Utilization

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/26067 SHARE

   
Utilization Measurement and Management of Fleet Equipment

(2021)
DETAILS
90 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-67366-2 | DOI 10.17226/26067
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK Ali Hajbabaie, Leila Hajibabai, Mehrdad Tajalli, Amir Mirheli, and Rasool
Mohebifard; National Cooperative Highway Research Program; Transportation
Research Board; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
FIND RELATED TITLES
SUGGESTED CITATION
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2021. Utilization

Measurement and Management of Fleet Equipment. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26067.

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientific reports

– 10% off the price of print titles
– Email or social media notifications of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

N AT I O N A L C O O P E R AT I V E H I G H W AY R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M
NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 957

Utilization Measurement and
Management of Fleet Equipment
Leila Hajibabai
Ali Hajbabaie
Mehrdad Tajalli
Amir Mirheli
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC
Wei Fan
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Charlotte, NC
Subscriber Categories
Maintenance and Preservation • Vehicles and Equipment
Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
2021
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 957

RESEARCH PROGRAM
Systematic, well-designed, and implementable research is the most Project 13-05
effective way to solve many problems facing state departments of ISSN 2572-3766 (Print)
transportation (DOTs) administrators and engineers. Often, highway ISSN 2572-3774 (Online)
problems are of local or regional interest and can best be studied by ISBN 978-0-309-67366-2
state DOTs individually or in cooperation with their state universities Library of Congress Control Number 2020951284
and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transporta-
© 2021 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
tion results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to high-
way authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated
program of cooperative research.
Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 ini- Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
tiated an objective national highway research program using modern written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research published or copyrighted material used herein.
Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
FTA, GHSA, NHTSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice.
(FHWA), United States Department of Transportation, under Agree-
It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and
ment No. 693JJ31950003. not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to
administer the research program because of TRB’s recognized objectivity
and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited
NOTICE
for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive com-
mittee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation The research report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication
according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board
subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and
and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, univer-
sities, and industry; TRB’s relationship to the National Academies is an The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of special- Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; the
ists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research FHWA; or the program sponsors.
directly to those in a position to use them.
The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
The program is developed on the basis of research needs iden- and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
tified by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein
transportation departments, by committees of AASHTO, and by solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
the FHWA. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO
Special Committee on Research and Innovation (R&I), and each year
R&I’s recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Direc-
tors and the National Academies. Research projects to address these
topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified research agencies are
selected from submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of
research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Academies
and TRB.
The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make
significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems
of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however,
is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate,
other highway research programs.
Published research reports of the
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

are available from
Transportation Research Board

Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

https://www.nationalacademies.org
and then searching for TRB
Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through
trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The
Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from
the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by
state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation,
and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 957

Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Amir N. Hanna, Senior Program Officer
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Natalie Barnes, Associate Director of Publications
NCHRP PROJECT 13-05 PANEL

Field of Maintenance—Area of Equipment
William Brooks, Jr., North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC (Chair)
John J. Brewington, Jr., Brewington & Company, Mount Airy, NC
Robert J. Ellingsworth, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Saint Paul, MN
George Dennis Halachoff, National Center for Pavement Preservation, Okemos, MI
Greg A. Hansen, Washington State Department of Transportation, Tumwater, WA
Lisa M. Kunzman, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA
W. James Smith, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg, PA
Morgan Kessler, FHWA Liaison
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Project 13-05 through the Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering at Washington State University (WSU), the Department of Civil
Engineering at the State University of New York at Stony Brook (SBU), the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (UNCC), MyFleetDept,
and ITSNode, LLC. WSU was the contractor for this study, and Dr. Ali Hajbabaie, formerly at WSU,
was the Principal Investigator.
The other contributors to this work are:
• D
r. Leila Hajibabai, Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering at North Carolina State University (NCSU),
formerly at WSU;
• Mr. Mehrdad Tajalli, Research Assistant at NCSU;
• Mr. Amir Mirheli, Research Assistant at NCSU;
• Mr. Rasool Mohebifard, Research Assistant at NCSU;
• Mr. SMA Bin Al Islam, Research Assistant at NCSU;
• Dr. Wei Fan, Professor of Civil Engineering at UNCC;
• Mr. Miao Yu, Research Assistant at UNCC;
• Dr. Xianming Shi, Professor of Civil Engineering at WSU;
• Mr. Michael Moser from MyFleetDept; and
• Mr. Shaowei Wang from ITSNode, LLC.

FOREWORD
By Amir N. Hanna
Staff Officer
NCHRP Research Report 957: Utilization Measurement and Management of Fleet Equip-
ment is both a handbook on equipment utilization concepts and a guide for making
cost-effective equipment utilization decisions. It presents a systematic process that incor-
porates the operating and maintenance costs to determine optimal fleet size; the number
of equipment units to be purchased, salvaged, and relocated; and the average region-level
utilization of each equipment type that will reduce the total cost.
The guide will help fleet managers determine optimal equipment utilization by imple-
menting systematic utilization processes supported by sound data-driven analysis. It should
also help fleet managers in making decisions regarding fleet size and composition to
support the agency’s mission. The information contained in the research report should be
of interest to fleet managers and state maintenance engineers and to others involved in the
utilization aspects of equipment fleet assets.
State highway agency equipment fleet assets are vital to the delivery of agency pro-
grams, projects, and services. Measuring, monitoring, and reporting on asset utilization
levels are necessary for managing the equipment fleet and meeting the highway agency’s
business needs. A variety of processes have been used by highway agencies for utilization
measurement and management, but there is no widely accepted process for determin-
ing utilization criteria, measurement, and management of fleet equipment. Therefore,
there was a need to identify current practices, review relevant information, and develop
rational processes that will provide effective means for fleet utilization and management.
There was also a need to prepare a guide for utilization and management to facilitate
use of these processes. With this information, highway fleet managers and administra-
tors can better accomplish the task of equipment utilization in terms of fleet size and
composition.
Under NCHRP Project 13-05, “Guide for Utilization Measurement and Manage-
ment of Fleet Equipment,” Washington State University was charged with the devel-
opment of a guide for utilization measurement and management of fleet equipment
that includes processes and tools for making decisions regarding the utilization and
management of highway operations equipment fleet used by state highway agencies. To
accomplish this objective, the researchers identified and reviewed the factors, practices,
and processes for fleet equipment utilization and used this information to develop a
systematic equipment utilization decision process. The process uses data-driven utiliza-
tion analysis and incorporates operating and maintenance costs to determine optimal
fleet size; the number of equipment units to be purchased, salvaged, and relocated; and
the average region-level utilization of each equipment type that will reduce the total

cost. Finally, the researchers prepared a guide document (included as Part II of the
research report) to facilitate use of the developed utilization and management process
together with utilization prediction and management software to support the utilization
decision process and a user manual (Part III) that provides step-by-step instructions
for its use.

CONTENTS
P A R T I Research Overview
3 Summary
8 Chapter 1 Introduction
8 1.1 Background
8 1.2 Project Objective
8 1.3 Research Approach
8 1.4 Organization of the Report
9 Chapter 2 Research Approach

9 2.1 Introduction
9 2.2 Literature Review
9 2.3 Agency Survey
9 2.4 Data Collection
10 2.5 Data Processing
10 2.6 Fitting the Models
10 2.7 Validating the Models
11 2.8 Developing the Equipment Fleet Utilization Management Program
11 2.9 Validating the Equipment Fleet Utilization Management Program
11 2.10 Developing the UPM Software
11 2.11 Validating the UPM Software
12 Chapter 3 Research Findings

12 3.1 Introduction
15 3.3 Agency Survey
19 3.5 Utilization Estimation Models
21 3.6 Equipment Cost Estimation Models
27 Chapter 4 Summary and Suggested Research

27 4.1 Summary
28 4.2 Suggested Research
29 References

P A R T I I Guide for Utilization Measurement

and Management of Fleet Equipment
33 Chapter 1 Introduction and Purpose
34 Chapter 2 Organization of the Guide
35 Chapter 3 Equipment Classification
37 Chapter 4 Utilization Estimation Factors
37 4.1 Utilization Measurement Metrics
37 4.2 Factors Contributing to Equipment Utilization
38 Chapter 5 Asset Utilization Measurement
41 Chapter 6 Equipment Utilization Management Framework
41 6.1 Area-Level Utilization Management
42 6.2 Region-Level Utilization Management
42 6.3 Unit-Level Utilization Management
43 Chapter 7 Equipment Utilization Management Process
P A R T I I I User Manual for the Utilization Prediction

and Management Software
49 1.1 Background
49 1.2 About this User Manual
49 1.3 UPM Software Capabilities
50 Chapter 2 UPM Software Installation
51 Chapter 3 Distance Matrix Setup
53 Chapter 4 Data Preparation
53 4.1 Dataset Setup
53 4.2 Dataset Configuration
56 Chapter 5 Running UPM Software and Importing Agency Data
56 5.1 Run UPM Software
56 5.2 Import Distance Matrix into UPM Software
56 5.3 Import Equipment-Level Dataset into UPM Software
57 5.4 Import Region-Level Data into UPM Software
63 Chapter 6 Predict Utilization
66 Chapter 7 Utilization Management Processes
66 7.1 Determine Optimal Utilization Values
70 7.2 Define Scenarios
74 7.3 Generate Summary Report
76 Chapter 8 Use Case Example
Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing.
The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.

