Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision-Making Approach

for Pavement Project Evaluation Using Life-Cycle

Cost/Performance Analysis
Gholamreza Heravi, M.ASCE 1; and Asghar Nezhadpour Esmaeeli 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY on 04/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Project life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) is a reasonable approach to compare pavement design alternatives, but not taking into
consideration of pavement performance in the most LCCA approaches may lead not to obtain the most desirable alternative for road users and
associated highway agencies. This article introduces a multicriteria decision making method for pavement project evaluation using LCCA
that (1) utilizes fuzzy set theory to model and handle uncertainties; (2) takes into account the extra user costs attributable to inadequate
pavement condition; and (3) as a criterion, considers life-cycle pavement performance that describes overall pavement serviceability
condition. Using a hypothetical project, the paper clarifies the performance of the proposed method for long-term evaluating alternative
pavement design strategies. The alternatives are compared with respect to each criterion of the method, and also using sensitivity analysis,
it is determined that changes in the decision maker’s risk and confidence attitudes can affect the ranking of the alternatives. DOI: 10.1061/
(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000170. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Decision making; Pavement strategies; Life-cycle analysis; Performance; Fuzzy numbers; Linguistic terms; Risk;
Confidence attitude.

Introduction Various uncertainty-based approaches were also developed over

One of the most significant responsibilities of highway manage-
ment organizations is to evaluate project alternatives for highway
investment decision making. Highway long-term assessment is a
rational approach to maximize the benefits which are of vast con-
sideration for highway officials. In the past, highway officials have
widely used the life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) approach in their
investment decision making process. LCCA is a useful engineering
economic analysis tool applicable in comparing the relative merits
of competing project implementation alternatives. By considering
all of the costs—agency and user—incurred during the service life
on an asset, this analytical process helps transportation officials to
select the lowest cost option (FHWA 2002).
The literature review shows that life-cycle analysis of pavements
has been conducted in several researches. Wilde et al. (1999) de-
veloped a framework which analyzed rigid pavement life-cycle
costs. Abaza (2002) introduced an optimum flexible pavement
life-cycle analysis model which used both pavement performance
and cost in its decision policy approach. Labi and Sinha (2005)
evaluated life-cycle costs of pavement preventive maintenance to
achieve the optimum activity timing strategy. Lamptey et al.
(2008) proposed a decision support framework for optimal sched-
uling of highway pavement preventive maintenance within resur-
facing cycle. Chan et al. (2008) evaluated the LCCA approaches
that the Michigan Department of Transportation used.
1 uncertainties associated with input factors is described.
Assistant Professor, School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineer-
ing, Univ. of Tehran, 16 Azar Ave., P.O. Box 11155-4563, Tehran, Iran
(corresponding author). E-mail: heravi@ut.ac.ir
2
Ph.D. Student, School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering,
Univ. of Tehran, 16 Azar Ave., P.O. Box 11155-4563, Tehran, Iran.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 13, 2012; approved
on May 15, 2013; published online on May 17, 2013. Discussion period
open until June 6, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Infrastructure
Systems, © ASCE, ISSN 1076-0342/04014002(7)/$25.00.
the last few decades. FHWA (1998) recommended procedures for
conducting LCCA of pavement and introduced a risk-based
approach to LCCA. Tighe (2001) used probability distribution
for modeling uncertainties associated with engineering in probabi-
listic pavement life cycle cost analysis. Reigle and Zaniewski
(2002) proposed a risk-based LCCA model for project level pave-
ment management. Chen (2007) developed an LCCA model for
pavement and asset management which worked on the basis of
fuzzy logic. Li and Madanu (2009) produced a highway project
level life-cycle benefit/cost analysis approach which considered
certainty, risk and uncertainty inherited with the input factors.
Despite excellent contribution of above mentioned studies, there
is a need for more studies addressing some important aspects of
pavement project evaluation. This article introduces a multicriteria
decision making method for pavement project evaluation using
LCCA which: (1) utilizes fuzzy set theory to model and handle
uncertainties; (2) takes into account the extra user costs owing
to inadequate pavement condition; and (3) as a criterion, considers
life-cycle pavement performance that describes overall pavement
serviceability condition.
Methodology
In this section, first the decision making criteria of proposed
method are introduced. Then, the fuzzy approach utilized to model
Decision Making Criteria
In the LCCA, usually two categories of costs are considered:
agency costs and user costs. As indicated earlier, in this paper,
another criterion has been inserted which takes into account life-
cycle pavement performance.
According to researches of AASHTO (2010) some state Depart-
ments of Transportation (DOTs) do not currently include user costs

