Evaluation of Long-Lasting Perpetual
Asphalt Pavement with Life-Cycle
Cost Analysis
Maryam S. Sakhaeifar, E. Ray Brown, Nam Tran, and Jeff Dean
In 2006, the Oklahoma Department of Transportation sponsored work
at the pavement test track of the National Center for Asphalt Technology
to compare the performance of two sections that had been designed to
determine the necessary thickness for perpetual pavement. One section
(Section N9) was designed to be a perpetual pavement at 14 in. thick.
The other section (Section N8), at 10 in. thick (according to the AASHTO
1993 design guide), was used to test performance and to identify the
thickness needed for perpetual pavement. This paper presents a life-
cycle cost analysis for quantifying the benefits of a perpetual pavement
section compared with the long-term cost of the thinner section. The life-
cycle cost analysis was conducted with RealCost 2.5, which was available
through FHWA, and included a determination of quantitative estimates
of construction schedule, work zone user costs, and agency costs for
initial construction and rehabilitation activities. The perpetual pavement
section was found to have had a lower life-cycle cost than the conven-
tional pavement section and to have provided better service to highway
users. For better planning of future preservation studies, the estimated
present serviceability rating as a function of the international roughness
index for two designs (perpetual and nonperpetual) was evaluated. The
findings of surface measurements for both sections demonstrate a clear
difference between perpetual and conventional pavement serviceability
for a given level of roughness and accumulated traffic. These results are
also useful for assessing the improvement of conventional pavement after
rehabilitation treatments.
The Asphalt Pavement Alliance (APA) defines a perpetual or long-
life pavement as “an asphalt pavement designed and built to last
longer than 50 years without requiring major structural rehabilita-
tion or reconstruction, and needing only periodic surface renewal in
response to distress confined to the top of the pavement” (1). At least
69 pavement sections throughout the United States have received an
APA long-life pavement award since 2001. These pavements include
Interstate highways, major civilian and military airfields, and low- and
medium-volume roads (2). A perpetual asphalt pavement requires only
routine maintenance and periodic resurfacing for repairing distresses
M. S. Sakhaeifar, Zachry Department of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University,
CE/TTI 501-E, 3136 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-3136. E. R. Brown and
N. Tran, National Center for Asphalt Technology, Auburn University, 277 Technology
Parkway, Auburn, AL 36830. J. Dean, Roadway Design Division, Oklahoma Depart-
ment of Transportation, 200 Northeast 21st Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73105-3204.
Corresponding author: M. S. Sakhaeifar, msakhaeifar@civil.tamu.edu.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2368, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2013, pp. 3–11.
DOI: 10.3141/2368-01
3
in the surface layer. This type of pavement is designed to be safe,
smooth, and long-lasting with pavement thickness and mixture quality
that resist expected stresses. The pavement thickness design ensures
that strains in the bottom layer do not exceed the endurance limit
for the asphalt mixture. The bottom layer of the asphalt structure is
designed to be more resistant to load-related tensile strains to prevent
fatigue cracking. In addition, a stiff mixture is used in the intermediate
layers to resist rutting and increase overall structure stiffness, which
reduces tensile strains at the bottom of the asphalt mixture. Finally,
the surface layer is designed to resist permanent deformation, to be
watertight, and for improved long-term durability. This perpetual
pavement design maintains the structural integrity of the lower layers
for more than 50 years. Maintenance is limited to the surface layer
and is on a 15- to 20-year cycle (3), which allows a lower pavement
life-cycle cost.
Studies conducted at the National Center for Asphalt Technol-
ogy (NCAT) pavement test track have verified the concept of per-
petual pavements (4). The perpetual pavement section (Section N9)
placed in 2006 has survived 20 million equivalent single-axle loads
(ESALs) with minimal rutting and no signs of fatigue cracking.
Trafficking continues on this section through the current research
cycle (2012 through 2015). Several sponsors have used PerRoad
software for pavement design to establish pavement thickness with
various pavement materials. Almost all those sections have performed
well through multiple cycles and with minor or no damage (4).
NCAT used life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) to evaluate the cost-
effectiveness of pavement design alternatives for pavement sections
sponsored by numerous state departments of transportation (DOTs)
at the test track. LCCA is an analytical technique based on economic
principles and is used to compare the long-term values of pavement
structures and strategies. In this study, LCCA was used to com-
pare the long-term cost-efficiency of two test sections, N8 and N9.
Section N8 was designed according to the 1993 AASHTO pavement
design guide as a conventional asphalt pavement (5). The LCCA
followed the procedure recommended by FHWA to incorporate infor-
mation collected during field performance of these two sections under
accelerated loading. The information was then used to estimate the
long-term life and expected maintenance and rehabilitation costs
of the two sections, assuming typical cost and maintenance require-
ments expected for a state DOT. The software tool, RealCost, was
used for quantitative estimates of construction schedule, work zone
user cost, and agency cost for initial and future maintenance and
rehabilitation activities. The LCCA conclusions supported use of the
innovative perpetual pavement alternative, which was implemented
at the test track during the 2006 cycle. The findings were used to
quantify the monetary benefits of long-lasting versus conventional
4 Transportation Research Record 2368

