-freeze) extrapolation = 26.0 years.
• 2002 Design Guide (wet-nonfreeze) model prediction = 47 years.
• 2002 Design Guide (wet-freeze) model prediction = 44 years.
• Illinois (wet-freeze) model prediction = 39 years.
Table 9 lists for all 13 representative designs the extrapolated service lives derived from the SHA survey
responses and the predicted lives computed from the 2002 Design Guide and Illinois performance models.
It also contains the final estimates used in the LCCA, which are simply rounded averages of the
extrapolated and predicted estimates.
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS
A benefit–cost (B–C) analysis was performed using documented initial cost data (column 4 in Table 6)
and average service life estimates/predictions (Tables 7 and 8). For each of the five design features, the
percent relative cost for initial construction and percent change in estimated life as compared to the
reference design were computed and plotted against one another. The resulting trends are shown in
Figure 3 in the form of a sensitivity plot.
Table 9. Service life estimates for the 13 representative designs
Average of
Extrapolated State 2002 Design Guide & Illinois
Representative Extrapolated and Service Life Used
Estimates of Service Performance Model Service
Design Predicted Life, in LCCA, years
Life, years Life Predictions, years
years
1 24.6, 23.5, NA 17, 18, 5 17.6 18
2 26.8, 31.8, 13.8 20, 24, 18 22.4 22
3 32.2, 29.7, NA 29, 29, 10 26.0 26
4 21.5, 27.3, 10.6 14, 15, 15 17.2 17
5 (ref.) 28.0, 35.0, 20.0 33, 33, 33 30.3 30
6 23.6, 34.3, NA 31, 29, 21 27.8 28
7 35.3, 45.7, 26.0 47, 44, 39 39.4 39
8 27.8, 39.2, 13.0 33, 30, 26 28.2 28
9 32.1, 32.0, 36.4 38, 36, 22 32.8 33
10 36.0, 49.0, 50.0 50, 50, 50 47.4 47
11 35.1, 39.2, NA 50, 50, 35 41.9 42
12 37.9, 36.6, 22.5 50, 50, 45 40.3 40
13 32.1, 45.7, 50.0 50, 50, 50 46.3 46
NA) Not available due to incomplete State estimate data.
The ideal situation in this sensitivity analysis would be to alter a particular design feature and to
experience as large a percentage increase in life for the smallest possible percentage increase in cost. As
seen in Figure 3, slab width, steel percentage, and slab thickness are the design features that should be
investigated to first to improve CRCP cost effectiveness.
This analysis is based on initial costs and expected life of CRCP. A more detailed LCCA that considers
future rehabilitation costs as well as initial costs is presented in the following section of this report.
LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS
Background
The most cost-effective combination of design features can be determined for a given project design
through life-cycle cost analysis. LCCA is an economic technique that allows comparisons of investment
alternatives having different cost streams over the analysis period. It is a formal, systematic approach that
considers the initial cost of building or renovating a pavement facility, all significant upkeep costs
anticipated over the pavement’s life, and the value of the pavement at the end of its life. In some cases,
LCCA can be made to include the costs incurred by highway users as a result of travel delays, accidents,
and increased vehicle operating costs.
Slab T hickness Percent Steel Base T ype/T hickness Shoulder T ype Slab Width
120
115
Percent Relative Cost
12-in CRC
110 T ied PCC
6-in CT B 105
0.7% steel 14-ft slab
0.6% steel
100
40 50 60 70 80 90 95 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
6-in DAB 5-in AC
90
85
8-in CRC
80
Percent Change in Estimated Life
Figure 3. Sensitivity plots for the five CRCP design features, compared to the reference design
Though there are several ways of performing a LCCA, the most common and accepted method is the Net
Present Worth (NPW) method. In NPW, all future costs (maintenance and rehabilitation) and benefits
(salvage value) projected for a particular design alternative over a specified analysis period are discounted
to present-day using a discount factor that reflects the long-term market interest rate and inflation rate.
The discounted costs and benefits are then summed with the initial cost of construction to calculate the
NPW. When comparing multiple design alternatives, the alternative with the lowest NPW is considered
to be the most cost-effective.
The equation for computing NPW is as follows:
NPW = Initial Cost + ∑ Future Cost/Benefitk * [1 / (1 + idis)nk]
where: idis = Discount rate (interest rate iint minus inflation rate iinf)
n = Year of expenditure
k = Individual cost or benefit item
For computing the NPW of each representative CRCP design, a 50-year analysis period and a 4 percent
discount rate were established. The 50-year analysis period covers the estimated service life of the
longest lasting design alternative (Design M, 42 years). The discount rate of 4 percent is close to the
mean discount rate experienced in the U.S. over the last few decades, and is commonly used by many
SHAs.
Salvage value represents the economic worth at the end of the analysis period. It consists of residual
value, which is the net value from recycling the pavement at the end of the analysis period, and
serviceable value, which is the value associated with the remaining life of the pavement at the end of the
analysis period. Although there are several ways of estimating salvage value, the most common method
and the one most recommended for long analysis periods is the prorated life method.
In the prorated life method, salvage value is determined by multiplying the ratio of the remaining life to
expected life of the pavement (original construction or rehabilitation) in-place at the end of analysis
period by the most recent cost of that pavement. The basic equation is as follows:
SV = (Lrem/Lexp) * Cpvt
where: SV = Salvage value, $