© ASCE 04014002-1 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 in LCCA calculations, and some other DOTs consider these costs
with a weight of lower than 1. Here, considering agency cost as the
most important criterion, the importance weight of 1 was assigned
to agency costs and the importance weights of other criteria would
be assigned in comparison with agency costs. Therefore, the fol-
lowing multicriteria problem would be solved as objective function
Minimize ðLCACi þ wLCUC × LCUCi þ wPPCV × PPCVi Þ ð1Þ
where LCACi , LCUCi and PPCVi are life-cycle agency cost, life-
cycle user cost and pavement performance cost value, respectively,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY on 04/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of design strategy i, and wLCUC and wPPCV are the importance
weights of life-cycle user cost and pavement performance cost
value, respectively.
Life-Cycle Agency Cost
In addition to initial construction costs, maintenance and rehabili-
tation (M&R) costs should be included in the LCAC. Moreover, if
the analysis period is shorter than the service lives of alternatives or
the service lives of different alternatives are different, then remain-
ing service life cost value, as another cost component of agency
costs, should be considered in the analysis. This cost component
is calculated based on the remaining life of an alternative at the
end of the analysis period, as a prorated share of the last rehabili-
tation cost, and is considered as a negative cost (FHWA 1998;
Lamptey et al. 2005).
Life-Cycle User Cost
User costs concern highway users in the pavement life-cycle. User
cost components include vehicle operating cost, travel time cost,
crash cost and environmental costs (Lamptey et al. 2005; Li and
Madanu 2009). Each cost component can be categorized into
two categories: user costs under normal operation conditions
and added user costs resulting from work zones (FHWA 1998;
Lamptey et al. 2005; Li and Madanu 2009). LCCA need only con-
sider differential cost among alternatives (FHWA 1998).
Considering work zone operations, little difference between
crash costs of work zones and normal operations is expected
(FHWA 1989; Lamptey et al. 2005). Therefore, user cost differen-
tials are an aggregation of excessive travel time costs and vehicle
operating costs. These cost components are calculated by using the
method presented by FHWA (1998).
During normal operations, crash costs and environmental costs
are unlikely to vary among alternative pavement designs. Accord-
ing to various researches (i.e., FHWA 1998 and Lamptey et al.
2005), there is no need to consider crash costs and environmental
costs during normal operations, but vehicle operating costs and
travel time costs are likely to vary for different design strategies.
The travel time costs should be considered attributable to speed
reduction causes by undesirable pavement conditions. Such extra
travel time costs are calculated based on a model for speed adjust-
ment factors which is developed by Zaniewski (1982). For such
vehicle operating costs, the World Bank suggested a general equa-
tion (Asphalt Institute of Iran 2007) and also conducted several re-
searches on road user costs in New Zealand (FHWA 1998), which
can be used to calibrate the general equation as follows:
VOC
¼ 1 þ 0.045 × ½maxð0; IRI − 2.5Þ
1.406 ð2Þ
VOC0
where VOC = vehicle operating costs in case the performance
condition equals to IRI, and VOC0 = vehicle operating costs in case
the performance condition is less than 2.5 m=km. The correlation
between PSI and IRI could be obtained from Lay (2009).
© ASCE 04014002-2
J. Infrastruct. Syst.
Pavement Performance Cost Value
Long-term pavement performance is measured using Present
Serviceability Index (PSI). Performance curve is produced on
the basis of the equations presented by the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) for rigid
and flexible pavements (AASHTO 1993). Based on AASHTO
equations, the drop in PSI in each year is determined on the basis
of accumulated traffic load passed on the road during that year. In
this paper, the jump in the performance curve attributable to