pavements and to examine the impact of various types of rehabilita-
tion treatments. The findings were also used to estimate the payoff
of implementation of the selected rehabilitation and maintenance
methods. In addition, pavement serviceability was analyzed, and
the condition of these two types of pavements over time was evalu-
ated. The findings of these evaluations are useful in development
of rehabilitation and maintenance programs that provide the lowest
life-cycle cost for the pavement structure.
The results of the test track experiments are simple to interpret and
have been used by highway agencies to improve their asphalt mix
specifications, pavement design methodologies, and construction pro-
cedures. These studies, particularly the case study presented in this
paper, and implementation of findings by state transportation agencies
have resulted in significant savings by the sponsors. Twelve years of
test track operation have shown significant benefits (4). Among the
most important benefits is evaluation of the perpetual pavement
concepts in accelerated loading conditions.
This study compared the cost and performance of two test
sections: a section designed as a perpetual pavement (N9) and a
section with a reduced thickness of asphalt (N8). Cost and life were
transferred to expected cost and life of a pavement in Oklahoma
for the LCCA, which was conducted with the FHWA software
RealCost 2.5.
Description of Sections N8 and N9
Pavement characteristics such as surface type and road class affect
the procedure adopted for pavement design and maintenance rehabili-
tation treatments (6). This study categorizes sections of the test track
pavement into families on the basis of similar major characteristics
(pavement type and design procedure), including perpetual pavement.
Two test sections sponsored by the Oklahoma DOT in the 2006
research cycle of the NCAT pavement test track addressed the thick-
ness design of a perpetual pavement. PerRoad was used to design
Section N9 as a perpetual pavement, and the design of Section N8
was based on the 1993 AASHTO pavement design guide. The pri-
mary difference between Sections N8 and N9 was the thickness of
the asphalt mixture. Section N8 had a total of 10 in. of asphalt, and
Section N9 had a total of 14 in. of asphalt. Conditions in Oklahoma
were simulated with a soft subgrade material that was transported
from Oklahoma and placed at the test track. The performance of
these two sections was evaluated for two cycles of the test track
(20 million ESALs), and the results were projected to a typical
highway for LCCA purposes. Estimated costs for constructing and
maintaining a 1-mi section of the pavement layers for each of the
two pavement sections and for maintaining these sections for four
alternatives were developed and compared.
Figure 1 is a cross-sectional history of the two investigated sec-
tions, showing the activities and treatments adopted for each pavement
type at various steps (4). The original construction for Section N8 is
shown in the first cross section. When the original construction failed,
it was rehabilitated as shown in the second cross section. When the
repaired section failed, a high-polymer mix (HPM) rehabilitation
was performed, as shown in the third cross section. There has been
no repair to the perpetual pavement section, N9, shown in the fourth
cross section.
Construction of the long-lasting pavement was similar to con­ven­
tional pavement construction monitored with strict quality control.
Steps were taken to control mix properties during production,
placement, and compaction. A material transfer vehicle was used dur-
ing production to ensure minimal segregation. Mixture properties are
summarized on the pavement test track website, www.pavetrack.com.
Steps were also taken to ensure that a good bond was obtained between
layers. A summary of construction and resurfacing processes at
various phases follows.