Lrem = Remaining life of subject pavement, years
Lexp = Expected life of subject pavement, years
Cpvt = Cost of subject pavement, $
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Strategies and Costs
CRCP can develop a variety of distresses, depending on the design, materials, and construction practices
used for a project, and the traffic and environmental loads incurred by them over time. For this study, it
has been assumed that proper materials and construction practices are used and thus no significant
materials- or construction-related distresses will develop. Only the ordinary distresses that occur with
time and traffic are considered, including spalling of transverse cracks and longitudinal joints, punchouts
and localized weak spots, and deteriorated patches and longitudinal joint seals. Appropriate treatments
for these distresses include longitudinal joint resealing, full-depth reinforced PCC repairs, and structural
AC overlays.
To simplify the LCCA, the following maintenance and rehabilitation strategies were assigned:
• Longitudinal joint resealing (100% of length) every 20 years until first rehabilitation.
• Limited (0.5% of surface area) full-depth PCC patching at 6 to 8 years prior to first rehabilitation.
• Rehabilitation #1—Resurfacing with 3-inch AC overlay at end of CRCP service life. Extensive
(2.5% of surface area) full-depth CRCP repair prior to overlay.
• AC crack routing and sealing (hot-pour) at 3 years (2,500 linear feet) and 7 years (1,500 linear
feet) following first rehabilitation.
• Rehabilitation #2—Resurfacing via 3-inch mill and AC replacement. Extensive (2.5% of surface
area) full-depth CRCP repair prior to AC replacement.
• AC crack routing and sealing at 3 years (2,500 linear feet) and 7 years (1,500 linear feet)
following second rehabilitation.
• Rehabilitation #3—Resurfacing via 3-inch mill and AC replacement. Extensive (2.5% of surface
area) full-depth CRCP repair prior to replacement.
• AC crack routing and sealing at 3 years (2,500 linear feet) and 7 years (1,500 linear feet)
following third rehabilitation.
• Rehabilitation #4—Reconstruction using the same CRCP design as initially used.
The service life of a 3-inch AC overlay on CRCP was estimated to be 13 years on average. However, for
the first resurfacing, this value was varied between 10 and 13 years to account for the pavement structure
on which the overlay would be placed (a thicker slab resulting in longer life) and the time at which it
would be placed (the farther into the future, the shorter the life due to substantially higher traffic
loadings). Also, the service lives of the second and third resurfacings, as compared to the first, were
shortened by 1 and 2 years, respectfully, to account for the additional projected traffic loadings. Finally,
for each resurfacing, the amounts of crack sealing for the first and second applications were fixed at 2,500
and 5,000 linear feet, respectively.
With respect to the upkeep of the paved shoulders, the following strategies were established for the
LCCA:
• 5-inch AC shoulders—Crack seal (4,000 linear feet) 7 years after initial construction. Mill 1.5
inches of surface, replace with new AC, and reseal longitudinal shoulder joint at 12 years after
initial construction. Mill 3 inches of surface, replace with new AC, and reseal longitudinal
shoulder joint every 12 years thereafter until first rehabilitation. Match each mainline
rehabilitation and seal cracks at 3 (2,500 linear feet) and 7 years (1,500 linear feet) after each
rehabilitation.
• Full-depth AC shoulders—Crack seal (3,000 linear feet) 7 years after initial construction. Apply
surface treatment and reseal longitudinal shoulder joint at 12 years after initial construction. Mill
1.5 inches of surface, replace with new AC, and reseal longitudinal shoulder joint every 12 years
thereafter until first rehabilitation. Match each mainline rehabilitation, except mill 1.5 inches
instead of 3 inches for the second and third rehabilitations. Seal cracks at 3 (2,500 linear feet)
and 7 years (1,500 linear feet) after each rehabilitation.
• Tied PCC shoulders—Reseal transverse joints and longitudinal shoulder joint every 15 years until
first rehabilitation. Match each mainline rehabilitation (including extensive [2.5% of surface
area] full-depth JPC repairs prior to resurfacing), except mill 1.5 inches instead of 3 inches for the
second and third rehabilitations. Seal cracks at 3 (4,000 linear feet) and 7 years (3,000 feet) after
each rehabilitation.
The following unit costs were assumed for the various maintenance and rehabilitation treatments. These
values are considered to be fairly representative of actual costs nationwide.
• Longitudinal and Transverse (in PCC Shoulder) Joint Resealing—$1.80/ft
• Full-Depth CRCP Repair—$200/yd2
• Full-Depth JPC Shoulder Repair—$100/yd2
• Crack Sealing in AC—$1.25/ft
• Cold Milling AC (3.0-inch depth)—$2.25/yd2
• Cold Milling AC (1.5-inch depth)—$1.50/yd2
• Surface Treatment—$0.80/yd2
Table 9 lists for each representative design the stream of costs projected over the 50-year analysis period.
Appendix C shows the detailed LCCA worksheet for each design.
Results
Figure 5 shows the resulting set of costs for each of the 13 representative designs. These include the
initial construction cost (light shading), the present-worth of all future costs including salvage value (dark
shading), and the NPW (listed at the top of each column). As can be seen, the design with the lowest
NPW is Design 4, which is a 9-inch-thick by 12-feet-wide CRCP with high steel percentage (0.7%),
supported by a dense aggregate base and a 5-inch AC shoulder.
Designs 6 and 8, both 10-inches CRCP with 0.65 to 0.7 percent steel and a dense aggregate base, are the
next most cost-effective designs. These are followed closely by Design 7 and reference design 5, which
are also 10-inch CRCP with 0.65 to 0.7 percent steel and an asphalt-treated base. The least cost-effective
designs were Designs 12 and 13 (12-inch CRCP supported by treated bases), Design 11 (11-inch CRCP
with a cement-treated base), and Design 1 (8-inch CRCP with a cement-treated base).
Table 9. Projected life-cycle models for CRCP design alternatives
Year Design 1 Design 2 Design 3 Design 4 Design 5 (Reference)
9-in. CRCP, 0.65% steel, 10-in. CRCP, 0.65%
8-in. CRCP, 0.6% steel, 9-in. CRCP, 0.6% steel, 9-in. CRCP, 0.7% steel,
6-in. CTB, Tied PCC steel,
0 6-in. CTB, FDAC 4-in. ATB, Tied PCC 6-in. DAB, 5-in. AC
shoulder, 12-ft lane 4-in. ATB, FDAC
shoulder, 14-ft lane shoulder, 12-ft lane shoulder, 12-ft lane
shoulder, 12-ft lane
1-6
7 S: crack seal S: crack seal S: crack seal
8
9
10
11
S: surf treatment, S: 1.5-in. mill/replace,
S: surf treatment,
12 reseal long. jts. reseal long. jts.
reseal long. jts.
M: full-depth patch M: full-depth patch
13
14
15 S: reseal long./trans. jts. S: reseal long./trans. jts
16 M: full-depth patch
17 M&S: 3-in. ACOL
18 M&S: 3-in. ACOL
20 M&S: crack seal M: reseal long. jt.
21 M&S: crack seal
22 M&S: 3-in. ACOL
S: 1.5-in. mill/replace,
24 M&S: crack seal
reseal long. jts.
25 M&S: crack seal M&S: crack seal
26 M&S: 3-in. ACOL
27
28
M: 3-in. mill/replace M&S: crack seal
29 M&S: crack seal M&S: 3-in. mill/replace
S: 1.5-in. mill/replace
30 M&S: 3-in. ACOL
31
M: 3-in. mill/replace
34
35
38
39
40 M&S: crack seal M&S: 3-in. mill/replace
41 M&S: crack seal
42 M&S: crack seal
43 M&S: crack seal
45
46 M&S: crack seal
47 M&S: crack seal
48 M&S: reconstruct M&S: crack seal M&S: crack seal
49
50 M&S: crack seal M&S: reconstruct
M = Mainline S = Shoulders ACOL = AC overlay
Table 9. Projected life-cycle models for CRCP design alternatives (continued)
Year Design 6 Design 7 Design 8 Design 9
10-in. CRCP, 0.65% steel, 10-in. CRCP, 0.7% steel, 10-in. CRCP, 0.7% steel, 10-in. CRCP, 0.7% steel,
0 6-in. DAB, FDAC 4-in. ATB, Tied PCC 6-in. DAB, Tied PCC 6-in. CTB, FDAC
shoulder, 14-ft lane shoulder, 12-ft lane shoulder, 12-ft lane shoulder, 12-ft lane
1-6
7 S: crack seal S: crack seal
8
9
10
11
S: surf treatment, S: surf treatment,
12
reseal long. jt. reseal long. jt.
13
14
15 S: reseal long./trans. jts. S: reseal long./trans. jts.
16
17
18
19
M: reseal long. jt. M: reseal long. jt.,
20 M: reseal long. jt. M: reseal long. jt.
full-depth patch full-depth patch
21
22
23
S: 1.5-in. mill/replace, S: 1.5-in. mill/replace,
24
25
27
28 M&S: 3-in. ACOL M&S: 3-in. ACOL
29
M: full-depth patch
30
S: reseal long./trans. jts.
32
33 M&S: 3-in. ACOL
34
36 M&S: crack seal
37
38
39 M&S: 3-in. ACOL
40 M&S: crack seal
41
43 M&S: crack seal
44
45
47 M&S: crack seal
48 M&S: crack seal
49
50
Table 9. Projected life-cycle models for CRCP design alternatives (continued)
Year Design 10 Design 11 Design 12 Design 13
12-in. CRCP, 0.65%
11-in. CRCP, 0.7% steel, 11-in. CRCP, 0.7% steel, 12-in. CRCP, 0.7% steel,
steel,
0 4-in. ATB, Tied PCC 6-in. CTB, FDAC 4-in. ATB, FDAC
6-in. CTB, Tied PCC
shoulder, 12-ft lane shoulder, 14-ft lane shoulder, 12-ft lane
shoulder, 12-ft lane
1-6
7 S: crack seal S: crack seal
8
9
10
11
S: surf treatment S: surf treatment,
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20 M: reseal long. jt. M: reseal long. jt. M: reseal long. jt. M: reseal long. jt.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
31
33
35
36
37
39
M: reseal long. jt. M&S: 3-in. ACOL
40 M: reseal long. jt. M: reseal long. jt.
full-depth patch
41
42 M&S: 3-in. ACOL
43 M&S: crack seal
44
45 S: reseal long./trans. jts. M&S: crack seal
46 M&S: 3-in. ACOL
47 M&S: 3-in. ACOL M&S: crack seal
48
50 M&S: crack seal
Initial Construction Cost Present-Worth of Future Costs
3.0
2.5 2.331
Total Cost, $million
2.174 2.159 2.211 2.200
2.147 2.094 2.075 2.071 2.123 2.124
2.023 2.048
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
(Ref)
Figure 5. Summary of projected total life-cycle costs