PA RT I
Research Overview

CONTENTS
3 Summary
8 1.1 Background
8 1.2 Project Objective
8 1.3 Research Approach
8 1.4 Organization of the Report
9 Chapter 2 Research Approach

9 2.1 Introduction
9 2.3 Agency Survey
10 2.5 Data Processing
10 2.6 Fitting the Models
11 2.10 Developing the UPM Software
11 2.11 Validating the UPM Software
12 Chapter 3 Research Findings

12 3.1 Introduction
15 3.3 Agency Survey
19 3.5 Utilization Estimation Models
27 Chapter 4 Summary and Suggested Research

27 4.1 Summary
28 4.2 Suggested Research
29 References

3
SUMMARY
Utilization Measurement and

Management of Fleet Equipment
Background
Equipment fleet assets are vital to the delivery of state highway agency programs, projects,
and services. Measuring, monitoring, and reporting on equipment utilization levels are
necessary for the management of equipment fleet and meeting highway agencies’ business
needs. Highway agencies use a variety of processes for utilization measurement and manage-
ment; there is no widely accepted process for determining utilization criteria, measurement,
and management of fleet equipment. There was a need to develop a guide that incorporates
rational processes and appropriate electronic-based tools and provides a realistic means for
fleet utilization measurement and management. Such a guide will help equipment managers
and administrators in making decisions regarding fleet size and composition to meet their
agency missions. NCHRP Project 13-05 was initiated to address this need.
Objective
The objective of this research was to develop a guide for utilization measurement and
management of fleet equipment and associated processes and electronic-based tools for
use by state highway agencies.
Findings
Literature Review and Survey
The literature search revealed availability of limited information directly related to
fleet equipment utilization. Relevant information was obtained from fleet management
practitioners at state departments of transportation (DOTs); 32 responses were received.
The literature review and survey showed that annual mileage, annual engine hours,
usage over the last 12 months, and frequency of use were the most widely used utilization
metrics.
The factors that influenced utilization measurement and management (directly or
indirectly) were equipment in-service age, cumulative utilization level, breakdown rate,
downtime hours, fleet size, number of equipment units under repair, equipment quality
upon acquisition, normal equipment life, expected equipment workload, supervision level
needed for equipment, product types, environmental impacts, purchase cost, operating
cost, maintenance cost, repair cost, and salvage value.
The survey results indicated that the equipment types most commonly used by state
DOTs were dump trucks, pickup trucks, automobiles, vans, sport utility vehicles, trailers,

front loaders, graders, mechanical street sweeper trucks, air street sweeper trucks, sweepers/
scrubbers, riding mowers, truck tractors, snow removal attachments, rollers, drills, asphalt
distributors, attachments, man lifts, and large trucks with a special body.
Data Collection
The research team conducted a national data collection effort and used data from
seven state DOTs (California, Louisiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Utah,
and Washington) to develop utilization models and fleet management frameworks for
19 equipment types: dump trucks, pickup trucks, automobiles, vans, sport utility vehicles,
trailers, front loader trucks, graders, mechanical street sweeper trucks, air street sweeper
trucks, riding mowers, truck tractors, snow removal attachments, rollers, drills, asphalt
distributors, attachments, man lifts, and large trucks with special body.
Equipment Fleet Utilization Prediction

The utilization measurement metrics used were “annual mileage,” “annual engine hours,”
and “frequency of usage.” The review of the literature and the agency survey suggested
that annual mileage was the most appropriate and recorded utilization metric for moving
equipment types, and the research team collected a large amount of annual mileage data.
The annual engine hours and frequency of usage were more appropriate for stationary
equipment types and equipment types without an engine, respectively; the research team
collected annual engine hours and frequency of usage data for some equipment types.
The data were cleaned before modeling by removing outliers. The data were aggregated
at the region level; the models estimated the annual mileage, annual engine hours, and
frequency of usage for a specific equipment type in a region. Table 1 defines the parameters
that were used in the prediction models.
A comprehensive model fitting process was followed for each equipment type. The model
considered various model structures including linear, quadratic, power, logarithmic, and
nonlinear forms. Logarithmic linear regression, in which the independent variable is the
logarithmic function of utilization metrics, yielded the best fit and the most intuitive model
for predicting the annual mileage and engine hours for most equipment types. Table 2 lists
all the equipment utilization estimation models.
Equipment Fleet Utilization Management

The research team developed an equipment utilization management framework for
estimating the optimal utilization values and fleet composition in each region of a state.
Table 1. Utilization parameters used in utilization models.

Variables Description
: Annual Mileage Average annual mileage in a region
: Annual Engine Hours Average annual engine hours in a region
: Frequency of Usage Average frequency of usage in a region
: Purchase Cost ($1,000) Average equipment purchase cost in a region
: Annual Downtime Hours Average equipment annual downtime hours in a region
: Annual Scheduled Maintenance Cost ($1,000) Average equipment annual scheduled maintenance cost in a region
: Annual Unscheduled Repair Cost ($1,000) Average equipment annual unscheduled repair cost in a region
: In-Service Age Average equipment in-service age in a region
: Fleet Size Average fleet size in a region
: Class 1: if the equipment is in class based on the NAFA class code
Note: identifies equipment class as defined in the National Association of Fleet Administrators (NAFA) classification.

5
Table 2. Equipment utilization estimation models.

Asset Type Utilization Estimation Model
log( ) = 9.321 + 0.238 log( ) − 0.635 log( ) + 0.129 log( ⁄ )
Dump Truck
− 0.503 ( 5 + 6 + 7 )
log( ) = 7.081 + 0.461 log( ) − 0.153 ( )0.5 + 0.275 log( ⁄ )
Pickup Truck + 0.237 log( ) − 0.024 ( )0.5 − 0.049 2 − 0.144 3
− 0.464 4
Automobile log( ) = 9.119 + 0.256 + 0.0781 log( ) − 0.147 log( )
log( ) = 9.256 − 0.111 + 0.103 log( ⁄ ) + 0.188 log( )
Van
− 0.002 + 0.289 ( 5 + 6 )
Sport Utility Vehicle log( ) = 10.222 − 0.461 log( ) + 0.248 log( ) − 0.002
log( ) = 5.349 + 0.814 log( ) − 0.003 ( )2 + 0.663 log( )
+ 0.481 log( ) − 0.009
Trailer
= 135.65 + 1.365 + 18.073 log( ) − 125.681 12 + 61.966 14
+ 46.051 17
Front Loader Truck log( ) = 5.590 − 0.004 ( )2 + 0.786 ( 3 + 4 )
log( ) = 6.710 − 0.861 log( ) + 0.493 log( ) + 0.905 log( )
Grader
log( ) = 7.619 + 0.505 log( ) + 1.113 log( ) − 0.455 log( )
log( ) = 12.985 − 1.812 log( ) + 0.343 log( ⁄ ) − 0.470 log( )
Mechanical / Air
− 0.096 log( ) + 0.973 4
Street Sweeper Truck
log( ) = 6.291 − 0.220 + 0.541 log( ) + 0.416 log( )
log( ) = 4.445 + 0.222 log( ) + 0.440 log( )
Riding Mower
log( ) = −0.921 + 0.512 log( ) − 0.042 − 0.441 + 1.384 log( )
log( ) = 10.014 − 0.004 ( × 10−1 )2 − 0.810 log( ) + 0.061
Truck Tractor
+ 1.064 3
Snow Removal
log( ) = −0.674 + 1.042 log( ) + 0.095 ( ⁄ ) − 0.015
Attachment
log( ) = 4.399 + 1.095 log( ) − 1.148 log( ) + 1.072 log( )
− 0.872 2 + 0.624 3
Roller log( ) = 4.196 + 10.235 ( )−2 − 0.004 − 0.806 log( ) × log( )
+ 2.084 2
log( ) = 129.893 + 0.316 ( ⁄ )2 +107.621 3
log( ) = 4.079 + 0.008 + 0.163 − 0.153 ( )0.5
Drill
= 26.481 + 16.841 ( ⁄ )
log( ) = 22.406 − 2.417 log( ) − 0.476 log( ) − 0.005 ( )2 −
Asphalt Distributor 2
3.527 ( )
Attachment log( ) = 5.056 + 0.354 log( ) − 0.127 ( )0.5 −1.031 2
Man Lift log( ) = 4.101 + 0.938 log( ) + 0.317 − 0.167 ( )0.5
log( ) = 7.766 − 0.031 ( )2 + 1.653 × − 0.754 log( )
Large Truck with log( ) = 9.712 − 0.080 + 0.158 log( ) − 9.27 ( × 10−3 )2 + 0.284 2
Special Body − 0.296 5 − 1.032 8 − 0.278 11