Asphalt Strain Gauge

• N8 (Non-Perpetual) N9 (Perpetual)
Earth Pressure Cell
0
Original SMA Rehab SMA HPM SMA
Mill & Inlay

Mill & Inlay

Depth of

Depth of

Rehab Rehab Paving HPM

Dense Fabric Dense
Dense
Depth from Pavement Surface (in.)

5 Rich HPM
Original Original Original
Dense Dense Dense
Dense
Rich AC Rich AC Rich AC Dense
10

Rich AC
Stiff Soil Stiff Soil Stiff Soil
Base Base Base
15

Stiff Soil
Base
20
Subgrade Subgrade Subgrade

Subgrade
25
Original Conventional HPM Original
Construction Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Construction

FIGURE 1   Cross-sectional history of N8 and N9 (4) (SMA = stone matrix asphalt;
AC = asphalt concrete).
Sakhaeifar, Brown, Tran, and Dean 5

Phase I. Original Construction

of Sections N8 and N9
N9
For building a section with a soft subgrade that was representative
of soils in Oklahoma, the original stiff test track subgrade under
both sections (N8 and N9) was excavated to a depth of 4 ft. The stiff
material that was excavated was placed back at an 8-in. thickness
on top of the soft imported subgrade. This stiff material was used
to simulate a lime-stabilized soil similar to that used in Oklahoma.
As shown in Figure 1, Section N8 originally had a total asphalt
thickness of 10 in., consisting of a 2-in. rich bottom layer, 6 in.
N8
of dense Superpave® mix, and a 2-in. stone matrix asphalt (SMA)
surface. The rich bottom layer was designed to have 2% air voids
in the laboratory, which provided a higher binder content than do
the 4% air voids typically used in Superpave mixtures. The aggre-
gates from Oklahoma were used in all the asphalt layers, and asphalt
binder grades were based on Oklahoma DOT specifications. More
information on design, production, and construction of all layers in
FIGURE 2   N8 Pavement failure after conventional mill and inlay.
both sections is available elsewhere (7–9). In Section N8 the rough-
ness began to increase by the end of the 2006 research cycle, which
correlates to approximately 7 million ESALs. Cracking reached the
pavement surface at around 8.3 million ESALs, and by the end of used to repair the pavement surface. As shown in Figure 1, 5 in. were
the 2006 cycle, which was equivalent to 10 million ESALs, the sec- removed by milling. A thin, rich bottom of HPM was added, and
tion needed an appropriate rehabilitation treatment. After 10 million this was covered with 4 in. of HPM designed at 4% air voids. There
ESALs, the performance of the perpetual section, Section N9, was were no significant problems in producing and placing the HPM
very good; minimum rutting and almost no cracking were recorded (4). layers. The adopted rehabilitation treatment showed very good
performance for the remaining traffic in the 2009 test track cycle.
Changes in pavement condition were not noticeable after more than
5.5 million ESALs, 2 million ESALs more than the rehabilitation done
Phase 2. Rehabilitation Treatment for Section N8,
before failure. No cracking was noted, and the measured rutting at the
Mill and Inlay with Paving Fabric
end of the 2009 test track cycle was less than 1∕8 in. (4). Therefore, in
Because of failure after 10 million ESALs, Section N8 needed repair. this phase the HPM was used to increase both structural stiffness and
The standard practice used by the Oklahoma DOT was considered resistance to potential reflective cracking from the underlying failed
for the type of structural failure in the damaged section. The repair layers. More detailed information is available elsewhere (4, 10).
consisted of milling the top 5 in. of material and replacing it with 3 in.
of Superpave mix covered with 2 in. of SMA. A paving fabric was
used below the SMA to prevent cracking from reflecting through the Evaluation of In-Service Performance
surface (Figure 1). The mill and inlay treatment was completed in of Test Track
2009 after the traffic for the 2006 cycle was completed and before
the 2009 traffic cycle began. The mixes considered for this process Test sections designed as long-life pavements must be monitored
were similar to the original mixtures used in the structure. Oklahoma regularly and the structural integrity of the pavement assessed (2).
DOT researchers requested the use of a fabric interlayer over part Surface distresses such as top-down cracking, thermal cracking,
of the test section between the Superpave mix and the SMA mixture, so rutting, and raveling are measured at the test track so a performance
that use of the fabric to reduce reflective cracking could be evaluated. history can be developed for each of the sections. Part of this research
The fabric interlayer delayed the appearance of cracks in the areas study evaluated the present serviceability rating (PSR) of the test
where it was used, but the pavement deteriorated more quickly sections as a function of historical international roughness index (IRI).
in these locations than in those locations without the fabric interlayer. Equation 1, proposed by Paterson (11), and Equation 2, proposed by
The most severe damage to the pavement occurred in the area where Al-Omari and Darter (12), are used to estimate the present service-
the fabric had been installed (Figure 2). The primary distress was ability rating. IRI data collected from 2006 to 2011 were used to
caused by slippage of the pavement at the interface below the SMA estimate the PSR from the IRI for these two sections.
where the fabric was located. Although the rehabilitated structure
completely failed after approximately 3.5 million ESALs, Section N9  − IRI 
PSR = 5exp  (1)
(perpetual pavement) was still showing very good performance with  5.5 
minor rutting and no observed cracking, as shown in Figure 2 (4).