for 13 representative CRCP designs (for 50 year LCCA)
Figure 6 shows the relationship between expected service life and relative NPW. The columns represent
the service life while the line represents the relative NPW, as compared to reference Design 5. In other
words, the reference design is set at 100 percent, and the other designs are computed as a percentage of
Design 5’s NPW.
The relative NPW ranges from 96.6 percent (more cost-effective) to 111.3 percent (less cost-effective).
Generally speaking, the most cost-effective designs are those with moderately long (24 to 35 years)
service lives. However, the very low initial construction cost (9-inch slab, dense aggregate base, partial-
depth shoulder) of Design 4 helps outweigh its relatively short service life (17 years) to produce the
lowest NPW. Also, the extremely long life (45 years) of Design 13 helps outweigh its very high initial
construction cost (12-inch slab, 0.7% steel, ATB) to produce a relatively low NPW.
Concerning individual design features, the 9- and 10-inch slabs (Designs 4 through 9, respectively) were
generally most cost appropriate, whereas thinner slabs resulted in higher future costs and thicker slabs
resulted in higher initial costs. Among base types, the results suggest that the added expense of using
cement-treated aggregate is probably not justifiable. With respect to percentage of steel, shoulder type,
and slab width, indications about cost-effectiveness are far less certain. The only intimation that can be
made is that higher percentages of steel are generally economically beneficial.
Estimated Life Relative NPW
50 125
Estimated Life, years 45 120
40 115
Relative NPW, %
35 110
30 105
25 100
20 95
15 90
10 85
5 80
0 75
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
(Ref)
Figure 6. Expected service life and relative NPW of 13 representative CRCP designs
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Using best estimates of CRCP costs and performance, this study evaluated the cost effectiveness of five
key CRCP design features and computed the 50-year NPW of 13 representative CRCP designs. The
NPW computations were based on a traffic level of 750,000 ESALs per year initially and an annual ESAL
growth rate of 3 percent, which results in a cumulative 84.6 million ESALs over the 50-year analysis
period.
Based on the information collected and evaluated and the inputs established for the LCCA, the following
conclusions are made with respect to key CRCP design features:
• Slab thickness is one of the first features that should be considered when looking to make a
CRCP more cost-effective. A 1-in increase in thickness from 8 to 9 inches or from 10 to 11
inches is likely to increase initial cost by 5 to 8 percent and increase service life by 5 to 10 years.
For the LCCA conducted in this study, 9- and 10-inch slabs were generally among the most cost-
effective. However, this level of traffic is generally moderate compared to traffic on many CRCP
projects, so this finding would obviously vary with traffic level.
• Longitudinal steel amount, which is critical to establishing the desired transverse crack spacing
of 3 to 5 feet and crack width of 0.02 inches or less, should also be given prime consideration
when optimizing CRCP. While a minimum steel percentage value of 0.6 percent is generally
recommended, the results of the LCCA conducted in this study suggest that values of 0.65 and
0.7 percent can be more cost-effective. Increasing the percentage of steel reinforcement from 0.6
to 0.65 percent or from 0.65 to 0.7 percent yields a 1 to 2 percent increase in initial cost and a 3-
to 5-year increase in life.
• Base type is also an important feature in the cost and performance of CRCP. Though unbound
bases are more likely to experience erosion than bound bases, their lower initial cost may
outweigh the additional future costs. A 4-inch asphalt-treated base was found to be more cost-
effective than a 6-in cement-treated base.
• Shoulder type has a considerable impact on the initial cost of a CRCP structure, but less impact
on performance. As compared to a full-depth AC shoulder, partial-depth AC is 2 to 3 percent less
expensive initially and has marginal impact on CRCP performance. However, a partial-depth AC
shoulder will require greater amounts of maintenance and surface rehabilitation in the future,
which could offset the lower initial cost. A full-depth JPC shoulder, on the other hand, increases
initial cost by about 6 percent, but is likely to add at least two years of life to the CRCP structure.
Based on the detailed LCCA conducted in this study, the cost benefits seem to favor the full-
depth AC and full-depth JPC shoulder designs.
• Slab width does not appear to be as important as slab thickness and steel percentage in
optimizing CRCP. Nevertheless, it should not go without consideration. Though the estimated
additional cost of constructing a widened slab for CRCP design is not substantially high (2 to 3
percent more than a standard slab width), the 2 to 3 years minimum of additional life it is
expected to provide, can make it a cost-effective option.
These findings are limited to the designs, unit costs, and performance assumed in the analysis. This
document is mainly intended to provide the design engineer with some basic information on the life-cycle
costs, performance, and design of CRCP to assist in obtaining the most cost-effective design possible.
REFERENCES
Dhamrait, J.S. and R.K. Taylor. 1979. Behavior of Experimental CRC Pavements in Illinois, Technical
Report No. FHWA-IL-PR-82, Illinois Department of Transportation, Springfield, Illinois.
ERES Consultants. 2001. “Summary of CRCP Design and Construction Practices in the U.S.” Concrete
Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI) Report No. 8, CRSI, Schaumburg, Illinois.
Gharaibeh, N.G., M.I. Darter, and L.B. Heckel. 1999. Field Performance of Continuously Reinforced
Concrete Pavement in Illinois, Report No. FHWA-IL-UI-268, Illinois Department of Transportation,
Springfield, Illinois.
Gharaibeh, N.G., F. LaTorre, M.I. Darter, and D.L. Lippert. 1997. “Use of PMS Data for Pavement
Engineering Application,” Transportation Research Record No. 1592, Transportation Research Board,
Washington D.C.
ERES Consultants Division of Applied Research Associates, Inc. and Arizona State University (ERES
and ASU). 2003. “Development of the 2002 Design Guide for New and Rehabilitated Pavements,”
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 1-37A, NCHRP, Washington, D.C.
Selezneva, O.I., D. Zollinger, and M.I. Darter. 2001. “Mechanistic Analysis of Factors Leading to
Punchout Development for Improved CRCP Design Procedures,” Volume 2 Proceedings of 7th
International Conference on Concrete Pavements, Orlando, Florida.
Tang, T., D.G. Zollinger, and B.F. McCullough. 1996. “Field Tests and Analyses of Concrete Pavement
in Texarkana and La Porte, Texas,” Research Report 1244-7, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M
University, College Station, Texas.
Tayabji, S.D., P.J. Stephanos, and D.G. Zollinger. 1995. “Nationwide Field Investigation of
Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements,” Transportation Research Record No. 1482,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
Zollinger, D.G., N. Buch, D. Xin, and J. Soares. 1998. Performance of CRC Pavements. Volume 6 –
CRC Pavement Design, Construction, and Performance, Report No. FHWA-RD-97-151, Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), McLean, Virginia.
APPENDIX A—STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY SURVEY FORM
October 23, 2001 1
CRCP Design Features Cost Survey