The framework incorporates a mathematical program that determines for each region in a
specific year (a) fleet size, (b) number of equipment units to be purchased, (c) number of
equipment units to be salvaged, (d) number of equipment units to be relocated to another
region, and (e) average utilization levels required to meet the demand.
The program determines the lowest total fleet management costs considering operating
cost (i.e., the summation of annual fuel, unscheduled repair, and scheduled maintenance
costs), equipment purchase cost, and equipment relocation cost. The program also updates
the fleet size in each region in the following year considering the number of purchased
equipment units, “brought-in” or “sent-out” equipment from/to other regions, and salvaged
equipment. In addition, the program ensures that:
1. The number of equipment units leaving each region to other regions in the following
year does not exceed the number currently available in that region;
2. The demand will be met by having sufficient fleet size in the following year (i.e., the
product of fleet size and average utilization of each equipment type in each region in the
following year shall be equal to or greater than the total demand);
3. No equipment will be utilized in excess of its maximum allowed utilization level; and
4. The number of purchased, salvaged, and relocated equipment units will not be less than
zero for the following year.
The mathematical model showed a reduction in total costs as a result of optimizing

the fleet size; the number of equipment units to be purchased, salvaged, and relocated;
and the region-level average utilization level for each equipment type.
Guide for Equipment Fleet Utilization Measurement

and Management
A guide for utilization measurement and management of fleet equipment was developed
as part of this research (Part II of this report). The guide incorporates a utilization manage-
ment framework that integrates the (i) data input capabilities and (ii) utilization measure-
ment models developed through rigorous statistical analyses of the collected data. These
models use cost functions to determine the optimal utilization levels while considering
operational constraints.
Models were developed for different types of equipment assets and incorporated in a soft-
ware application dubbed utilization prediction and management (UPM). The UPM soft-
ware uses these models and the data available for the different equipment types to estimate
the levels of utilization metrics and determine the optimal values for utilization measures
(i.e., the values that minimize fleet management costs). Figure 1 shows snapshots of some
steps in the UPM process. A user manual that details software installation, configuration,
and capabilities is presented in Part III.

7
Figure 1. Snapshot of some steps in the UPM process.

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
1.1 Background processes and suitable computer-based tools that provide

optimal solutions to help equipment managers and admin-
Fleet assets are critical for the delivery of state highway istrators make decisions regarding the fleet size required
agency programs, projects, and services and consume a major to meet agency needs. It should be recognized that utiliza-
portion of capital investments. These assets also require tion can only be managed for equipment with tracked and
significant resources to ensure their operational perfor- reported usage, and although a typical highway agency fleet
mance, reliability, and service level. Agencies need to main- includes many equipment types, only some of this equipment
tain fleets of adequate sizes to meet the demand and avoid is suitable for tracking utilization.
over- or underutilized equipment. Hence, there is a trade-off
between minimizing resource investments and maintaining
sufficiently-sized equipment fleets. Effective approaches to 1.2 Project Objective
management of equipment fleet can help highway agencies
The objective of this research was to develop a guide for
meet the demand and extend equipment life expectancy by
utilization measurement and management of fleet equip-
avoiding over- or underutilization, thus accruing significant
ment and associated processes and electronic-based tools for
cost reductions and environmental benefits. A major portion
use by state highway agencies.
of fleet management activity is devoted to measuring, moni-
toring, and reporting equipment utilization levels while
meeting the needs of the highway agencies. 1.3 Research Approach
The literature review revealed different definitions for
utilization management. For example, it is defined as The project included a literature review of fleet utilization
(a) management of the size and composition of the fleet [1], measurement and management, a survey to identify state
(b) an effort to balance under- and overutilized equipment DOTs’ current practices, analysis of available data and model
and vehicles for more efficient and cost-effective use of the development, and the preparation of the guide and utiliza-
fleet assets [2], or (c) a process to decrease the total number tion measurement and management tool.
of state-maintained vehicles to reduce the overall cost [3].
Further, asset management aims to identify the right type
1.4 Organization of the Report
of equipment for each use and how each equipment item
will be used. This report has three parts. Part I describes the research
Different procedures are employed to address the utiliza- background (this chapter), research approach (Chapter 2),
tion measurement and management challenges for highway research findings and applications (Chapter 3), and conclu-
agencies [4, 5, 6]. However, there is no widely accepted sions and suggested research (Chapter 4). Part II is the guide
process for determining utilization criteria, measurement, for utilization measurement and management of fleet equip-
and management of fleet equipment. Hence, a guide for ment, and Part III is the user manual for the developed UPM
utilization measurement and management of fleet equip- software. The software is available from the TRB website at
ment is needed. Such a guide needs to incorporate rational trb.org by searching for “NCHRP Research Report 957.”

9
CHAPTER 2
Research Approach
2.1 Introduction 2.2 Literature Review

Highway agencies use a variety of processes for utilization The literature review covered domestic and foreign litera-
measurement and management of equipment fleet. However, ture, research findings, and other information relative to
there are no widely accepted processes for utilization mea- utilization measurement and management of fleet equip-
surement and management of fleet equipment. This research ment. The review focused on the practices, processes, and
project was initiated to develop a guide that incorporates methodologies for the management of fleet equipment to
rational processes and appropriate electronic-based tools to help identify the most important utilization measurement
address utilization measurement and management of fleet metrics, factors influencing fleet utilization measurement and
equipment. management, the common equipment types that highway
The research team identified and reviewed literature rele- agencies maintain, and utilization thresholds.
vant to fleet utilization measurement and management and
conducted a survey of state DOTs to identify fleet utiliza-
tion measurement and management practices, utilization
2.3 Agency Survey
metrics, common equipment types and classes, and criteria The survey of state DOTs identified fleet utilization
used for utilization management. Based on the findings of measurement and management practices used by highway
the literature review and agency survey, the research team agencies, utilization measurement metrics, factors influenc-
collected and processed data from several state DOTs to ing fleet utilization measurement and management, the most
develop models for estimating fleet equipment utilization. common equipment types that state DOTs maintain, and
Various mathematical forms for models and variable selec- the types and amount of fleet utilization measurement and
tion approaches were considered to determine significant management data collected by highway agencies.
contributing factors to utilization. Several statistical tests
were used to validate the developed models and ensure the
validity of their assumptions. Also, models to estimate the 2.4 Data Collection
operating cost of fleet equipment were developed following The survey of state DOTs identified the type and amount
the same procedure. of data recorded by state DOTs and their availability for use
The equipment utilization and operating cost models were in this research.
then incorporated in an optimization program to manage The survey indicated that the data collected included
equipment utilization by determining the lowest total equipment identification number, NAFA class code, model
management cost while meeting agency needs and avoiding year, manufacturer, report year, in-service age (year), fleet
under- and overutilization of equipment. The program esti- size, equipment capacity, fuel type, region, in-service date
mates optimal fleet size, utilization level, and the number of (year/month), ownership (own or rent), purchase cost ($),
equipment units to be purchased, salvaged, and relocated in annual rent hours and cost, mounted equipment, annual
each region of a state; and was validated through sensitivity mileage, annual engine hours, annual fuel consumption,
analyses. All utilization prediction and management models frequency of usage per year (days scheduled), annual down-
were then incorporated in UPM software. time hours, maintenance provider, annual (scheduled)

10
maintenance hours and cost, (scheduled) maintenance

interval mileage and days, seasonality, and predicted annual
demand (number of miles, hours, days, etc.). The research team
sought other data, such as annual cost data on (unscheduled)
repair, insurance, interest charge, depreciation charge, taxes,
licensing, storage, and overhead.
2.5 Data Processing