PSR = 5exp ( − 0.24IRI ) (2)

Phase 3. Rehabilitation Treatment for
Section N8, Mill and Inlay with HPM
In the second rehabilitation of Section N8, the fabric interlayers were
not used. Because of the performance in a nearby section, HPM was
The NCHRP 1-23 database (13), which was used to generate
Equation 2, contains no data points for PSR greater than 4.5 or for
IRI less than 0.5 m/km. Therefore, extrapolation of PSR beyond the
range 4.5, which corresponds to the values of IRI less than 0.5 m/km,
 6 Transportation Research Record 2368

6 6

International Roughness Index (IRI),

International Roughness Index (IRI),

5 5

4 2010: 2nd Rehabilitation 4

2009: 1st Rehabilitation 2009 Test Track Cycle

m/km
m/km

3 2006: Original 3
Construction 2006 Test Track Cycle

2 2

1 1

0 0
0.0E+00 5.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.5E+07 2.0E+07 2.5E+07 0.0E+00 5.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.5E+07 2.0E+07 2.5E+07
Traffic, ESALs Traffic, ESALs
(a) (b)

FIGURE 3   Comparison of IRI with applied traffic (ESALs) for test track pavement sections: (a) nonperpetual (N8) and (b) perpetual (N9).

is not recommended. The IRI measurements versus traffic from 2006 IRI quickly increased as the pavement surface began to deteriorate.
to 2011, which corresponds to 20 million ESALs, are plotted in After the second repair was completed, the IRI remained constant
Figure 3. There was very little variability of IRI with traffic for the at approximately 1 m/km. This appears to indicate that the problem
perpetual pavement (N9). However, there was a constant increase was solved and continued good performance is likely.
in IRI for the N8 section until it failed. The IRI remained constant Equations 1 and 2 were used to calculate the estimated present
after repair for some time, but then slippage began to occur and the serviceability ratings, plotted in Figure 4. The figure shows that the
Present Serviceability Rating (PSR)

Present Serviceability Rating (PSR)

5 5

4 4

3 3
2006: Original Construction 2006 Test Track Cycle
2 2 2009 Test Track Cycle
2009: 1st Rehabilitation
1 Paterson (11) 2010: 2nd Rehabilitation 1 Paterson (11)
Al-Omari & Darter (12) Al-Omari & Darter (12)
0 0
0.0E+00 5.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.5E+07 2.0E+07 2.5E+07 0.0E+00 5.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.5E+07 2.0E+07 2.5E+07
Traffic, ESALs Traffic, ESALs
Present Serviceability Rating (PSR)
Present Serviceability Rating (PSR)

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 Paterson (11) 1 PSR, Paterson (11)