Background
Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP) is a concrete pavement containing
longitudinal reinforcing steel that is continuous throughout the length of the pavement. It has no
transverse joints, other than construction joints and expansion joints at bridge approaches.
CRCP is one of the more common types of pavement used on moderate and high-volume
roadway facilities. It is extensively used by a handful of State highway agencies and frequently
used by several others, with fairly good success.
As with all pavement types, there are many different design features that affect how well a
CRCP performs and how much it costs to build. Features such as slab thickness and width, base
type, amount of steel reinforcement, drainage mechanisms, and shoulder type are perhaps the
most important inputs to CRCP design. However, other features, such as PCC and subsurface
material properties and transverse steel design, must also be seriously considered.
This survey is part of a study being sponsored by the Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute
(CRSI). Its purpose is to solicit useful CRCP cost and performance information from State
highway agencies experienced in CRCP construction. The information collected will be used to
conduct benefit/cost analyses, so as to identify the cost-effectiveness of various design features.
Survey Instructions
This survey consists of five pages covering the following categories and options of CRCP
design features:
1. Slab thickness (8, 10, and 12 inch).
2. Longitudinal reinforcing steel content (0.6, 0.65, and 0.7 percent).
3. Base type and thickness (6-inch dense-graded aggregate, 4-inch asphalt-treated, and 6-
inch cement-treated with asphalt breaker).
4. Shoulder type and thickness (5-inch AC, full-depth tapered AC, full-depth tied and
tapered PCC).
5. Slab width (standard 12-feet-wide lane, 14-feet widened lane).
For a given feature category, the cost of construction (relative to one overall reference design)
and the mean service life of each design should be carefully estimated.
An illustration and brief description of both the reference design and the alternative designs
are provided on each page. The estimated relative cost of each alternative design should be
recorded in the top portion of the corresponding box located on the right margin of the page. The
estimated costs should be given as percentages of the total project costs. Use values greater than
October 23, 2001 2
100 percent to indicate that a project with a specific alternative design will cost more than the
reference design. Use values less than 100 percent to indicate lower costs than the reference
section. Express each response to the nearest one percent. Do not give dollar amounts and
please remember to compare the total project cost of each alternative design to the total
project cost of the reference design.
For estimating the mean service life of each design, assume that the pavement will receive
750,000 equivalent single-axle loads (ESALs) in its first year of service and that it will
experience a 3 percent annual ESAL growth rate. The estimated mean service life of the
reference design and each alternative design should be recorded in the bottom portion of the
corresponding box located on the right margin of the page. The estimated service lives should be
given in terms of “years until first rehabilitation (e.g., overlay, concrete pavement restoration).”
Accuracy in completing this survey is critical to the success of the study. Please do not
hesitate to have other experienced estimators help complete the survey. If you have no
experience with a particular design feature option, put an X in the relative cost box.
Assumptions
For this survey, consider a 4-lane divided rural interstate highway project that is 5 miles long
and is built within 50 miles of your home office. Assume that the existing grade will be used
with no earth moving work or compaction required. Also assume that the subgrade has already
been adequately stabilized. Use the materials typically available and the methods typically
specified in your region for state highway work.
Clearly, there are an almost endless set of job specific conditions that can have an impact on
the relative cost information we have asked for. Focus on the highlighted features and assume the
most common circumstances, in your geographic area, for any items not specified.
Submission of Completed Survey Form

We have attempted to make the survey as easy as possible to complete. However, if you are
unsure about any particular items, please feel free to contact Dr. Nasir Gharaibeh
(ngharaibeh@ara.com) or Mr. Kelly Smith (klsmith@ara.com) at ERES Consultants (217-356-
4500). Thank you for your assistance in this undertaking. Please return the completed survey by
October 31, 2001 by FAX or mail to the following address:
ERES Consultants
Attn: Dr. Nasir Gharaibeh
505 W. University Avenue
FAX: (217) 356-3088
October 23, 2001 3
—————————————Slab Thickness————————————
CL
4-ft Inside 12-ft Passing 12-ft Driving 10-ft Outside

Shoulder Lane Lane Shoulder
Stabilized Subgrade
Longitudinal Steel = 0.65% (#6 bars @ 6.5 in) 10-in CRC 4-in Asphalt- 10-in Asphalt Concrete
Transverse Steel = 0.085% (#5 bars @ 36 in) Pavement Treated Base Shoulders (outside shoulder
tapered to 7.5 in, inside
Reference Section (10-in. CRCP) shoulder tapered to 9 in)
• Typical rural multi-lane divided highway with two 10-inch-thick by 12-feet-wide slabs.
• Longitudinal steel reinforcement (placed on chairs): 0.65 percent (#6 bars at 6.5-in spacing).
• Transverse steel reinforcement: 0.085 percent (#5 bars at 36-in spacing). Relative Cost?
• Longitudinal lane–lane joint sawcut to a depth of 3.25 inches and sealed with hot-applied 100%
rubberized asphalt. Mean Estimated Life?
years
• Full-depth, tapered AC shoulders, 10-feet wide on outside and 4-feet wide on inside.
• 4-inch-thick asphalt-treated base.
• Stabilized subgrade.
CL

Stabilized Subgrade
8-in. CRCP shoulder tapered to 7 in)
Same as reference section except: Relative Cost?