To prepare the collected data for fitting the regression Figure 2. Example of residual histogram.
models, the influential outliers in a set of explanatory vari-
ables were identified using Cook’s distance measure [7, 8].
This approach identifies the observations that negatively
engine hours, and frequency of usage). Thus, a value of zero
affect the regression model and removes them from the
means that the model exactly predicts the observation.
dataset. The approach considers a combination of each
Ideally, the residuals should follow a normal distribution
observation’s leverage and the associated residual values.
with an average of zero (see Figure 2). After visual analysis
Larger leverage and residual values yield a higher Cook’s
of residual distributions, the Shapiro–Wilk test [12] was
distance and thus a higher chance that the observation is an
applied to each model to determine if the residuals of the
outlier; observations with a Cook’s distance of more than
regression model followed a normal distribution.
three times the mean value were considered outliers and
In the next step, plots of predicted versus observed values
were removed from the analysis. In addition, only those
for each model were prepared and a regression line was fitted.
variables having no more than 40% of their data missing
Ideally, the regression line should go through the origin and
were considered to ensure that sufficient data were avail-
have a slope of one, with a high R-squared value. Figure 3
able to develop valid utilization estimation models. The
shows an example of a plot of predicted versus observed
collected data were aggregated both over state-defined
data, with a regression line having a slope of 0.999 and an
regions and annually.
R-squared value of 0.9.
The Durbin–Watson statistic [13] was also used to inves-
2.6 Fitting the Models tigate autocorrelation in residuals (i.e., how residuals of
subsequent observations in the dataset are correlated to each
To determine the most appropriate structure for develop other, although the linear regression assumes that they are
ing the regression models, linear, quadratic, power, logarith- independent of each other). Another important assumption
mic, and nonlinear forms were considered; also, pairwise of the linear regression model is that there should be no
plots of the relationships between the equipment utilization heteroscedasticity of residuals (i.e., the variance of residuals
metrics and the explanatory variable were constructed and should be constant and not increase as the fitted values of
evaluated for fitness. The most relevant explanatory variables response variable increase); the Breusch–Pagan test [14] was
were identified after the model structure was selected. used to evaluate this assumption.
Forward selection [9] and backward elimination [10]
approaches were used to identify the best models; these
were further improved by improving their fit using the
R package [11]. The Pearson correlation and the variance
inflation factor tests before and after fitting the model,
respectively, were used to ensure that there was no multi-
collinearity between the independent variables.
2.7 Validating the Models

The validation process started with plotting the residual
distribution. Residuals were defined as the difference between
the predicted (by the model) and observed (from data) Figure 3. Example plot of predicted versus
values of the dependent variable (e.g., annual mileage, annual observed data.

11
2.8 Developing the Equipment * Minimize costs

Fleet Utilization Management - Fleet size
- Utilization threshold
Program
Determining the optimal fleet size and utilization level in
a region requires consideration of budget, maximum utili- * Relocate * Salvage
zation thresholds, and demand constraints while minimiz- resources
ing the total fleet management costs. Determining how to
achieve the optimal fleet size and utilization level in each
region (by purchasing, salvaging, and relocating equipment)
while minimizing total fleet management costs is a complex
process that requires mathematical programming to account
for all these constraints. The research team developed a math-
ematical program for optimizing utilization level values and
fleet composition in each region in each state. The program * Purchase
determines the following items for each year:
1. Fleet size in each region, Figure 4. Schematic overview of the

2. Number of equipment units to be purchased in each utilization management program.
region,
3. Number of equipment units to be salvaged in each region,
4. Number of equipment units to be relocated from one
The UPM software produces state-, region-, and unit-level
region to another, and
results.
5. Average utilization levels required to meet the demand in
each region.
2.9 Validating the Equipment Fleet
The program finds the lowest total fleet management costs, Utilization Management Program
including the operating cost (i.e., the summation of annual
The utilization management program was validated
fuel, unscheduled repair, and scheduled maintenance costs),
through a rigorous sensitivity analysis of the results obtained
equipment purchase cost, and equipment relocation cost. The from numerous input scenarios (e.g., combinations of various
program updates the fleet size in each region in the following demand levels, relocation costs, and maximum utilization
year based on the decisions regarding (a) purchased equip- levels). Changes were made as necessary to ensure that the
ment, (b) “brought-in” or “sent-out” equipment from/to findings yield the expected results and follow the expected
other regions, and (c) salvaged equipment and ensures that trends (e.g., increasing the demand level leads to an increase
(see Figure 4): in the fleet size).
1. The number of equipment units leaving each region to

other regions in the following year does not exceed the 2.10 Developing the UPM Software
number currently available in that region; The data input capabilities, prediction models, fleet
2. The demand will be met by having sufficient fleet size equipment management program, and reporting capabilities
in the following year (i.e., the product of fleet size and were packaged in an electronic tool coded in Java that allows
average utilization of each equipment type in each region ready application by the end-user.
in the following year shall be equal to or greater than the
total demand);
2.11 Validating the UPM Software
3. No equipment will be utilized in excess of its maximum
allowed utilization level; and Numerous input scenarios were developed for each feature
4. The number of purchased, salvaged, and relocated equip- of the software and used to validate the software and ensure
ment units will not be less than zero for the following year. all features work properly.

12
CHAPTER 3
Research Findings
3.1 Introduction pieces of equipment [15]. The main category included two

separate groups of heavy equipment that is primarily used
This chapter presents the findings of the literature review for construction and maintenance activities. One group
and agency survey; discusses the data collection, cleaning, included backhoes, excavators, graders, rollers, and crawler
and processing; and describes the development and valida-
tractors; the other included construction brooms, bucket
tion of the utilization estimation models, the fleet utilization
trucks, distributors, crawler and force-feed loaders, milling
management program, and the UPM software.
machines, asphalt reclaimers, seeders, and road wideners.
Tractors, vocational vehicles, passenger cars, light dump
3.2 Literature Review trucks, brush chippers, skid steer loaders, front-end loaders,
cleaner vacuums, and truck tractors were considered as
The literature review focused on practices, processes, and
separate categories.
methodologies as they relate to the utilization management
ODOT uses its own guidelines for minimum annual
of fleet equipment. The reviewed literature was categorized
engine hours and mileage for different categories of equip-
into five topics: (1) benefits, (2) fleet assignment, (3) environ-
ment under seasonality constraints. These guidelines define
ment, (4) fleet maintenance, and (5) data collection.
the minimum utilization requirement for different types of
equipment based on their usage in different seasons to help
3.2.1 Utilization Management Benefits reduce the cost of owning/operating underutilized assets.
The research team reviewed utilization management Based on these guidelines, ODOT estimated that nearly
strategies used by transportation agencies in Ohio, the City 42% of their heavy equipment, 37% of tractors, 6% of voca-
of San Bernardino, Minnesota, Utah, California, North tional vehicles, 19% of passenger cars, 10% of light dump
Carolina, Texas, and Pennsylvania. The utilization manage- trucks, 73% of brush chippers, 41% of front-end loaders,
ment approaches used by these agencies focus on (a) cost 35% of cleaner vacuums, and 7% of truck tractors were used
minimization (North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas), less than their expected operational time, and that having
(b) standardization of equipment categories (North Carolina, the right fleet size would save about $19,504,000 in a ten-
Ohio, and the City of San Bernardino), and (c) performance year period [15].
level determined by policy-based equipment monitoring To evaluate the condition of fleet equipment and each
(California, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Utah, and the department’s permanent/temporary equipment needs, the
City of San Bernardino). City of San Bernardino adopted some guidelines for catego-
The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) [15] rizing equipment and measuring utilization of the functional
adopted strategies aimed at improving fleet management classes. The fleet comprised 728 units, including sedans,
program performance and operations, reducing associated trucks, police vehicles, construction equipment, refuse trucks,
costs, facilitating decision-making, and contributing to and miscellaneous equipment. The vehicle and equipment
public accountability. The decision-making criteria for utili fleets were categorized into seven functional categories under
zation management were based on cost minimization and two broad classifications: “general use” and “special use” [16].
benefit-cost analysis. The utilization measures included monthly average mile/
ODOT categorized equipment based on their general hours to help identify overutilized/underutilized units
value, widespread use across the state, and the number of for potential reassigning or disposal based on minimum