Al-Omari & Darter (12) PSR, Al-Omari & Darter (12)
0 0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
International Roughness Index (IRI), m/km International Roughness Index (IRI), m/km
(a) (b)

FIGURE 4   Comparison of PSR predictions with traffic (ESALs) and IRI for test track pavement sections: (a) nonperpetual (N8)
and (b) perpetual (N9).
Sakhaeifar, Brown, Tran, and Dean
PSR changes with traffic for Section N8 until a repair is made. After
a repair is made, the PSR then improves; it begins to drop again with
traffic after the first repair but is stabilized after the second repair.
The PSR of Section N9 remains approximately constant throughout
the traffic period. The data from the two test sections show a clear
difference in calculated PSR for the two models.
LCCA Evaluation
RealCost software is an LCCA tool developed by FHWA for calcu-
lating life-cycle values for both agency costs and user costs associ-
ated with the construction and rehabilitation of highways (14, 15).
The intensive computations of the LCCA procedure in RealCost
are provided in a spreadsheet application. The software includes an
automated tool for calculating the work zone user delay cost based
on FHWA’s method. In this method, the estimation of user costs is
based on a comparison of the traffic demand with roadway capacity
on an hour-by-hour basis. The beneficial information provided
by LCCA contributes to the overall decision-making process like any
economic tool (16).
LCCA Components
The components needed to perform an LCCA for the test track
pavement families (sections) include analysis period, pavement
design alternatives, discount rate, maintenance and rehabilitation
schedules, and treatments and cost estimates. This LCCA applied
a fixed discount rate of 4%, which is the difference between a 6%
inflation rate and a 2% interest rate in the long term and is based on
a 55-year analysis period. The costs associated with the pavement
treatments were excluded for all the alternatives in the 55th year,
and salvage (or residual) value was not accounted for in this year.
The major components and their inputs and assumptions made for
this study are as follows:
• Analysis period, 55 years;
• Discount rate, 4%;
• Beginning of analysis period, 2010;
• Single-unit trucks as percentage of annual average daily traffic
(AADT) 2.56%;
• Combination trucks as percentage of AADT, 4.30%;
• Annual growth rate of traffic, 1.575%;
• Speed limit under normal operating conditions, 65 mph;
• Lanes open in each direction under normal conditions, five;
• Hourly traffic distribution, urban;
• Lane width, 12 ft;
• Proportion of trucks and buses, 6.86%; and
• Value per vehicle hour by vehicle class:
– Passenger cars, $11.51;
– Single-unit trucks, $27.83; and
– Combination trucks, $27.83.
The user costs were considered in the analysis to account for costs
incurred by users because of delay in the work zone. This cost is
related to the time value that is considered an indirect cost for public
inconvenience, rather than real money or agency cost, and must be
included in an LCCA.
7
LCCA Comparisons
Since its construction in 2006, Section N9 (perpetual pavement)
has shown good performance without any treatments. However,
Section N8 (conventional pavement), also built in 2006, was milled
and resurfaced in 2009 and rehabilitated again in 2010 after a major
failure. The condition of pavement surfaces for the pavement sections
is assessed weekly at the test track. The evaluation of N8 shows that
the second HPM rehabilitation surface has experienced no damage
to date, whereas the first and original conventional rehabilitation has
experienced a complete failure under less traffic. In this pavement
section, the concern about the appropriate time for use of HPMs was
answered and verified by the field performance data. The data and
findings of the test track provided an excellent opportunity for assess-
ing the differences between the use of two conventional and HPM
rehabilitation treatments. Several states have modified their speci-
fications, originally adopted from AASHTO Superpave standards,
because of the findings at the test track; for example, Oklahoma found
a quick and effective repair for rutting that uses HPMs instead of full-
depth replacement. Regular surface measurements were made, and
rut depths were found to be less than 1∕8 in., roughness has not changed
since the HPM was placed, and no cracking has been observed in
Section N8. The HPMs also may provide healthier pavements with
greater structural strength (4).
The findings from the test track study and recommendations from
the Oklahoma DOT were used to simulate pavements with a high
traffic level and to find the most cost-effective alternative. These inputs
suggested three alternatives based on the pavement section originally
constructed as a nonperpetual pavement in Section N8, and the alter-
natives were compared with the alternative based on the perpetual
pavement in Section N9. According to the input from the Oklahoma
DOT, overlays greater than 4 in. are considered for the structural
repairs. The appropriate resurfacing treatments are considered every
18 years, which is assumed to be equivalent to 7.5 million ESALs
simulated on the test track during the 2-year research cycle for the
alternatives. For each pavement design option, information on main-
tenance and rehabilitation, such as sequencing, design life, and cross
sections, was determined according to the performance of the two
test sections and maintenance and rehabilitation activities conducted
for each section during the two research cycles at the test track. The
information is summarized in Table 1, and the results of the LCCA for
the alternatives considered are presented in Table 2. Treatment costs
are not included in this study, and only the treatments applied to the
two sections were included in this cost analysis. To date, no treatment
has been applied on Section N9.
Agency and user life-cycle costs for the alternatives presented
in Figures 5 and 6 indicate that the long-life perpetual pavement,
which was implemented in Section N9, had a lower cost over the
55 years of the analysis period. The results show that long-life
perpetual asphalt pavements have different benefits compared with
conventional pavements. Significant advantages proved in this study
include lower life-cycle cost, lower user-delay cost, and, potentially,
a reduced environmental impact. The reduced life-cycle cost for
the perpetual pavement results from fewer or no major structural
pavement repairs or rebuilding during the service life. A long-life
pavement designed and constructed appropriately will have enough
load-carrying capacity to prevent fatigue and low-temperature
transverse cracking as well as structural or surface rutting failure.
This type of pavement needs regular resurfacing as the only planned
maintenance activity.
8 Transportation Research Record 2368

