Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Pitfalls of HDM-4 Strategy Analysis, Koji Tsunokawa
Pitfalls of HDM-4 Strategy Analysis, Koji Tsunokawa
PITFALLS of HDM-
HDM-4 STRATEGY
Background
ANALYSIS
Objectives
Presenter:
Co-Author:
Analysis Guidelines for Strategy Analysis
Saitama University, Japan
Results & Discussion
1
Guidelines for Analysis with Dynamic Sectioning
Illustration of Guidelines through a Case Study
First, insights should be obtained by testing a wide range of
Case Study’s Road Network Details
alternatives with the “Representative Sections (RS)”
128 Homogenous Sections - Total Length: 915 KM
RS must be carefully defined using right set of section parameters
Network Characteristics
such as pavement type, traffic, etc.
Good: 50% (IRI ≤ 4)
RS must reflect the distribution of all sections with respect to the Fair: 32% (4 < IRI ≤ 6)
variable chosen along with the identification of the Poor: 8% (6 < IRI ≤ 8)
A Two Step approach in which first interventions from a wide Cost, Vehicle Characteristics and Traffic data based on Vietnamese
range are tested followed by a narrow range of options around the conditions
best one identified in the first step 12 Representative Sections were defined considering Traffic and
Illustration of Guidelines through a Case Study Illustration of Guidelines through a Case Study
Alternatives tested with the Representative Sections Insights derived from the Analysis with the Representative
Optimum Alternatives for Representative Sections Reconstruction with DBST was the Optimum alternative for Poor
For Poor Roads: Reconstruction with DBST Roads. Thus, Reconstruction with DBST activated in different years
For Fair Roads: Frequent and Thicker Overlays for High Traffic and were used as Appropriate Alternatives for Poor Roads
Less Frequent and Thinner for Low Traffic Appropriate Alternatives for other Roads were defined considering
For Good Roads: Thinner Overlays (Frequent for High Traffic and less Optimum Alternatives, Alternatives cheaper than the Optimum and
Spreading Lumping Investments over Planning Period Spreading Lumping Investments over Planning Period
20.00
Capital Expenditure (million USD)
Find the unconstrained optimum expenditure for the entire Planning 5.00
Period 2.50
Impose a Budget Constraint that equals the Total Expenditure found 0.00
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
above divided by the Number of Years in the Planning Period for each
year of the Planning Period with a large budget for the rest of the Time (year)
Analysis Period
2
Analysis Period versus 10-Year
Planning Period and Analysis Period
Expenditure in the Planning Period
HDM-4 does not take into account network condition at the end of 50
20
Use of an Analysis Period same as the Planning Period will
10
underestimate the Expenditure Requirements as shown in the next
0
figure 10 15 20 25
Planning Period and Analysis Period Expenditure in Later Years of Planning Period
The 10-Year Expenditure in the Planning period gets stable with 1.00
Capital Expenditure (million USD)
HDM-4 Analysis Period should be longer than the Planning Period 0.50
– Analysis Period twice as long as the Planning Period may be Analysis Period: 10 Years
0.25 Analysis Period: 20 Years
appropriate
Even when budgets are very tight, HDM-4 will choose fewer or no 0.00
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
projects in the Later Years of the Planning Period if the Analysis
Period is the same as Planning Period as illustrated in the next Time (year)
figure
Conclusions
Strategy Analysis with Dynamic Sectioning
Whole Network
Planning Period