13
utilization criteria. Fleet size reduction, makeup adjustment, that houses data on state-owned/operated motor vehicles.
and the number of pool units were considered based on an Based on minimum utilization standards, the state recom-
estimated salvage value, annual maintenance and repair cost mended strategies for underutilized equipment through a
savings, and replacement cost savings. Utilization thresholds rotation program (e.g., selling equipment at optimal miles
were developed for high, medium, and low use (i.e., usage and years) and accrued savings in annual fleet turnover and
exceeding 80%, 50%–80%, and less than 50% of the annual maintenance costs [3]. Key factors in equipment utilization
average mileage/average monthly hours, respectively). management included the mileage per month, frequency
The utilization data included units, city identification of use, and purpose/need for vehicles that did not meet the
number, make, model, year, classification, department/ mileage and frequency-of-use criteria. The study of UDOT’s
division assignment, domiciled location, current odometer fleet suggested that, when feasible, renting seasonal and low
and hour meter reading, total months in service, and usage utilization equipment would be cost-effective. The study
over the last 12 months. Additionally, each unit’s intended also recommended central utilization management over
use, equipment and loads transported, destinations, and the entire state and other activities to reduce the number of
frequency of use were determined through questionnaire underutilized fleets, such as providing incentives to discourage
responses. The analysis of the data resulted in the recom- agencies from retaining vehicles that are not used [3].
mendation of a 6% reduction in the total number of examined Caltrans used utilization, preventive maintenance, reten-
city fleet units. The study also estimated that the fleet size tion, and availability/downtime for fleet management as fleet
adjustment would result in savings of about $3,516,520 over performance measures [18]. Caltrans’ division of research
a ten-year period [16]. and innovation gathered information on budgeting methods
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and approaches for using utilization measures to reduce costs
initiated use of fleet management performance measures in of fleet equipment management procedures from six state
2002 [17]. These measures target equipment utilization, units DOTs (Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania,
out-of-life cycle, fleet size, and scheduled versus unscheduled Texas, and Virginia); four of which (Illinois, New York, North
maintenance. MnDOT established a set of “equipment Carolina, and Pennsylvania) use computer-based systems
utilization rate goals” for mobile equipment including light, to collect the data. The most influential factors in allocat-
medium, and heavy-duty vehicles, snow plow trucks, loaders, ing budget for equipment replacement are equipment hours
mowers, tractors, and motor graders, among others. The used, mileage, repair cost, and downtime. These six DOTs
minimum utilization requirements for different types of usually spend $20 to $60 million annually to replace fleet
equipment were identified based on their usage in different equipment; all except North Carolina noted serious equip-
seasons. The key factors that influenced equipment utili- ment backlog problems and often reduced fleet equipment
zation and management strategies were the annual mileage, management costs by adopting fuel efficiency policies, fleet
annual engine hours, and seasonality. The target minimum size reduction and reliance on equipment leasing, and reduc-
annual utilization was set at 8,000 miles per year (3,500 miles tion in services.
for seasonal snowplow trucks) and 500 hours per year Kauffmann et al. introduced a method for fleet manage-
(125 hours for seasonal snow and ice support equipment). ment performance monitoring to enhance and expand the
These activities increased statewide utilization from 57% analytical models developed by the North Carolina Depart-
in 2002 to 73% in 2005. In 2006, MnDOT re-evaluated the ment of Transportation for equipment usage, cost, and
utilization standard for different classes of equipment and optimal life cycle [19]. Another study developed economic
introduced the following criteria: analysis models that reflected utilization for different classes
of equipment and calculated ownership, operations, and
• 12,000 miles per year for most light-duty automotive equipment life cycle costs [20]. This study suggested that
classes; utilization by itself may not truly reflect the usability and
• 8,000 miles per year for most medium-/heavy-duty trucks; performance of equipment and recommended average
• 8,000 miles per year for tandem-axle snowplow trucks; operating rate (cost/mile or cost/hour) as the utilization
• 6,000 miles per year for single-axle snowplow trucks; and metric; it also analyzed equipment based on annual costs
• 500, 350, 250, or 125 hours per year for off-road heavy when data on equipment usage were unavailable. Exponen-
equipment and tractors. tial regression models were used to measure the decline of
an equipment item’s market value. To estimate the operating
These utilization thresholds decreased the statewide utili- cost, an equation of the relationship between the average
zation in 2010 to 61% [17]. annual operating rate and equipment age was fitted for each
Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT)’s Division class using the least square approach; it showed that the
of Fleet Operations maintains a vehicle information system average annual operating rate increased when equipment

14
age increased. Also, a linear regression model for annual 3.2.2 Utilization Management
equipment use versus age showed the decline in usage over and Fleet Assignment
time. Two cost models that estimate the economic life for
Resource allocation can affect fleet utilization; costs can
each class of equipment (i.e., the period at which the average
be reduced by properly allocating equipment to different
total cost rate reaches a minimum value) were considered;
regions or time of usage. To improve utilization and reduce
these are the equivalent uniform annual cost and the eco-
the fleet size, MnDOT suggested using assignment measures
nomic life model based on the present value of the average
to allocate equipment to different regions based on statistical
life-to-date rate (cost/mile or cost/hour). The study, which
data [23]. A graphical information system was also recom-
included more than 20 equipment types, showed that hours
mended to monitor fleet performance metrics and improve
or miles per year and cost/mile or cost/hour were the most
sharing information between districts to help assign the right
important factors to consider in equipment utilization and
fleet size to each district. MnDOT also suggested a central
management strategies. It also provided a consistent means
statewide utilization management strategy to achieve the
for managing fleet equipment, especially for equipment with
highest performance.
less variability in annual usage.
Lee et al. used models for the optimal assignment of
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) con-
truckloads to the delivery time to improve fleet utilization
ducted a performance measure preventive maintenance
(e.g., by shifting load start-times) [24]. These models helped
study for a single category of equipment [21]. The TxDOT determine the minimum required fleet size under tardiness/
used a program (named FleetTrackS) to track data collected earliness costs (i.e., time window constraints). The models
over time by an onboard diagnostic system for vehicle miles also showed that improvement in fleet utilization would
or operational hours. A stepwise regression method was significantly reduce the number of equipment units in use.
used to relate oil degradation levels to operational engine Regan et al. developed a simulation framework using
data and identify the appropriate time for specific mainte- standard Monte Carlo techniques for dynamic fleet manage-
nance needs (e.g., oil change interval). The study estimated ment to evaluate the impact of some changes (e.g., stochastic
that using the optimal oil change interval would save about demand, driver and fleet availability, and traffic condition)
$16,000 of maintenance cost annually for a single equip- on real-time fleet operation while maintaining the level of
ment type. service and profitability [25]. The results indicated that
The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation lower fleet utilization was associated with higher operational
(PennDOT) used a Macro software tool based on statistical costs and lower profits. For example, the operational costs per
models designed to predict the fleet’s life cycle [22]. The mile for a fleet that worked at 50% utilization were about
goal was to predict the probability of repairs/replacements 19% higher than for a fleet that worked at 100% utilization.
of fleet components and the cost of maintenance and repairs
for each equipment type. The software prioritizes equip-
ment replacement based on their cost and age to minimize 3.2.3 Utilization Management
total fleet management costs and maximize the readiness and Environment
of equipment fleet. PennDOT gathered data from the SAP Figliozzi et al. analyzed the impact of utilization (mileage
plant maintenance program over a five-year period (2007 per year per vehicle) and gasoline prices on vehicle-purchasing
to 2012) for different types of equipment (dump trucks, decisions and developed a replacement model based on fleet
excavators, front-end-loaders, backhoes, and crew-cabs). costs and utilization [26]. The model also considered green-
The data on (a) number of pieces of each equipment type, house gas (GHG) costs (e.g., GHG equivalent life cycle costs)
(b) total number of maintenance/repair records for each for multiple vehicle types, thus integrating the traditional
type, (c) average cost per record, (d) minimum and maxi- fleet management costs with environmental effects. The
mum costs observed in these records, and (e) total costs of study indicated that fuel-efficient vehicles such as hybrids
maintenance and repairs summed across all records were and electric vehicles should be purchased only when the
used for the analysis. In this study, three utilization factors gasoline prices or fleet utilization were high. Jin and Kite-
(fuel usage, personnel hours, and monthly equipment age) Powell [27], Chen and Lin [28], and Lin et al. [29] used
were used to predict the monthly cost for each type of statistical analyses of fleet data (e.g., age, annual mileage,
equipment. The plot of cost ratio (cumulative cost/fuel utilization level, mile-per-gallon rate, purchase cost, opera-
usage or cumulative cost/personnel hours) versus equip- tions and maintenance cost, salvage value, and emission cost)
ment age (in years) helped determine the life cycle: the to examine the impact of utilization, policy, market, and
age where a substantial change in the slope of the graph is environment and technological factors on fleet management.
observed. These studies revealed the sensitivity of fleet utilization and

15
replacement strategies to fuel cost (i.e., future change of the 1. Parameters used for measuring equipment utilization:
fuel cost would influence long-term planning), and suggested – Annual mileage,
multi-stage planning for fleet management strategies. – Annual engine hours,
– Usage over the last 12 months,
3.2.4 Utilization Management – Seasonality, and
and Fleet Maintenance – Frequency of use.
2. Factors that influence equipment utilization (directly or
Fleet managers encounter operational constraints and indirectly):
sources of uncertainty (e.g., fleet breakdown) in large fleet – Equipment in-service age,
maintenance scenarios. Decision-making under these com- – Cumulative utilization level,
plex conditions can be facilitated using optimization methods. – Breakdown rate,
For example, a controlled maintenance management system – Downtime hours,
can help identify the most efficient utilization of labor and – Fleet size,
equipment [30]. Lee et al. indicated that using predictive – Number of equipment under repair,
tools to monitor degradation would improve utilization and – Initial workload of equipment,
increase the cost-benefits by up to 69% compared to repair- – Agency management policies and practices,
ing after failure [31]. Using survey results and field data, – Normal equipment life,
Vujanović et al. [32] evaluated management indicators used – Expected equipment workload,
for the maintenance process, the transport process, and the – Product types,
environment. The important indicators in efficient fleet – Environmental impacts,
maintenance management were maintenance plan realization – Site condition uncertainty,
(most important), operational plan realization percentage
– Purchase cost,
(second rank), and vehicle payload utilization (third rank).
– Operating cost,
– Maintenance cost,
3.2.5 Utilization Data Collection – Repair cost, and
Tracking equipment utilization helps manage equip- – Salvage value.
ment usage levels and fleet efficiently. Several approaches
are available for collecting the data required for measuring 3.3 Agency Survey
equipment utilization. Said et al. proposed an algorithm to
extract fleet usage data based on GPS information for equip- A survey of state DOTs (and that of the District of
ment location and time of day [33]. The New York State DOT Columbia) provided information on the state of practice in
used an onboard data logging system to capture the equip- utilization measurement and management of fleet equipment.
ment’s daily operational data including engine parameters The survey aimed at identifying (a) highway fleet equipment
and global positioning information to prevent excessive idling types used (own/rent/lease), (b) factors considered in utili-
of their equipment [34]. The data showed that idling occurs zation measurement practices, and (c) methodologies used
often between 9 AM and 7 PM for ¾ ton pickup trucks, for utilization measurement practices.
between 11 AM and 7 PM for passenger pickups, and at
midday for stake rack trucks. Although gathering data from 3.3.1 Fleet Equipment Type
onboard units helps understand if fleets are used efficiently, and Classification
predicting utilization is needed for future planning; statistical
or machine learning analysis could be used. For example, The survey listed 28 equipment types based on the NAFA
Kargul et al. used the support vector machine algorithm to classification system and requested additions if necessary.
predict the utilization of heavy equipment [35]—an approach Based on the responses received, the most commonly used
that showed a good approximation of the real utilization rate. 20 equipment types were identified and listed in Table 3.
3.2.6 Summary of the Literature 3.3.2 Utilization Measurement Metrics