TABLE 1   Summary of Schedule Estimates for Four Alternatives

Million Unit Price per Laneb

Year ESALs Description Closuresa ($/mi)

Nonperpetual Pavement (N8): Alternative 1

0 0 2-in. SMA 6 days  55,996
6-in. dense 133,162
2-in. rich AC  46,436
7-in. stiff soil base  63,360
18 7.5 2-in. SMA 2 nights 132,617
Paving fabric  24,710
3-in. dense 166,103
36 15 1.25-in. HPM 2 nights 171,555
2.25-in. HPM 290,651
2.25-in. rich HPM 290,651
54 22.5 2-in. HPM 1 night 441,323
Nonperpetual Pavement (N8): Alternative 2
0 0 2-in. SMA 6 days  55,996
6-in. dense 133,162
2-in. rich AC  46,436
7-in. stiff soil base  63,360
18 7.5 2-in. SMA 2 nights 132,617
Paving fabric  24,710
3-in. dense 166,103
36 15 2-in. SMA 2 nights 225,806
3.75-in. dense 363,058
54 22.5 2-in. SMA 2 nights 384,412
3.75-in. dense 618,073
Perpetual Pavement (N9): Alternative 3
0 0 2-in. SMA 6 days  55,996
6-in. dense 133,162
2-in. rich AC  46,436
7-in. stiff soil base  63,360
18 7.5 1.25-in. HPM 2 nights 100,744
2.25-in. HPM 170,709
2.25-in. rich HPM 170,709
36 15 2-in. HPM 1 night 259,240
54 22.5 2-in. HPM 1 night 441,323
Perpetual Pavement (N9): Alternative 4
0 0 2-in. SMA 8 days  55,996
9-in. dense 199,743
3-in. rich AC  69,654
7-in. stiff soil base  63,360
18 7.5 2-in. rehab SMA 1 night 132,617
36 15 2-in. rehab SMA 1 night 225,806
54 22.5 2-in. rehab SMA 1 night 384,412

a
Closure times were estimated on basis of placing 2,000 tons of mixes per day and
spreading 1 mi of HPM from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
b
Unit price estimates were based on historical prices for selected items provided by the
Oklahoma DOT from Dec. 1, 2010, to May 1, 2012.