improving M&R activities is calculated by using the values used
by Chen (2007).
The criterion of pavement performance, as the term pavement
performance cost value, indicates willingness-to-pay considered by
corresponding highway management official for better pavement
condition. To calculate this value, the presented method utilizes
the approach presented by Fwa and Sinha (1991). They considered
pavement performance by multiplying average PSI during project
life-cycle by life-cycle cost. Here, as a constant amount in the cost
genre, the average of agency costs of all alternatives has been used
to PPCV evaluation of each alternative. So, PPCV for design
strategy j is calculated as follows:
PPCVj ¼ PFj × LCACave ð3Þ
where LCACave = average of life-cycle agency costs of all compet-
ing alternative design strategies, and PF is Performance Factor of
design strategy j which is calculated by
Pt − PSILC;j
PFj ¼ ð4Þ
Pt − Pb
where Pt and Pb are top and bottom limits of the range selected for
desired amounts of PSI and PSILC;J is life-cycle pavement perfor-
mance for design strategy j which is calculated by
Pn
PSI · ESALi;j
PSILC;j ¼ Pn i;j
i¼1
ð5Þ
i¼1 ESALi;j
where PSIi;j and ESALi;j are average PSI value and accumulated
Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) for design strategy j at year i,
respectively. Average PSI in each year is equal to the average of PSI
measures at the beginning of the year and at the end of the year.
Fuzzy Approach Utilized to Model Uncertainty
Some input parameters of pavement project life-cycle analysis are
associated with uncertainties. Because fuzzy set theories facilitate
modeling uncertainty in the absence of precise and complete infor-
mation, in the developed method, a fuzzy estimating approach
which was proposed by Shaheen et al. (2007) is used.
Uniform, triangular and trapezoidal are the types of fuzzy
numbers used in this methodology. However, these types of fuzzy
numbers and also crisp numbers can be represented by the trapezoi-
dal four-element format (Shaheen et al. 2007). From crisp numbers
to trapezoidal numbers, the uncertainty about the selected number
would increase. If the decision maker (DM) select a crisp number
for a variable it means the amount of that variable is completely
certain. On the contrast, selecting a trapezoidal number by the
DM indicates even the most likely value for that variable is not
certain. Therefore, a range should be selected even for the most
likely values.
J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 Decision Maker’s Risk Attitudes
Certainly, as mentioned by Fenton and Wang (2006), considering
risk and uncertainty in multicriteria decision making increases the
reliability and quality of the results by evaluating the ranking
sensitivity to each risk attitude. Moreover, incorporating risk
attitudes will help the DM choose the preferred alternatives from
an extreme pessimist to an extreme optimist.
Based on the discipline existing in the variables of triangular
fuzzy numbers to consider the DM’s risk attitudes for benefit
parameters (where the higher the value for parameters, the more
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY on 04/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
desirable it is for DM) and cost parameters (where the lower
the value for parameters, the more desirable it is for DM), proposed
by Fenton and Wang (2006), trapezoidal fuzzy numbers for nine
linguistic terms from absolutely pessimist to absolutely optimist
are developed and utilized in the analysis.
Decision Maker’s Confidence Attitudes
Membership function is a basic measure of confidence about the
range of the fuzzy numbers. Therefore, to incorporate the DM’s
confidence about the fuzzy numbers, α-cut concept could be used.
Based on α-cut concept, Fenton and Wang (2006) presented a
method which is utilized in this paper and helps the DM take into
account his/her confidence attitude by nine linguistic terms
(from absolutely confident to absolutely nonconfident). Intuitively,
membership value of confidence increases as α increase from 0 to
1. Considering a linguistic term, the trapezoidal fuzzy number n:
ða; b; c; dÞ is refined as follows:

P11 P11
ak cLT LT
k¼1 dk ck
n~ LT ¼ ðaLT ; bLT ; cLT ; dLT Þ ¼ Pk¼1 k
; b; c; P
11
k¼1 ck
LT 11
k¼1 ck
LT
ð6Þ
where ak ¼ aα ¼ a þ αðb − aÞ, dk ¼ dα ¼ d − αðd − cÞ,
k ¼ μLT ðαÞ, k ¼ 1; : : : ; 11 and LT represents linguistic terms
cLT
which are developed based on nine confidence attitudes, and
their pertinent membership value for each α (obtained from 11
confidence levels).
Importance Weights of Criteria
In this paper, according to Bonissone (1982), seven linguistic
terms, from very low to very high, is utilized to determine the
importance weights of the criteria. In this regard, for each linguistic
term a trapezoidal fuzzy number has been proposed and utilized in
the analysis.
Defuzzify Fuzzy Numbers
Fuzzy numbers are a generalization of the concept of interval of
confidence. However, ranking intervals is not a straightforward
process (Shaheen et al. 2007). Therefore, calculating the expected
or defuzzified value of the fuzzy number will render the fuzzy
number ranking and comparison much easier. In this paper, as
the most common defuzzification method, the method of center
of area is utilized. In this way, expected value and variance of
trapezoidal fuzzy numbers are defined based on Shaheen
et al. (2007).
Develop Pavement Strategy Selection Fuzzy Method
The proposed Pavement Strategy Selection Fuzzy Method
(PSSFM) consists of 10 steps which are introduced in this section.
Fig. 1 shows the flowchart of the developed method.
© ASCE
J. Infrastruct. Syst.
• Step 1: Establish alternative pavement design strategies for the
analysis period.
• Step 2: Determine service lives and activity timing. Service lives
of structural activities are determined from pavement
design calculations. After passing the service life of each
structural activity, rehabilitation activity is performed to
strengthen the pavement structurally. In the length of time be-
tween two consecutive structural activities, preventive mainte-
nance activities are utilized to correct minor defects, retard
future deteriorations and maintain or improve the functional
performance of pavement (Lamptey et al. 2008).
• Step 3: Consider risk and confidence attitude of decision
maker.
• Step 4: Develop performance curves for the alternative strate-
gies. Average annual PSI of each alternative is calculated for
each year of project life-cycle, to develop a life-cycle pavement
performance curve for that alternative.
• Step 5: Estimate life-cycle agency costs. Estimating life-cycle
agency costs consists of two components: (1) quantities of
work/material items which are depended on initial design and
preset future M&R policies; and (2) unit costs of construction
items.
• Step 6: Estimate added user costs during working days. The re-
quired data for each activity include work zone duration, num-
ber of lanes open in each direction, work zone length, posted
speed in work zone, dissipation capacity of each lane in work
zone, and working hours of each direction.
• Step 7: Estimate added user costs attributable to pavement
 performance.
• Step 8: Estimate life-cycle pavement performance value.
• Step 9: Compute present valued total costs and rank the alter-
natives. On the basis of the FHWA recommendations (FHWA
2002), annual costs of each alternative are discounted to present
value and the objective function for each alternative is calcu-
lated, and the alternatives are ranked.
• Step 10: Select the supreme pavement design strategy through
analysis of different risk and confidence attitudes. Steps 3 to 9
can be repeated for different DM’s risk and confidence attitudes.
This analysis broadens the DM’s perspective in utilizing PSSFM
outcomes for making the final decision.
Application
A hypothetical project was developed to utilize the proposed
method. This project involves a 15-km section of a six-lane freeway
that would be constructed in Iran.
Statement of Input Data
Traffic Data of the Project
• AADT [base (design) year]—50,000 vehicle=day, passenger
cars, single-unit trucks and combination trucks respectively—
90, 3, and 7%.
• Free-flow capacity—2,150 vehicle=h=lane, queue dissipation
capacity—1,818 vphpl.
• Posted speed under normal operations—110 km=h, posted
speed under work zone operations—60 km=h.
• Analysis period—35 years.
Alternative Pavement Design Strategies
Flexible and rigid pavements are designed using AASHTO (1993).
Two initial construction alternatives were considered (flexible and
rigid), and for each one, two M&R policies were developed.
04014002-3 J. Infrastruct. Syst.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY on 04/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Flowchart of the pavement strategy selection fuzzy method (PSSFM)