Review Findings
The utilization metrics most commonly used by state
The literature identified the parameters used to measure DOTs were annual mileage, annual engine hours, usage
equipment utilization and the factors influencing utilization; over the last 12 months, and frequency of use. The annual
these are listed below. mileage can only be used for moving equipment, and annual

16
Table 3. Equipment commonly used by state DOTs.
# Equipment Class NAFA Class Code

8,501-10,000 GVW 2712
10,001-14,000 GVW 3712
14,001-16,000 GVW 4712
1 Dump Truck 16,001-19,500 GVW 5712
19,501-26,000 GVW 6712
26,001-33,000 GVW 7712
> 33,000 GVW 8712
1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524,
< 8,500 GVW
1530, 1531, 1532, 1533, 1534, 1540, 1547, 1548
2 Pickup Truck 8,501-10,000 GVW 2510, 2511, 2512, 2513, 2514, 2540, 2547, 2548
10,001-14,000 GVW 3510, 3511, 3512, 3513, 3514, 3540, 3547, 3548
14,001-16,000 GVW 4510, 4511, 4512, 4513, 4514, 4520, 4527, 4528
1310, 1311, 1312, 1313, 1320, 1321, 1322, 1323, 1324, 1330,
3 Automobile < 8,500 GVW
1331, 1332, 1333, 1338, 1340, 1341, 1342, 1343, 1348
1410, 1411, 1412, 1413, 1414, 1418, 1420, 1421, 1422, 1423,
< 8,500 GVW
1424, 1425, 1426, 1427, 1428
2410, 2411, 2412, 2413, 2414, 2420, 2421, 2422, 2423, 2424,
8,501-10,000 GVW
2425, 2426, 2427, 2429
3410, 3411, 3412, 3413, 3414, 3420, 3421, 3422, 3423, 3424,
4 Van 10,001-14,000 GVW
3425, 3426, 3427, 3429
4410, 4411, 4412, 4413, 4414, 4420, 4421, 4422, 4423, 4424,
14,001-16,000 GVW
4425, 4426, 4427, 4429
16,001-19,500 GVW 5420, 5421, 5422, 5423, 5424, 5425, 5426, 5427, 5428, 5429
19,501-26,000 GVW 6420, 6421, 6422, 6423, 6424, 6425, 6426, 6427, 6428, 6429
1610, 1611, 1612, 1620, 1621, 1622, 1623, 1630, 1631, 1632,
< 8,500 GVW
1633, 1634, 1640, 1647, 1648
5 Sport Utility
8,501-10,000 GVW 2610, 2611, 2612, 2613, 2614, 2640, 2647, 2648
10,001-14,000 GVW 3610, 3611, 3612, 3613, 3614, 3640, 3647, 3648
Air Compressor 320, 321, 322, 323
Auxiliary Power 390, 397, 398, 399
Boat 780, 781, 782, 783
Concrete Mixer 380, 381, 382, 383
Construction 0360
Dump Body 750, 751, 752, 753
Flat Bed 710, 711, 712, 713
Generator 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318
Office 790, 791, 792, 793
6 Trailer
Pressure Washer 340
Public Utility 350, 351
Pump 330, 331, 332, 333, 334
Refrigerator 760, 761, 762, 763
Sanitation 770, 771, 772, 773
Sewer Equipment 370, 371, 372, 373, 374
Tank Body 730, 731, 732, 733
Tilt Bed 720, 721, 722, 723
Van Body 740, 741, 742, 743
16,001-19,500 GVW 5763
19,501-26,000 GVW 6763
7 Front Loader
26,001-33,000 GVW 7763
> 33,000 GVW 8763
8 Grader Off-Road and Construction 9160
16,001-19,500 GVW 5771
Mechanical 19,501-26,000 GVW 6771
9 Street Sweeper
26,001-33,000 GVW 7771
Truck
> 33,000 GVW 8771
16,001-19,500 GVW 5772
Air Street 19,501-26,000 GVW 6772
10
Sweeper Truck 26,001-33,000 GVW 7772
> 33,000 GVW 8772
Walk-Behind 9411
Sweeper/
11 Riding 9412
Scrubber
Three-Wheeled 9413
12 Riding Mower Off-Road and Construction 9610, 9611, 9612

17
Table 3. (Continued).

19,501-26,000 GVW 6810, 6820, 6830, 6840, 6890
13 Truck Tractor 26,001-33,000 GVW 7810, 7820, 7830, 7840, 7890
> 33,000 GVW 8810, 8820, 8830, 8840, 8890
Nose Plows 111
V Plows 112
Wing Plows 113
Snow Removal
14 Underbody Plows 114
Attachment
De-icer Equipment 115
Snow Blowers 116
Material Spreaders 117
Static 9441
15 Roller Vibratory 9442
Compactor 9443
16 Drill Off-Road and Construction 9530
16,001-19,500 GVW 5778
Asphalt 19,501-26,000 GVW 6778
17
Distributor 26,001-33,000 GVW 7778
> 33,000 GVW 8778
Spreader 0121
Aerator 0122
Soil Preparation 0123
Planter 124
Shredder/Mulcher 125
18 Attachment
Mower 126
Bucket 131
Backhoe 132
Breaker 133
Tamper 134
19 Man Lift Off-Road and Construction 9330
Beverage Body 2716, 3715, 4715, 5715, 6715, 7715, 8715
Crew Cab 4513
Extended Cab 4512
Fifth Wheel 4718, 5718, 6718, 7718, 8718
Large Truck Flat Bed 2711, 3711, 4711, 5711, 6711, 7711, 8711
20 with Special Body Refrigerator Body 2717, 3716, 4716, 5716, 6716, 7716, 8716
Regular Cab 4511
Tanker 2718, 3717, 4717, 5717, 6717, 7717, 8717
Tilt Bed 2714
Utility Bed 2713, 3713, 4514, 4713, 5713, 6713, 7713, 8713
Van Body 2715, 3714, 4714, 5714, 6714, 7714, 8714
Note: GVW = gross vehicle weight.
engine hours can be used for equipment that has an engine, 3.3.3 Factors Contributing to Equipment
while other measurement metrics can be used for all types of Utilization
equipment. Survey responses showed that, of 32 respond-
The factors influencing equipment utilization identified in
ing state DOTs, 23 use “driven miles” as the main utilization
the survey responses are listed in Table 4; these factors are
metric. The respondents also noted that mileage metering
further discussed in Section 3.5.
is accurate, is easy to report, indicates actual usage, makes
replacement predictable, and is consistent across various
classes of an equipment type. But, it does not report equip- 3.4 Data Collection
ment conditions and is hard to collect in equipment without
3.4.1 Data Availability
an odometer.
The survey also indicated that 20 state DOTs use “equip- The survey of state DOTs identified the type and amount
ment age” and “engine hours.” The respondents also noted of data recorded by state DOTs and their availability for
that the engine hours can provide the actual utilization of use in this research. Responses were received from 19 DOTs
equipment and is easy to use, but it does not report equip- (Indiana, South Carolina, Oregon, Utah, Maryland, Ohio,
ment conditions and is confusing to collect for equipment Wyoming, California, Washington, Minnesota, Massachu-
having two engines. Frequency of use was noted for station- setts, South Dakota, Florida, Montana, Idaho, Colorado,
ary equipment without an engine. Georgia, Alaska, and Oklahoma); all respondents indicated