• Two 8-inch-thick by 12-feet-wide slabs. %
• Longitudinal lane–lane joint sawcut to a depth of 2.75 inches and sealed with hot-applied Mean Estimated Life?
rubberized asphalt. years
CL

Stabilized Subgrade
shoulder tapered to 11 in)
12-in. CRCP
• Two 12-inch-thick by 12-feet-wide slabs. %
• Longitudinal lane–lane joint sawcut to a depth of 4.0 inches and sealed with hot-applied Mean Estimated Life?
rubberized asphalt. years
October 23, 2001 4
—————————Longitudinal Steel Reinforcement—————————
CL

Stabilized Subgrade
Reference Section (0.65% Longitudinal Steel Reinforcement) shoulder tapered to 9 in)
• Typical rural multi-lane divided highway with two 10-inch- thick by 12-feet-wide slabs.
• Longitudinal steel reinforcement (placed on chairs): 0.65 percent (#6 bars at 6.5-in spacing). Relative Cost?
• Transverse steel reinforcement: 0.085 percent (#5 bars at 36-in spacing) 100%
• Longitudinal lane–lane joint sawcut to a depth of 3.25 inches and sealed with hot-applied
rubberized asphalt.
CL

Stabilized Subgrade
0.60% Longitudinal Steel Reinforcement
• Longitudinal steel reinforcement (placed on chairs): 0.60 percent (#6 bars at 6.875-in %
Mean Estimated Life?
spacing).
years
CL

Stabilized Subgrade
0.70% Steel Reinforcement
• Longitudinal steel reinforcement (placed on chairs): 0.70 percent (#6 bars at 6-inch spacing). %
years
October 23, 2001 5
——————————Base Type and Thickness——————————
CL

Stabilized Subgrade
Reference Section (4-in Asphalt Treated Base) shoulder tapered to 9 in)
100%
rubberized asphalt.
• 4-inch thick asphalt-treated base.
CL

Stabilized Subgrade
Longitudinal Steel = 0.65% (#6 bars @ 6.5 in) 10-in CRC 6-in Dense 10-in Asphalt Concrete
Transverse Steel = 0.085% (#5 bars @ 36 in) Pavement Aggregate Base Shoulders (outside shoulder
6-in Dense Aggregate Base
• CRCP slabs rest on a 6-inch dense aggregate base. %
years
CL

Stabilized Subgrade
Longitudinal Steel = 0.65% (#6 bars @ 6.5 in) 10-in CRC 6-in Cement- 10-in Asphalt Concrete
Double Asphalt shoulder tapered to 9 in)
6-in Cement-Treated Base Prime Coat

• CRCP slabs rest on a 6-inch cement-treated base. A double application of an asphalt prime %
coat is also included as a bond breaker between the PCC surface and the cement-treated base. Mean Estimated Life?
years
October 23, 2001 6
—————————————Shoulder Type—————————————
CL

Stabilized Subgrade
Reference Section (Full-Depth, Tapered AC Shoulder) shoulder tapered to 9 in)
• Transverse steel reinforcement: 0.085 percent (#5 bars at 36-inch spacing). 100%
rubberized asphalt.
CL

Stabilized Subgrade
Transverse Steel = 0.085% (#5 bars @ 36 in) Pavement Treated Base Shoulders (no tapers)
5-in AC Shoulder Relative Cost?

%
Same as reference section except:
• Partial-depth (5 inch), non-tapered AC shoulders, 10-feet wide on outside and 4-feet wide on years
inside.
CL

Stabilized Subgrade
Longitudinal Steel = 0.65% (#6 bars @ 6.5 in) 10-in CRC 4-in Asphalt- 10-in Tied PCC Shoulders
Transverse Steel = 0.085% (#5 bars @ 36 in) Pavement Treated Base (outside shoulder tapered
to 7.5 in, inside shoulder
tapered to 9 in)
Full-Depth Tied and Tapered PCC Shoulder
• Full-depth, tapered PCC shoulders (jointed, nondoweled) tied with #5 deformed bars on 48- %
inch spacings.
years
October 23, 2001 7
—————————————Slab Width—————————————
CL

Stabilized Subgrade
Reference Section (Standard 12-foot Wide Driving Lane)

• Transverse steel reinforcement: 0.085 percent (#5 bars at 36-in spacing). 100%
rubberized asphalt.
CL
4-ft Inside 12-ft Passing 14-ft Driving Lane 8-ft Outside

Shoulder Lane (striped at 12 ft) Shoulder
Stabilized Subgrade
tapered to 8 in, inside
14-foot Widened Driving Lane
Relative Cost?
%
• One 12-feet-wide slab (passing lane) and one 14-feet-wide slab (driving lane). Mean Estimated Life?
• 8-feet-wide outside shoulder (full-depth, tapered AC). years
APPENDIX B—PCC CONTRACTOR SURVEY FORM
October 23, 2001 1
CRCP Design Features Cost Survey

Background
Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP) is a concrete pavement containing
longitudinal reinforcing steel that is continuous throughout the length of the pavement. It has no
transverse joints, other than construction joints and expansion joints at bridge approaches.
CRCP is one of the more common types of pavement used on moderate and high-volume
roadway facilities. It is extensively used by a handful of State highway agencies and frequently
used by several others, with fairly good success.
As with all pavement types, there are many different design features that affect how well a
CRCP performs and how much it costs to build. Features such as slab thickness and width, base
type, amount of steel reinforcement, drainage mechanisms, and shoulder type are perhaps the
most important inputs to CRCP design. However, other features, such as PCC and subsurface
material properties and transverse steel design, must also be seriously considered.
Pavement designers often do not have a good sense of how much benefit is gained by varying
a particular feature or multiple features. There is even less of an understanding of how such
variations affect the life cycle cost of the design. Hence, it is important to ask: Are design
changes necessary? Are they worth the higher or lower cost?
This survey is intended to collect information from paving contractors experienced in CRCP
construction to help define the cost side of this benefit/cost analysis. It is part of a study being
sponsored by the Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI).
Survey Instructions
This survey consists of five pages covering the following categories and options of CRCP
design features:
1. Slab thickness (8, 10, and 12 inches).
2. Longitudinal reinforcing steel content (0.6, 0.65, and 0.7 percent).
3. Base type and thickness (6 inch dense-graded aggregate, 4 inch asphalt-treated, and 6
inch cement-treated with asphalt breaker).
4. Shoulder type and thickness (5 inches AC, full-depth tapered AC, full-depth tied and
tapered PCC).
5. Slab width (standard 12-feet wide lane, 14-feet widened lane).
October 23, 2001 2
For a given feature category, the cost of each alternative design, relative to one overall
reference design, should be carefully estimated. An illustration and brief description of both the
reference design and the alternative design are provided, and the estimated relative cost of the
alternative design should be recorded in the corresponding box located on the right margin of the
page. The estimated costs should be given as percentages of the total project costs. Use values
greater than 100 percent to indicate that a project with a specific alternative design will cost more
than the reference design. Use values less than 100 percent to indicate lower costs than the
reference section. Express each response to the nearest one percent. Do not give dollar
amounts and please remember to compare the total project cost of each alternative design
to the total project cost of the reference design. Accuracy in completing this survey is critical
to the success of the study. Please do not hesitate to have other experienced estimators help
complete the survey. If you have no experience with a particular design feature option, put an X
in the relative cost box.
Assumptions
For this survey, consider a 4-lane divided rural interstate highway project that is 5 miles long
and is built within 50 miles of your home office. Assume that the existing grade will be used
with no earth moving work or compaction required. Also assume that the subgrade has already
been adequately stabilized. Use the materials typically available and the methods typically
specified in your region for state highway work.
Clearly, there are an almost endless set of job specific conditions that can have an impact on
the relative cost information we have asked for. Focus on the highlighted features and assume the
most common circumstances, in your geographic area, for any items not specified.
Submission of Completed Survey Form

We have attempted to make the survey as easy as possible to complete. However, if you are
unsure about any particular items, please feel free to contact Dr. Nasir Gharaibeh
(ngharaibeh@ara.com) or Mr. Kelly Smith (klsmith@ara.com) at ERES Consultants (217-356-
4500). Thank you for your assistance in this undertaking. Please return the completed survey by
October 31, 2001 by FAX or mail to the following address:
ERES Consultants
Attn: Dr. Nasir Gharaibeh
505 W. University Avenue
FAX: (217) 356-3088
October 23, 2001 3
—————————————Slab Thickness————————————
CL