Therefore, four pavement design strategies were established in the
analysis. Activity profiles and corresponding design parameters
of each structural activity of the alternatives 1–4 are given in
Table 1.
Data for Calculating Agency Costs
Table 2 shows unit costs of work items gathered from the Iranian
government databases and expert judgments. These costs are con-
sidered as trapezoidal fuzzy numbers because they are the most
uncertain input factors of the case.
Data for Calculating User Costs
Unit rates of user costs are gathered from the Iranian government
databases and the works done by Matthews and Allouche (2010)
and ODOT (2003). These costs are as follows:
• Vehicle operating cost (Cents=km)—passenger cars (14.0,
15.5); single-unit trucks (32.5, 35.5); combination trucks
(46.5, 49.0)
• Travel time cost ($=h)—passenger cars (7.50, 8.25); single-
unit trucks (9.45, 10.05); combination trucks (11.25,
11.85)

© ASCE 04014002-4 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 Table 1. Alternative Pavement Design Strategies (Activity Timing and Design Parameters)
Alternative Service life (year) Activity type Activity name Timing
No. 1 40 IC Asphalt concrete (5.98)a Base year
RH Thick HMA overlay (5.46)a 25th year
PM HMA crack sealing 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, 19th, 22th,
25th, 28th, 31th, 34th, 37th year
No. 2 40 IC Asphalt concrete (5.98)a Base year
RH Thick HMA overlay (5.46)a 25th year
PM HMA crack sealing 8th year
Thin HMA overlay 15th, 33th year
No. 3 42 IC Jointed plain concrete (11.02)b Base year
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY on 04/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

RH Thick HMA overlay (5.76)a 30th year

PM PCC joint cleaning & sealing 9th, 17th, 25th year
— HMA crack sealing 33th, 36th, 39th year
No. 4 42 IC Jointed plain concrete (11.02)b Base year
RH Bonded concrete overlay (10.35)b 30th year
PM PCC joint cleaning and sealing 9th, 17th, 25th, 36th year

Note: IC = initial construction; RH = rehabilitation; PM = preventive maintenance.

a
Structural number in flexible pavement design.
b
Layer depth in rigid pavement design (in in.).

Table 2. Unit Rates of Material/Work Item Costs • Importance weight of criterion life-cycle user cost—medium,
Material/work item Corresponding fuzzy number Importance weight of criterion pavement performance cost
value—medium.
HMA wearing 19 mm ($=m3 ) (114.20,116.16,118.06,120.02) • Risk attitude—neutral, confidence attitude—neutral.
HMA binder 25 mm ($=m3 ) (104.06,105.98,107.90,109.82)
Granular base ($=m3 ) (20.23,21.02,21.88,22.71)
Granular subbase ($=m3 ) (9.50,9.75,10.26,10.51)
Tack coat ($=m2 ) (0.54,0.56) Results and Discussion
Prime coat($=m2 ) (1.10,1.12)
JPCP ($=m3 ) (94.30,105.50,113.02,124.22) Using PSSFM to evaluate the hypothetical example led to the
Crack sealing ($=m) (7.85,8.35) results shown in Table 3. As shown in the Table, with respect to
Joint cleaning and sealing ($=m) (2.48,2.82,2.98,3.32) agency costs and user costs, Alternatives 1 and 2, as flexible pave-
Mill asphalt surface ($=m2 -cm) (1.52,1.56,1.60,1.64) ment strategies, are the most desirable alternatives, respectively. At
Mill concrete surface ($=m2 -cm) (1.84,1.88,1.92,1.96) the same time, with respect to pavement performance cost value,
Dowel bar ($=m) (21.00,22.00,23.16,24.16)
Tie bar ($=m) (1.52,1.60,1.68,1.76)
Alternatives 4 and 3, as rigid pavement strategies, have taken two
Saw cutting concrete joints ($=dm3 ) (1.18,1.21,1.34,1.37) top orders. Alternative 2, because of not possessing a regular pre-
ventive maintenance policy, has the worst pavement condition in
the analysis period. Eventually, primarily attributable to consider-
ing pavement performance cost value as a decision making cri-
Owing to the uniform ranges of the coefficients used to obtain terion, Alternative 4 is selected as the most appropriate strategy.
these costs, they are considered as uniform fuzzy numbers. To select the most appropriate design strategy and for clear
evaluation, the analysis has been repeated for different DM’s risk
Other Fuzzy Variables Considered in the Analysis and confidence attitudes. The value of objective function and the
• Annual traffic growth rate (triangular fuzzy number)—(1.5, ranking orders of the alternatives are shown in Table 4.
2.0, 2.5%). As shown in Table 4, a DM who is absolutely confident about
• Discount rate (triangular fuzzy number, based on the recom- the fuzzy input values will select Alternative 4 as the most appro-
mended range and rate by FHWA 1998)—(3.0, 4.0, 5.0%). priate strategy, independent of his/her risk attitude. However, a DM
with neutral confidence attitude, under absolutely pessimistic
Other Parameters and Factors Depended on Decision risk attitude will choose Alternative 1, but under absolutely
Maker’s Attitudes optimistic and neutral risk attitude Alternative 4 will be chosen
• Bottom limit of desired range of PSI—2.5, top limit—4.0. for implementation.