TABLE 2   Comparison of Total Life-Cycle Costs for Alternatives

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Total Cost
($/mi/lane) Agency Cost User Cost Agency Cost User Cost Agency Cost User Cost Agency Cost User Cost

Undiscounted sum 1,419,375 9,728 1,266,944 9,783 1,044,490 6,788 785,618 3,495
Present value 649,203 3,378 613,176 3,398 587,534 2,661 515,464 1,036
EUAC 29,364 153 27,735 154 26,575 120 23,315 47

Note: Alternative 4, perpetual pavement (Section N9), offers the lowest present value for agency and user costs. EUAC = equivalent uniform annualized cost.
Sakhaeifar, Brown, Tran, and Dean 9

$700,000

$600,000

$500,000

Present Value
$400,000

$300,000

$200,000

$100,000

$0
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
(a)

$4,000

$3,500

$3,000
Present Value

$2,500

$2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

$0
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
(b)

$700,000
User Cost
$600,000 Agency Cost

$500,000
Present Value

$400,000

$300,000

$200,000

$100,000

$0
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
(c)

FIGURE 5   Comparison of net present value for (a) agency, (b) user,
and (c) total (agency and user) life-cycle costs.
10 Transportation Research Record 2368

$2,500,000
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
$2,000,000
Alternative 3

Undiscounted Sum
Alternative 4
$1,500,000

$1,000,000

$500,000

$0
2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

2055

2060

2065

2070
Year
(a)

$20,000
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
$16,000
Alternative 3
Undiscounted Sum

Alternative 4
$12,000

$8,000

$4,000

$0
2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

2055

2060

2065

2070
Year
(b)

FIGURE 6   Alternatives during 55 years of evaluation: comparison of

(a) agency cost estimates and (b) user cost estimates.