Stabilized Subgrade
Reference Section (10-in. CRCP) shoulder tapered to 9 in)
rubberized asphalt. 100%
CL

Stabilized Subgrade
8-in. CRCP shoulder tapered to 7 in)

• Two 8-inch-thick by 12-feet-wide slabs.
• Longitudinal lane–lane joint sawcut to a depth of 2.75 inches and sealed with hot-applied %
rubberized asphalt.
CL

Stabilized Subgrade
12-in. CRCP
• Two 12-inch-thick by 12-feet-wide slabs.
• Longitudinal lane–lane joint sawcut to a depth of 4.0 inches and sealed with hot-applied %
rubberized asphalt.
October 23, 2001 4
—————————Longitudinal Steel Reinforcement—————————
CL

Stabilized Subgrade
Reference Section (0.65% Longitudinal Steel Reinforcement) shoulder tapered to 9 in)
• Transverse steel reinforcement: 0.085 percent (#5 bars at 36-in spacing) Relative Cost?
rubberized asphalt. 100%
CL

Stabilized Subgrade
0.60% Longitudinal Steel Reinforcement
• Longitudinal steel reinforcement (placed on chairs): 0.60 percent (#6 bars at 6.875-in
spacing). %
CL

Stabilized Subgrade
0.70% Steel Reinforcement
• Longitudinal steel reinforcement (placed on chairs): 0.70 percent (#6 bars at 6-in spacing).
%
October 23, 2001 5
——————————Base Type and Thickness——————————
CL

Stabilized Subgrade
Reference Section (4-in Asphalt Treated Base) shoulder tapered to 9 in)
• Transverse steel reinforcement: 0.085 percent (#5 bars at 36-in spacing).
• Longitudinal lane–lane joint sawcut to a depth of 3.25 inches and sealed with hot-applied 100%
rubberized asphalt.
CL

Stabilized Subgrade
Longitudinal Steel = 0.65% (#6 bars @ 6.5 in) 10-in CRC 6-in Dense 10-in Asphalt Concrete
Transverse Steel = 0.085% (#5 bars @ 36 in) Pavement Aggregate Base Shoulders (outside shoulder
6-in. Dense Aggregate Base
• CRCP slabs rest on a 6-inch dense aggregate base.
%
CL

Stabilized Subgrade
Longitudinal Steel = 0.65% (#6 bars @ 6.5 in) 10-in CRC 6-in Cement- 10-in Asphalt Concrete
Double Asphalt shoulder tapered to 9 in)
6-in. Cement-Treated Base Prime Coat

• CRCP slabs rest on a 6 inch cement-treated base. A double application of an asphalt prime Relative Cost?
coat is also included as a bond breaker between the PCC surface and the cement-treated base.
%
October 23, 2001 6
—————————————Shoulder Type—————————————
CL

Stabilized Subgrade
Reference Section (Full-Depth, Tapered AC Shoulder) shoulder tapered to 9 in)
• Longitudinal steel reinforcement (placed on chairs): 0.65 percent (#6 bars at 6.5-inch spacing).
• Transverse steel reinforcement: 0.085 percent (#5 bars at 36-inch spacing). Relative Cost?
• Longitudinal lane–lane joint sawcut to a depth of 3.25 inches and sealed with hot-applied rubberized
asphalt.
100%
CL

Stabilized Subgrade
Transverse Steel = 0.085% (#5 bars @ 36 in) Pavement Treated Base Shoulders (no tapers)
5-in. AC Shoulder Relative Cost?

• Partial-depth (5 inch), non-tapered AC shoulders, 10-feet wide on outside and 4-feet wide on inside. %
CL

Stabilized Subgrade
Longitudinal Steel = 0.65% (#6 bars @ 6.5 in) 10-in CRC 4-in Asphalt- 10-in Tied PCC Shoulders
Transverse Steel = 0.085% (#5 bars @ 36 in) Pavement Treated Base (outside shoulder tapered
to 7.5 in, inside shoulder
tapered to 9 in)
Full-Depth Tied and Tapered PCC Shoulder
• Full-depth, tapered PCC shoulders (jointed, nondoweled) tied with #5 deformed bars on 48-inch
spacings. %
October 23, 2001 7
—————————————Slab Width—————————————
CL

Stabilized Subgrade
Reference Section (Standard 12-foot Wide Driving Lane)

• Transverse steel reinforcement: 0.085 percent (#5 bars at 36-in spacing).
• Longitudinal lane–lane joint sawcut to a depth of 3.25 inches and sealed with hot-applied rubberized 100%
asphalt.
CL
4-ft Inside 12-ft Passing 14-ft Driving Lane 8-ft Outside

Shoulder Lane (striped at 12 ft) Shoulder
Stabilized Subgrade
tapered to 8 in, inside
14-foot Widened Driving Lane
• One 12-feet-wide slab (passing lane) and one 14-feet-wide slab (driving lane).
• 8-feet-wide outside shoulder (full-depth, tapered AC).
%
APPENDIX C—LCCA WORKSHEETS
LCCA for Design 1
(8-in. CRCP, 0.6% steel, 6-in. CTB, FDAC shoulder, 14-ft wide slab)
Facility Type: 4-lane rural Interstate PCC Thickness, in: 8.0

Length of Section, ft: 5,280.0 Percent Longitudinal Steel: 0.60
Driving Lane Width, ft: 14.0 Percent Transverse Steel: 0.085
Passing Lane Width, ft: 12.0 Base Type: Cement-Treated
2
Pavement Area, ft : 274,560 Base Thickness, in: 6.0
Outside Shoulder Width, ft: 8.0 Analysis Period, years: 50
Inside Shoulder Width, ft: 4.0 Discount Rate, %: 4.0
2
Shoulder Area, ft : 126,720 Initial Year of Construction: 2002
UNIT PRESENT
CONSTRUCTION ITEMS YEAR QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST WORTH
INITIAL CONSTRUCTION (year 0)

2
8-in CRC (incl. long. lane-lane joint seal, excl. steel) 0 30,507 yd $15.55 $474,379 $474,379
Long. Steel---14-ft lane (#6 bars@8.84 in = 18/slab, 1.502 lb/f 0 285,500 lb $0.55 $157,025 $157,025
Long. Steel---12-ft lane (#6 bars@8.47 in = 16/slab, 1.502 lb/f 0 253,778 lb $0.55 $139,578 $139,578
Trans. Steel (#5 bars@36 in = 1760/mi, 1.043 lb/ft) 0 95,455 lb $0.55 $52,500 $52,500
2
Double Asphalt Prime Coat (CRC/CTB interlayer) 0 61,013 yd $0.10 $6,101 $6,101
3
6-in Cement-Treated Base (140 lb/ft ) 0 9,610 ton $25.90 $248,889 $248,889
3
10-in Select Material for Subgrade (115 lb/ft ) 0 13,156 ton $8.00 $105,248 $105,248
3
2-in AC Surface Course (150 lb/ft )---Shoulders 0 1,584 ton $40.00 $63,360 $63,360
3
6-in AC Binder Course (145 lb/ft )---Shoulders 0 3,956 ton $37.20 $147,148 $147,148
2
Tack Coat (AC/CTB interlayer)---Shoulders 0 14,080 yd $0.10 $1,408 $1,408
3
6-in Cement-Treated Base (140 lb/ft )---Shoulders 0 4,435 ton $25.90 $114,872 $114,872
3
Long. Shoulder Joint Seal (hot pour, 0.5 in x 0.5 in) 0 21,120 ft $1.50 $31,680 $31,680
INITIAL CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $1,590,764 $1,590,764
FUTURE MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION

Crack Sealing on Shoulders (3000 ft) 7 3,000 ft $1.25 $3,750 $2,850
2
Full-Depth CRC Patching (0.5% of surface area) 12 153 yd $200.00 $30,507 $19,054
2
Surface Treatment on Shoulders 12 14,080 yd $0.80 $11,264 $7,035
Reseal Long Shoulder Joints 12 21,120 ft $1.80 $38,016 $23,745
2
2
Tack Coat on Mainline 18 30,507 yd $0.10 $3,051 $1,506
2-in AC Binder Course on Mainline and Shoulders 18 5,016 ton $37.20 $186,595 $92,109
1-in AC Surface Course on Mainline and Shoulders 18 2,508 ton $40.00 $100,320 $49,521
Crack Sealing on Mainline (2500 ft) 21 2,500 ft $1.25 $3,125 $1,371
Crack Sealing on Mainline (1500 ft) 25 1,500 ft $1.25 $1,875 $703
Crack Sealing on Shoulders (1500 ft) 25 1,500 ft $1.25 $1,875 $703
2
3-in Milling on Mainline 29 30,507 yd $2.25 $68,640 $22,010
2
1.5-in Milling on Shoulders 29 14,080 yd $1.50 $21,120 $6,772
2
2
Tack Coat on Mainline 29 30,507 yd $0.10 $3,051 $978
2-in AC Binder Course on Mainline 29 3,432 ton $37.20 $127,670 $40,938
1-in AC Surface Course on Mainline 29 1,716 ton $37.20 $63,835 $20,469
1.5-in AC Surface Course on Shoulders 29 1,188 ton $40.00 $47,520 $15,237
2
2
2
2
Reconstruct Mainline and Shoulders 48 $1,590,764 $242,106
FUTURE M&R TOTAL $3,115,539 $782,124
TOTAL INITIAL COST (year 0): $1,590,764 $1,590,764

TOTAL MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION COSTS (year 1 through 50): $3,115,539 $782,124
50 SALVAGE VALUE: ($1,414,012) ($198,969)
PRESENT WORTH: $2,173,919
LCCA for Design 2
(9-in. CRCP, 0.6% steel, 4-in. ATB, Tied PCC shoulder, 12-ft wide slab)

Passing Lane Width, ft: 12.0 Base Type: Asphalt-Treated
2
2
UNIT PRESENT

2
Long. Steel (#6 bars@7.56 in = 18/slab, 1.502 lb/ft) 0 571,000 lb $0.55 $314,050 $314,050
3
4-in Asphalt-Treated Base (140 lb/ft ) 0 5,914 ton $30.15 $178,295 $178,295
2
Prime Coat (atop prepared subgrade) 0 28,160 yd $0.10 $2,816 $2,816
3
2
JPC (20-ft joints, sealed w/ hot pour; eff. thick = 8 in) 0 16,427 yd $23.25 $381,920 $381,920
3
4-in Asphalt-Treated Base (140 lb/ft )---Shoulders 0 3,450 ton $30.15 $104,005 $104,005
2
Prime Coat (atop prepared subgrade)---Shoulders 0 16,427 yd $0.10 $1,643 $1,643
3

Reseal Trans Shoulder Joints 15 7,392 ft $1.80 $13,306 $7,388
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
FUTURE M&R TOTAL $1,463,924 $433,561

50 SALVAGE VALUE: ($231,915) ($32,633)
LCCA for Design 3
(9-in. CRCP, 0.65% steel, 6-in. CTB, Tied PCC shoulder, 12-ft wide slab)

2
2
UNIT PRESENT

2
Long. Steel---(#6 bars@7.25 in = 19/slab, 1.502 lb/ft) 0 602,723 lb $0.55 $331,497 $331,497
2
3
3
2
3
2
Double Asphalt Prime Coat (JPC/CTB interlayer) 0 32,853 yd $0.10 $3,285 $3,285
3

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
FUTURE M&R TOTAL $1,457,674 $384,243

50 SALVAGE VALUE: ($309,220) ($43,511)
LCCA for Design 4
(9-in. CRCP, 0.7% steel, 6-in. DAB, 5-in. AC shoulder, 12-ft wide slab)

Passing Lane Width, ft: 12.0 Base Type: Dense Aggregate
2
2
UNIT PRESENT

2
3
6-in Dense Aggregate Base (120 lb/ft ) 0 7,603 ton $15.05 $114,428 $114,428
3
3 2
2-in AC Surface Course (150 lb/ft )---Shoulders 0 1,848 yd $40.00 $73,920 $73,920
3
3
Dense Agg Base (120 lb/ft )---Shoulders top 0 2,191 ton $15.05 $32,978 $32,978
3
6-in Dense Agg Base (120 lb/ft )---Shoulders bottom 0 4,435 ton $15.05 $66,750 $66,750
3

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Reconstruct Mainline and Shoulders 50 $1,453,425 $204,515
FUTURE M&R TOTAL $2,991,623 $773,839

50 SALVAGE VALUE: ($1,453,425) ($204,515)
LCCA for Reference Design 5
(10-in. CRCP, 0.65% steel, 4-in. ATB, FDAC shoulder, 12-ft wide slab)

2
2
UNIT PRESENT

2
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3

2
Reseal Long Lane-Lane Joints 20 10,560 ft $1.80 $19,008 $8,675
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
FUTURE M&R TOTAL $1,122,917 $326,354

50 SALVAGE VALUE: ($46,383) ($6,527)
LCCA for Design 6
(10-in. CRCP, 0.65% steel, 6-in. DAB, FDAC shoulder, 14-ft wide slab)

2
2
UNIT PRESENT

2
Long. Steel---14-ft lane (#6 bars@6.5 in = 25/slab, 1.502 lb/ft) 0 396,528 lb $0.55 $218,090 $218,090
3
3
3 2
2-in AC Surface Course (150 lb/ft )---Shoulders 0 1,584 yd $40.00 $63,360 $63,360
3
3
6-in Dense Agg Base (120 lb/ft )---Shoulders 0 3,802 ton $15.05 $57,214 $57,214
3

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
FUTURE M&R TOTAL $1,628,823 $421,300

50 SALVAGE VALUE: ($430,551) ($60,584)
LCCA for Design 7

Pavement Area, ft2: 253,440 Base Thickness, in: 4.0
2
UNIT PRESENT

10-in CRC (incl. long. lane-lane joint seal, excl. steel) 0 28,160 yd2 $20.65 $581,504 $581,504
3
2
3
JPC (20-ft joints, sealed w/ hot pour; eff. thick = 9 in) 0 16,427 yd2 $25.25 $414,773 $414,773
4-in Asphalt-Treated Base (140 lb/ft3)---Shoulders 0 3,450 ton $30.15 $104,005 $104,005
Prime Coat (atop prepared subgrade)---Shoulders 0 16,427 yd2 $0.10 $1,643 $1,643
10-in Select Material for Subgrade (115 lb/ft3) 0 7,084 ton $8.00 $56,672 $56,672