Table 3. Values of the Three Criteria and the Objective Function and the Ranking Orders of the Alternatives
Pavement performance
Life-cycle agency costs Life-cycle user costs cost value Objective function value
Standard Standard Standard Standard
Design EV deviation EV deviation EV deviation EV deviation
strategy ($1,000) ($1,000) Order ($1,000) ($1,000) Order ($1,000) ($1,000) Order ($1,000) ($1,000) Order
Alternative 1 16,047 276 1 12,638 1,248 4 2,385 71 3 24,256 1,070 2
Alternative 2 18,025 354 4 7,407 1,399 1 8,516 255 4 26,645 1,424 4
Alternative 3 17,580 626 3 12,548 1,877 3 1,621 49 2 25,222 1,807 3
Alternative 4 16,930 609 2 11,891 1,664 2 1,584 47 1 23,966 1,621 1

© ASCE 04014002-5 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 Table 4. Total Life-Cycle Costs and Ranking Orders of the Alternatives under Different Risk and Confidence Attitudes
Absolutely optimistic Neutral Absolutely pessimistic Risk attitude
Standard Standard Standard
EV deviation EV deviation EV deviation
Design strategy ($1,000) (1,000 $) Order ($1000) ($1,000) Order ($1000) (1,000 $) Order Confidence attitude
Alternative 1 22,959 235 2 23,122 289 2 23,284 235 2 Absolutely confident
Alternative 2 26,186 224 4 26,339 278 4 26,491 224 4
Alternative 3 23,807 388 3 24,076 479 3 24,344 388 3
Alternative 4 22,622 389 1 22,887 483 1 23,152 389 1
Alternative 1 23,554 1,173 2 24,256 1,070 2 25,254 1,179 1 Neutral
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY on 04/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Alternative 2 25,650 1,507 4 26,645 1,424 4 28,091 1,650 4

Alternative 3 24,036 1,908 3 25,222 1,807 3 26,800 1,991 3
Alternative 4 22,883 1,716 1 23,966 1,621 1 25,344 1,784 2
Alternative 1 24,743 2,364 3 26,015 2,213 2 28,379 2,453 1 Absolutely
Alternative 2 25,938 2,932 4 27,698 2,863 4 31,306 3,435 4 non-confident
Alternative 3 24,167 2,905 2 26,463 3,043 3 30,231 3,713 3
Alternative 4 23,116 2,619 1 25,177 2,703 1 28,481 3,290 2