18
Table 4. Factors expected to influence equipment utilization.
Factor Description
In-Service Age Years or month in service
Fleet Size Number of equipment units in the agency with the same class code in the report
year
Equipment Capacity Measurement type used to define the equipment's capacity: pounds, gallons, tons
County County where the asset is used the most in the report year
In-Service Year/Month Year/month when the agency started using the asset (sometimes entered as the
purchase delivery date)
Ownership/Rental Own or rent
Purchase Cost Purchase cost of the asset
Annual Rent Hours Total hours the asset was rented in the report year
Rental Cost Annual rent cost in the report year
Rent Reason Seasonal use, unplanned need, extraordinary weather event, etc.
Mounted Equipment E.g., dump body, aerial bucket, snowplow
Total Mounted Equipment Cost Purchase cost of all equipment mounted on this asset (entered as "0" if there is no
mounted equipment)
Annual Downtime Hours Total hours per report year (out of scheduled hours) that equipment is unavailable
Annual Maintenance Hours Total hours spent on maintaining the asset in the report year
Annual Maintenance Cost Annual maintenance cost in the report year
Maintenance Interval Mileage Meter reading between scheduled maintenance services
Maintenance Interval Date Date of last scheduled maintenance services
Annual Insurance Cost Annual insurance cost in the report year
Annual Operation Cost Annual operating cost in the report year
Annual Unscheduled Repair Costs Annual unscheduled repair cost in the report year
Seasonality Seasons when the asset is used in the report year
Annual Demand Predicted annual demand for the asset
availability of the data for this research. Seventeen of these 3.4.3 Data Processing
state DOTs indicated that the 20 equipment types listed in
Table 3 represent the equipment types used by the DOT. Data received were processed and analyzed using SAS 9.3 to
Reported data availability is listed in Table 5. Each respond- determine missing and non-missing frequency and respec-
ing state DOT recorded at least two years of data, and all tive percentages for each variable included in the dataset.
respondents noted the availability of the data for use in The Excel files provided by state DOTs were read into SAS 9.3
this research. data tables and presented as categorical values (e.g., equip-
The survey indicated that 10 of 19 responding state ment number, NAFA class code, and equipment descrip-
DOTs did not have data on rent reason, annual rent hours, tion) or numeric values (e.g., purchase cost, annual mileage,
rent costs, annual idle hours, annual interest charge, annual and annual downtime hours); missing data were noted.
taxes, annual licensing fee, annual storage cost, and estimated Reported zero values of some fleet utilization variables (e.g.,
annual demand (e.g., number of miles, hours, or days). Also, annual mileage, annual fuel cost, and annual downtime
six of the responding state DOTs had data on equipment hours) could be the result of not using the equipment in
capacity, annual downtime hours, seasonality, frequency of the reported year or not properly reporting the usage. The
usage per year (days scheduled), and “other” annual opera- dataset was reviewed and obvious errors (e.g., entering a
tion cost. negative number for positive variables or a character entry
for a numerical variable) were identified. The data were
found to be adequate to build utilization prediction models
3.4.2 Data Requested and Used for the following 19 equipment types:
A request for data was distributed to the 19 state DOTs
that indicated availability of data for use in this research (and 1. Dump trucks,
subsequently to the remaining state DOTs). The request 2. Pickup trucks,
included definitions of the requested data elements and a 3. Automobiles,
template of the desired format for recording the data but 4. Vans,
noted that data may be provided in other formats. Data 5. Sport utility vehicles,
received from seven state DOTs [California (Caltrans), 6. Trailers,
Louisiana (LaDOT), Michigan (MDOT), New Hampshire 7. Front loader trucks,
(NHDOT), Pennsylvania (PennDOT), Utah (UDOT), and 8. Graders,
Washington (WSDOT)] were used in this research. 9. Mechanical street sweeper trucks,

19
Table 5. Reported data availability.

No Data Some Data
Data Available Total
Data Elements Available Available
Count Count Count Count
Model year 19 0 0 19
Manufacturer 19 0 0 19
Report year 14 1 3 18
In-service age (year) 18 1 0 19
Fleet size (number of equipment units) 19 0 0 19
Equipment capacity 4 4 8 16
Fuel type 16 1 2 19
County 10 4 5 19
In-service date (year/month) 18 0 1 19
Ownership (own or rent) 18 1 0 19
Purchase cost ($) 17 0 2 19
Annual rent hours 2 10 5 17
Rental cost ($) 3 8 6 17
Rent reason 0 13 4 17
Mounted equipment (any "major" mounted equipment) 12 2 4 18
Total mounted equipment cost ($) 10 2 5 17
Annual mileage 16 1 2 19
Annual engine hours 12 4 3 19
Annual fuel consumption (gallons, GGE, kW-h, etc.) 12 3 3 18
Annual fuel cost ($) 12 3 3 18
Frequency of usage per year (days scheduled) 4 5 9 18
Annual downtime hours 5 8 5 18
Annual idle hours 1 13 4 18
Maintenance provider (in-house, outsourced, or both) 14 2 2 18
Annual (scheduled) maintenance hours (not included in
7 6 5 18
"downtime hours")
Annual (scheduled) maintenance cost ($) 14 1 4 19
(Scheduled) maintenance interval mileage 15 1 3 19
(Scheduled) maintenance interval (days) 12 4 3 19
Annual (unscheduled) repair cost ($) 12 1 5 18
Annual insurance cost ($) 6 5 7 18
Annual interest charge ($) 2 13 3 18
Annual depreciation charge ($) 11 5 3 19
Annual taxes 3 13 2 18
Annual licensing fee ($) 4 11 3 18
"Other" annual operation cost ($) (excluding
5 5 7 17
maintenance, repair, fuel, insurance)
Annual storage cost ($) 1 16 1 18
Annual overhead (indirect) cost ($) 6 7 4 17
Seasonality 5 8 4 17
Estimated annual demand (number of miles, hours,
2 11 5 18
days, etc.)
Note: GGE = gasoline gallon equivalent.
10. Air street sweeper trucks, 3.5 Utilization Estimation Models

11. Riding mowers, The utilization models estimate the average annual mileage,
12. Truck tractors, annual engine hours, or frequency of usage for different equip-
13. Snow removal attachments, ment types and classes at the region level based on the data
14. Rollers, provided by state DOTs. Based on the literature review and
15. Drills, agency survey, seven factors were found to affect utilization
16. Asphalt distributors, metrics statistically; these factors together with the utilization
17. Attachments, measurement metrics are listed and defined in Table 6.
18. Man lifts, and Table 7 further defines class variables for the different
19. Large trucks with a special body. equipment types.

20
Table 6. Definition of parameters used in utilization models.

Factor Description
: Fleet Size Average fleet size in a region
Class 1: if the equipment is in class based on the NAFA class code
Note: indicates equipment class as defined in the NAFA classification.
Table 7. Class variables for different equipment types.
Asset Type Variable Description
1
Equipment weight between 8,501 GVW and 10,000 GVW
2
3
Dump Truck 4
5
6
7
Equipment weight greater than 33,000 GVW
1
Equipment weight less than 8,500 GVW
2
Pickup Truck 3
4
5
Automobile 1
1
2
Van 3
4
5
6
1
Sport Utility Vehicle 2
3
1
Air Compressor
2
Auxiliary Power
3
Boat
4
Concrete Mixer
5
Construction
6
Dump Body
7
Flat Bed
8
Generator
Office
Trailer 9
10
Pressure Washer
11
Public Utility
12
Pump
13
Refrigerator
14
Sanitation
15
Sewer Equipment
16
Tank Body
17
Tilt Bed
18
Van Body
1
Front Loader Truck 2
3
4
Grader 1
Off-Road and Construction
1
Mechanical/Air Street 2
Sweeper Truck 3
4
Riding Mower 1

21
Asset Type Variable Description
1
Truck Tractor 2
3
1
Nose Plows
2
V Plows
3
Wing Plows
Snow Removal
Underbody Plows
Attachment 4
5
De-icer Equipment
6
Snow Blowers
7
Material Spreaders
1
Static
Roller 2
Vibratory
3
Compactor
Drill Off-Road and Construction
1
Asphalt Distributor 2
3
4
1
Spreader
2
Aerator
3
Soil Preparation
4
Planter
Shredder/Mulcher
Attachment 5
6
Mower
7
Bucket
8
Backhoe
9
Breaker
10
Tamper
Man Lift 1
1
Beverage Body
2
Crew Cab
3
Extended Cab
4
Fifth Wheel
5
Flat Bed
Large Truck with
Refrigerator Body
Special Body 6
7
Regular Cab
8
Tanker
9
Tilt Bed
10
Utility Bed
Van Body
Table 8 lists the average annual mileage, annual engine of the annual fuel cost, unscheduled repair cost, and sched-
hours, or frequency of usage estimation models for the uled maintenance cost, and it is the dependent variable in
19 equipment types considered in this project. The table also the regression analysis. The independent variables are annual
shows the adjusted R-squared values and sample sizes; a high mileage, annual downtime hours, in-service age, fleet size in
value indicates a good fit. The sample size in all cases was a region, and class of equipment.
large enough to aggregate the data into a regional level and Table 9 lists the cost functions (the variables are explained
estimate the utilization predictions for each region in a in Table 6).
state. As the models show, none of the explanatory variables
were linearly correlated. Note that the same utilization esti-
mation model applies to mechanical street sweeper trucks 3.7 Validating the Models
and air street sweeper trucks.
Examination of the data indicated that (a) residual (differ-
ences between the estimated and observed annual mileage)
3.6 Equipment Cost
histograms for the utilization estimation models followed
Estimation Models
a bell-shaped curve around the value of zero; (b) the resid
Models for estimating the total operating cost of 18 equip- uals are almost normally distributed; and (c) the regression
ment types were developed for use in fleet equipment manage- models accurately estimate the actual average annual mileage
ment. The annual operating cost is defined as the summation in regions.