Full-Depth CRC Patching (0.5% of surface area) 30 141 yd2 $200.00 $28,160 $8,682
2
2
FUTURE M&R TOTAL $590,342 $156,761

TOTAL MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION COSTS (year 1 through 50): $590,342 $156,761
50 SALVAGE VALUE: $0 $0
LCCA for Design 8
(10-in. CRCP, 0.7% steel, 6-in. DAB, Tied PCC shoulder, 12-ft wide slab)

2
Shoulder Area, ft2: 147,840 Initial Year of Construction: 2002
UNIT PRESENT

10-in CRC (incl. long. lane-lane joint seal, excl. steel) 0 28,160 yd2 $20.65 $581,504 $581,504
3
JPC (20-ft joints, sealed w/ hot pour; eff. thick = 9 in) 0 16,427 yd2 $25.25 $414,773 $414,773
3
6-in Dense Agg Base (120 lb/ft )---Shoulders 0 4,435 ton $15.05 $66,750 $66,750

2
3-in Milling on Mainline 40 28,160 yd2 $2.25 $63,360 $13,197
2
Tack Coat on Mainline 40 28,160 yd2 $0.10 $2,816 $587
FUTURE M&R TOTAL $1,012,851 $294,761

50 SALVAGE VALUE: ($42,166) ($5,933)
LCCA for Design 9

2
2
UNIT PRESENT

2
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
FUTURE M&R TOTAL $1,119,167 $295,843

50 SALVAGE VALUE: ($252,998) ($35,600)
LCCA for Design 10

2
2
UNIT PRESENT

2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3

2
2
FUTURE M&R TOTAL $650,672 $139,752

50 SALVAGE VALUE: ($301,372) ($42,407)
LCCA for Design 11

2
2
UNIT PRESENT

2
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3

2
2
2
2
2
2
FUTURE M&R TOTAL $764,132 $201,373

50 SALVAGE VALUE: ($88,500) ($12,453)
LCCA for Design 12
(12-in. CRCP, 0.65% steel, 6-in. CTB, Tied PCC shoulder, 12-ft wide slab)

2
2
UNIT PRESENT

2
2
3
3
2
3
2
Double Asphalt Prime Coat (JPC/CTB interlayer) 0 32,853 yd $0.10 $3,285 $3,285
3

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
FUTURE M&R TOTAL $1,054,173 $217,715

50 SALVAGE VALUE: ($463,830) ($65,267)
LCCA for Design 13
(12-in. CRCP, 0.7% steel, 4-in. ATB, FDAC shoulder, 12-ft wide slab)

2
2
UNIT PRESENT

2
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3

2
2
2
2
2
2
FUTURE M&R TOTAL $770,825 $193,053

50 SALVAGE VALUE: ($258,319) ($36,349)
APPENDIX D—LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

AC asphaltic concrete
ACOL asphaltic concrete overlay
ATB asphalt-treated base
BC benefit-cost
CTB cement-treated base
CRCP continuously reinforced concrete pavement
DAB dense aggregate base
DOT Department of Transportation
ESALs equivalent single axle loads
FDAC full-depth asphaltic concrete
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
JPC jointed plain Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute
LCCA life-cycle cost analysis
LTE load transfer efficiency
LTPP program Long-Term Pavement Performance program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NPW net present worth
OGPB open-graded permeable base
PCC portland cement concrete
SHA State Highways Authority

Life Cycle Cost Anaysis of CRCP

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Life Cycle Cost Anaysis of CRCP

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS OF CONTINUOUSLY

REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENTS (CRCP)

Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute

Kelly L. Smith, Nasir G. Gharaibeh, and Michael I. Darter

KEY CRCP DESIGN FEATURES

TYPICAL CRCP DESIGN CROSS-SECTIONS

CRCP COST DATA6

CRCP PERFORMANCE DATA

LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

APPENDIX A—STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY SURVEY FORM

APPENDIX B—PCC CONTRACTOR SURVEY FORMS

APPENDIX C—LCCA WORKSHEETS

APPENDIX D—LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

KEY CRCP DESIGN FEATURES

Table 1. CRCP design features by State (CRSI, 2001)

State Highway Agency

Longitudinal 8-in. slab:

Table 2. Matrix of CRCP design combinations evaluated

Design Feature Reference Design Design Variations

CRCP COST DATA

State Highway Agency and PCC Contractor Surveys

Documented Unit Cost Data

Unit of Range in No. Agencies/ Unit Costs Used in LCCA,

Check on Reasonableness of Initial Construction Unit Costs

Total Initial Relative Cost, Mean Relative

Slab Thickness Ref. (10-in.

CRCP PERFORMANCE DATA

State Highway Agency Surveys

Table 7. CRCP service life estimates from State surveys

Design Estimated Service Life, years

Illinois (Gharaibeh et al., 1999)

Loge FAIL = 11.57 - 2.11*SLABTHICK0.816 - 11.806*PSTEEL6.53 + 1.643*logeCESAL -

where: FAIL = Number of failures in the outside lane, #/mile

Predicted Service Life, years

Illinois Model (w-f) 2002 DG Model (wet-nonfreeze) 2002 DG Model (wet-freeze)

Figure 2. Performance model service life predictions for 13 representative designs

Table 9. Service life estimates for the 13 representative designs

The equation for computing NPW is as follows:

NPW = Initial Cost + ∑ Future Cost/Benefitk * [1 / (1 + idis)nk]

where: SV = Salvage value, $

Maintenance and Rehabilitation Strategies and Costs

Figure 5. Summary of projected total life-cycle costs

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

CRCP Design Features Cost Survey

Submission of Completed Survey Form

4-ft Inside 12-ft Passing 12-ft Driving 10-ft Outside

4-ft Inside 12-ft Passing 12-ft Driving 10-ft Outside

Same as reference section except: Relative Cost?

4-ft Inside 12-ft Passing 12-ft Driving 10-ft Outside

4-ft Inside 12-ft Passing 12-ft Driving 10-ft Outside

4-ft Inside 12-ft Passing 12-ft Driving 10-ft Outside

4-ft Inside 12-ft Passing 12-ft Driving 10-ft Outside

4-ft Inside 12-ft Passing 12-ft Driving 10-ft Outside

4-ft Inside 12-ft Passing 12-ft Driving 10-ft Outside

4-ft Inside 12-ft Passing 12-ft Driving 10-ft Outside

Same as reference section except: Relative Cost?

4-ft Inside 12-ft Passing 12-ft Driving 10-ft Outside

4-ft Inside 12-ft Passing 12-ft Driving 10-ft Outside

5-in AC Shoulder Relative Cost?

4-ft Inside 12-ft Passing 12-ft Driving 10-ft Outside

4-ft Inside 12-ft Passing 12-ft Driving 10-ft Outside

Reference Section (Standard 12-foot Wide Driving Lane)

4-ft Inside 12-ft Passing 14-ft Driving Lane 8-ft Outside

Loge FAIL = 11.57 - 2.11SLABTHICK0.816 - 11.806PSTEEL6.53 + 1.643*logeCESAL -