Under absolutely nonconfident attitude, cost components of
concrete pavement associates with more uncertainties (the ranges
given for cost components of rigid pavement are wider than those
of flexible pavement). Hence, the chance of being selected as the
supreme alternative for concrete pavement strategies, Alternative 3
and 4, decreases with respect to risk attitude changes from abso-
lutely optimistic to absolutely pessimistic. As result, Alternative
1 will be selected as the most appropriate strategy by a DM
who is absolutely nonconfident and absolutely pessimistic.
Conclusions and Recommendations
A new methodology was proposed for pavement project life-cycle
analysis that would enable one to consider and handle uncertainties
associated with input factors using a fuzzy approach. The proposed
Pavement Strategy Selection Fuzzy Method (PSSFM) also takes
into account pavement performance and its effects on the
user costs.
To assess the performance of the presented method, it was
utilized in a hypothetical project. The results revealed that paying
attention to long-term costs, in general, decreases total costs of the
projects. Also, considering the effects of pavement performance in
the analysis will help calculate real costs of pavement projects.
Moreover, sensitivity analysis of the results, considering DM’s risk
and confidence attitudes, can lead to select the most appropriate
pavement design strategy.
The presented life-cycle performance calculation technique
which is based on AASHTO equations provides an adequate
and convenient approach to estimate pavement performance con-
dition, especially in the absence of actual pavement condition data.
Obviously, the successful application of the presented methodology
depends on utilizing actual estimation of uncertainties associated
with the problem.
References
AASHTO. (1993). AASHTO guide for design of pavement structures,
Washington, DC.
AASHTO. (2010). “Life cycle cost analysis for pavement type selection
responses.” 〈http://www.research.transportation.org/Documents/LCCA
Replies.xls〉 (Dec. 3, 2010).
Abaza, K. A. (2002). “Optimum flexible pavement life-cycle analysis
model.” J. Transp. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2002)128:6(542),
542–549.
Asphalt Institute of Iran. (2007). Modeling flexible pavement response
and performance, Ministry of Roads and Urban Development, Tehran,
Iran.
Bonissone, P. P. (1982). “A fuzzy sets based linguistic approach:
Theory and applications.” Approximate reasoning in decision analysis,
M. M. Gupta and E. Sanchez, eds., North-Holland, Amsterdam,
329–339.
Chan, A., Keoleian, G., and Gabler, E. (2008). “Evaluation of life-cycle
cost analysis practices used by the Michigan Department of Transpor-
tation.” J. Transp. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2008)134:6(236),
236–245.
Chen, C. (2007). “Soft computing-based life-cycle cost analysis tools for
transportation infrastructure management.” Dissertation for the Degree
of Doctor of Philosophy in Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., Blacksburg, VA.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (1989). Construction costs and
safety impacts of work zone traffic control strategies, U.S. Dept. of
Transportation, Washington, DC.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (1998). Life-cycle cost analysis
in pavement design—In search of better investment decisions, U.S.
Dept. of Transportation, Washington, DC.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2002). Life-cycle cost analysis
primer, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Washington, DC.
Fenton, N., and Wang, W. (2006). “Risk and confidence analysis for
fuzzy multicriteria decision making.” Knowl. Base. Syst., 19(6),
430–437.
Fwa, T. F., and Sinha, K. C. (1991). “Pavement performance and life-cycle
cost analysis.” J. Transp. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(1991)
117:1(33), 33–46.
Labi, S., and Sinha, K. C. (2005). “Life-cycle evaluation of flexible
pavement preventive maintenance.” J. Transp. Eng., 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-947X(2005)131:10(744), 744–751.
Lamptey, G., Ahmad, M., Labi, S., and Sinha, K. C. (2005). “Life cycle
cost analysis for INDOT pavement design procedure.” FHWA/IN/JTRP-
2004/28, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN.
Lamptey, G., Labi, S., and Li, Z. (2008). “Decision support for optimal
scheduling of highway pavement preventive maintenance within resur-
facing cycle.” Decis. Support Syst., 46(1), 376–387.
Lay, M. G. (2009). Handbook of road technology, Chapter 14, 4th Ed.,
Spon Press, New York, 334.
Li, Z., and Madanu, S. (2009). “Highway project level life-cycle benefit/
cost analysis under certainty, risk, and uncertainty: Methodology with
case study.” J. Transp. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000012,
516–526.
Matthews, J. C., and Allouche, E. N. (2010). “A social cost calculator for
utility construction projects.” NASTT’s 2010 No-Dig Show, North
American Society for Trenchless Technology (NASTT), Chicago.

© ASCE 04014002-6 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). (2003). The value of travel-
time: Estimates of the hourly value of time for vehicles in Oregon 2003,
Salem, OR.
Reigle, J. A., and Zaniewski, J. P. (2002). “Risk-based life-cycle cost
analysis for project-level pavement management.” Transp. Res. Rec.,
1816(1), 34–42.
Shaheen, A. A., Fayek, A. R., and AbouRizk, S. M. (2007). “Fuzzy num-
bers in cost range estimating.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9364(2007)133:4(325), 325–334.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY on 04/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
© ASCE 04014002-7
J. Infrastruct. Syst.
Tighe, S. (2001). “Guidelines for probabilistic pavement life cycle cost
analysis.” Transp. Res. Rec., 1769(1), 28–38.
Wilde, W. J., Waalkes, S., and Harrison, R. (1999). “Life cycle cost
analysis of portland cement concrete pavements.” FHWA/TX-00/
0-1739-1, Univ. of Texas, Austin.
Zaniewski, J. P., Butler, B. C. Jr., Cunningham, G., Elkins, G. E.,
Paggi, M., and Machemehl, R. (1982). “Vehicle operating costs, fuel
consumption, and pavement type and condition factors.” FHWA/PL/
82/001, Washington, DC.
J. Infrastruct. Syst.