As shown in Figure 6a, the life-cycle cost analysis results show
no differences between the accumulated user costs of Alternatives 1
and 2 through the first two initial phases. The total user cost of Alter-
native 1 is closest to that of Alternative 2, but the user-delay costs are
lower for the first alternative because minor surface rehabilitation can
be done within short work periods or during off-peak traffic hours.
Thus for Alternative 1 there would be less frustration for the travel-
ing public and lower costs for transporting goods and for services
because of fewer user delays. The estimated accumulated user cost
of the long-life perpetual pavement (Alternative 4) at the end of the
analysis period was less than one-third that of Alternative 3, which has
the lowest user cost of the three nonperpetual alternatives. Overall,
the accumulated costs plotted in Figure 6, a and b, for agency and
user costs, respectively, show that the perpetual pavement has the
lowest cost. Among the conventional pavements, Alternative 3 has
been considered for a more comprehensive comparison of all alter-
natives based on the findings of the 2009 test track research cycle.
In this case, the excellent performance of HPM repair was found to
have the lowest cost.
Summary and Conclusions
The full-scale NCAT pavement test track equipped with accelerated
loading provides quick and safe answers to pavement performance
questions that otherwise would take sponsors many years to answer.
With other methods of accelerated loading, the needed data should be
extrapolated for estimating expected performance under actual traffic
because the applied loads are not representative of actual trucks.
Results from the perpetual pavements in the NCAT test track
sections prove that the concept of limiting critical strains to eliminate
bottom-up fatigue cracking is valid. The data analyzed from in situ
instrumentation through two consecutive cycles of the test track in
this study show that the long-lasting perpetual pavement has lower
levels of roughness than conventional pavements. These findings
provide the design methodology for perpetual pavements that results
in cost-effective HMA pavements that are competitive in life-cycle
cost comparisons. The perpetual pavement section showed excel-
lent performance in having almost no structural damage during the
last 2-year cycle. Perpetual pavements have significant long-term
Sakhaeifar, Brown, Tran, and Dean
implications for, for example, user comfort, sustainability, and life-
cycle cost. The performance evaluation of a nonperpetual pavement
section repaired with an HPM surface indicated that this pavement was
in good condition, showing that HPMs are an excellent candidate as
a rehabilitation treatment. The results of this study show that HPM
mixes are an effective rehabilitation candidate on highways where an
increase in pavement thickness is not an alternative and high strains
are desired. Therefore, HPMs can be recommended for preventing
the reflection of severe distresses and rutting in heavy, slow-traffic
situations.
This study offers improvements in asphalt materials and construc-
tion technologies that have resulted in better-performing, longer-
lasting, pavements of lower life-cycle cost. A sensitivity analysis is
recommended for assessing variability within the assumed and esti-
mated primary analyses inputs in the LCCA. Then, a probabilistic
approach that is the ultimate extension of sensitivity analysis can be
performed to assess the change of all primary inputs simultaneously.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Buzz Powell of the NCAT pavement test track and
acknowledge the support of the Oklahoma Department of Transpor-
tation, FHWA, and numerous companies that donated equipment,
materials, and human resources to build test sections, operate the
trucking fleet, and conduct the extensive research required to monitor
each cycle.
References
  1. Buncher, M., D. Newcomb, and J. Huddleston. Perpetual Pavements.
Asphalt Magazine, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2000, pp. 20–22.
  2. Harvey, J. Long-Life Asphalt Pavements. Pavement Technology Update,
Vol. 3, No. 2, 2011.
  3. Newcomb, D. E., J. R. Willis, and D. H. Timm. Perpetual Asphalt Pave-
ment: A Synthesis. Report IM-40. Asphalt Pavement Alliance, Lanham,
Md., 2010.
11
  4. West, R., D. Timm, R. Willis, B. Powell, N. Tran, D. Watson, M. Sakhaeifar,
R. Brown, M. Robbins, A. Vargas-Nordcbeck, F. L. Villacorta, X. Guo,
and J. Nelson. Phase IV NCAT Pavement Test Track Findings. National
Center for Asphalt Technology, Auburn, Ala., 2012.
 5. Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. AASHTO, Washington, D.C.,
1993.
  6. Lamptey, G., M. Z. Ahmad, S. Labi, and K. C. Sinha. Life Cycle Cost
Analysis for INDOT Pavement Design Procedures. FHWA/IN/JTRP-
2004/28. Joint Transportation Research Program, Indiana Department
of Transportation and Purdue University, West Lafayette, 2005.
 7. Timm, D. H. Design, Construction and Instrumentation of the 2006 Test
Track Structural Study. NCAT Report 09-01. National Center for Asphalt
Technology, Auburn, Ala., 2009.
  8. Timm, D. H., D. Gierhart, and J. R. Willis. Strain Regimes Measured in
Two Full Scale Perpetual Pavements. Proc., International Conference
on Perpetual Pavements, Columbus, Ohio, 2009.
  9. Taylor, A. J., and D. H. Timm. Mechanistic Characterization of Resilient
Moduli for Unbound Pavement Layer Materials. NCAT Report 09-06.
National Center for Asphalt Technology, Auburn, Ala., 2009.
10. Timm, D. H., R. Powell, J. R. Willis, and R. Kluttz. Pavement Rehabilita-
tion Using High Polymer Asphalt Mix. Presented at 91st Annual Meeting
of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2012.
11. Paterson, W. D. O. Road Deterioration and Maintenance Effects. World
Bank, Washington, D.C., 1987.
12. Al-Omari, B., and M. I. Darter. Relationships Between International
Roughness Index and Present Serviceability Rating. In Transportation
Research Record 1435, TRB, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C., 1994, pp. 130–136.
13. Janoff, M. S., J. B. Nick, P. S. Davit, and G. F. Hayhoe. NCHRP Report
275: Pavement Roughness and Rideability. TRB, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C., 1985.
14. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis: RealCost User Manual. FHWA, U.S. Depart-
ment of Transportation, 2004. www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/
rc210704.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2010.
15. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Primer. FHWA, U.S. Department of Trans-
portation, 2002. http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/FHWA/010621.pdf.
Accessed June 1, 2010.
16. Lee, E.-B., C. Kim, and J. T. Harvey. Selection of Pavement for High-
way Rehabilitation Based on Life-Cycle Cost Analysis: Validation of
California Interstate 710 Project, Phase 1. In Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2227, Trans-
portation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.,
2011, pp. 23–32.
The Flexible Pavement Design Committee peer-reviewed this paper.