22

Adjusted Sample Size
Asset Utilization
Utilization Estimation Model R- After/Before
Type Metric
Squared Aggregation
log( ) = 9.321 + 0.238 log( )−
Dump Annual
0.635 log( ) + 0.129 log( ⁄ )− 0.65 98/15,338
Truck Mileage
0.503 ( 5 + 6 + 7 )
log( ) = 7.081 + 0.461 log( )−
Pickup Annual 0.153 ( )0.5 + 0.275 log( ⁄ )+
) − 0.024 ( )0.5 − 0.049 2 − 0.89 78/15,334
Truck Mileage 0.237 log(
0.144 3 − 0.464 4
Annual log( ) = 9.119 + 0.256 + 0.0781 log( )−
Automobile 0.74 32/4,327
Mileage 0.147 log( )
log( ) = 9.256 − 0.111 +
Annual
Van 0.103 log( ⁄ ) + 0.188 log( )− 0.80 55/3,384
Mileage
0.002 + 0.289 ( 5 + 6 )
Sport
Annual log( ) = 10.222 − 0.461 log( )+
Utility 0.81 37/2,956
Mileage 0.248 log( ) − 0.002
Vehicle
log( ) = 5.349 + 0.814 log( )−
Annual
0.003 ( )2 + 0.663 log( ) + 0.481 log( )− 0.68 72/1,273
Mileage
Trailer 0.009
Frequency = 135.65 + 1.365 + 18.073 log( )−
0.67 39/3,392
of Usage 125.681 12 + 61.966 14 + 46.051 17
Front
Annual
Loader log( ) = 5.590 − 0.004 ( )2 + 0.786 ( + ) 0.83 17/170
Mileage 3 4
Truck
Annual log( ) = 6.710 − 0.861 log( )+
0.86 24/751
Mileage 0.493 log( ) + 0.905 log( )
Grader
Engine log( ) = 7.619 + 0.505 log( )+
0.87 6/111
Hours 1.113 log( ) − 0.455 log( )
log( ) = 12.985 − 1.812 log( )+
Annual
Mechanical 0.343 log( ⁄ ) − 0.470 log( )− 0.92 29/592
Mileage
Sweeper 0.096 log( ) + 0.973 4
Truck Engine log( ) = 6.291 − 0.220 + 0.541 log( )+
0.75 19/459
Hours 0.416 log( )
log( ) = 12.985 − 1.812 log( )+
Annual
Air Street 0.343 log( ⁄ ) − 0.470 log( )− 0.92 29/592
Mileage
Sweeper 0.096 log( ) + 0.973 4
Truck Engine log( ) = 6.291 − 0.220 + 0.541 log( )+
0.75 19/459
Hours 0.416 log( )
Annual log( ) = 4.445 + 0.222 log( )+
Riding 0.60 15/226
Mileage 0.440 log( )
Mower
Frequency log( ) = −0.921 + 0.512 log( ) − 0.042 −
0.89 12/516
of Usage 0.441 + 1.384 log( )
Truck Annual log( ) = 10.014 − 0.004 ( × 10−1 )2 −
0.77 31/483
Tractor Mileage 0.810 log( ) + 0.061 + 1.064 3
Snow
Annual log( ) = −0.674 + 1.042 log( )+
Removal 0.74 32/715
Mileage 0.095 ( ⁄ ) − 0.015
Attachment
log( ) = 4.399 + 1.095 log( )−
Annual 1.148 log( ) + 1.072 log( ) − 0.872 + 0.91 25/259
Mileage 2
0.624 3
Roller Engine log( ) = 4.196 + 10.235 ( )−2 − 0.004 −
0.58 11/61
Hours 0.806 log( ) log( ) + 2.084 2
Frequency log( ) = 129.893
0.74 18/137
of Usage + 0.316 ( ⁄ )2 +107.621 3
Annual log( ) = 4.079 + 0.008 + 0.163 −
0.99 6/54
Drill
Mileage 0.153 ( )0.5
Engine
Hours = 26.481 + 16.841 ( ⁄ ) 0.75 5/38
Asphalt Annual log( ) = 22.406 − 2.417 log( )−
0.75 13/342
Distributor Mileage 0.476 log( ) − 0.005 ( )2 − 3.527 ( )2
Annual log( ) = 5.056 + 0.354 log( )−
Attachment 0.75 18/282
Mileage 0.127 ( )0.5 −1.031 2
Annual log( ) = 4.101 + 0.938 log( ) + 0.317 −
0.77 18/164
Mileage 0.167 ( )0.5
Man Lift
Engine log( ) = 7.766 − 0.031 ( )2 +
0.59 6/85
Hours 1.653 − 0.754 log( )
Large log( ) = 9.712 − 0.080 + 0.158 log( )−
Truck with Annual 9.27 ( × 10−3 )2 + 0.284 − 0.296 5 − 0.86 76/12,690
Special Mileage 2
Body

23
Table 9. Equipment operating cost estimation models.

Sample Size
Equipment Adjusted
Operating Cost Estimation Model After/Before
Type R-Squared
Aggregation
= 12.3 × 10−9 ( )2 ( )2 − 27.244 +
Dump Trucks 6262.58 ( 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 ) + 14161.67 5 + 0.59 97/5,769
13891.45 ( 6 + 7 )
= 0.174 − 0.018 + 2719.20 ( + )+
Pickup Trucks 1 2 0.63 72/8,721
3442.98 ( 3 + 4 )
= 0.14 − 3.90 + 699.72 ( )0.5 −

Automobiles 0.77 32/1,892
0.73 ( )0.5
Vans = 0.36 − 3.85 + 145.84 0.69 49/1,903
Sport Utility = 0.24 − 1115.04 log( ) + 2679.59 log( )−

0.81 19/538
Vehicles 3.99
= 0.002 ( )2 + 1300.84 1 + 2264.87 3 +
1286.74 5 + 399.71 6 + 1420.31 7 + 718.24 8 +
Trailers 0.72 89/343
7828.37 9 + 873.75 10 + 1383.05 11 + 1315.92 12 +
2005.43 14 + 1699.40 16 + 633.10 17
Front Loader = 0.048 ( )2 + 2818.14 ( + )+
1 2 0.77 16/152
Trucks 8296.82 ( 3 + 4 )
Graders = 359.76 ( ⁄ ) − 21.43 0.63 9/113
Mechanical/Air
Street Sweeper = 19.87 + 51.72 ( )2 0.58 18/441
Trucks
Riding Mowers = 2.87 − 8274.57 ( ⁄ ) 0.72 15/130
Truck Tractors = 0.92 − 25.349 + 3093.94 2

+ 6933.45 3
0.74 26/44
Snow Removal = 11.4 × 10−5 ( ⁄ 2 ) − 1505.08 ( ⁄ 2

)+
0.58 14/54
Attachments 8266.77 1 + 3007.77 6
Rollers = 3.29 ( ⁄ ) + 0.72 + 408.59 log( ) 0.60 10/55
Drills = 10.75 log( ) − 961.32 0.74 5/33
Asphalt 2
= 13.20 ( ⁄ ) + 3704.04 ( ⁄ ) 0.63 12/332
Distributors
Man Lifts = 8.82 log( ) + 45.51 0.95 7/67
Large Trucks = 0.32 − 229.44 ( )2 + 1151.60 log( )−

with Special 53.64 + 20.15 log( ) + 3696.48 5 + 0.71 45/3,585
Body 3006.28 8 + 6582.92 11
designates the annual operating cost; all costs are in U.S. dollars.

24
Table 8 also shows the adjusted R-squared values for each a high P-value). For a 95% confidence interval, all models
fitted estimation model; they ranged from 0.58 to 0.99. provided homoscedastic residuals with a high P-value except
Several statistical tests (e.g., the Shapiro–Wilk test [12], for the model for estimating the annual mileage of man lifts,
Durbin–Watson statistic [13], and Breusch–Pagan test [14]) indicating that there was no heteroscedasticity in the residuals
were also performed to confirm that the assumptions of the of these models.
regression analyses were met; the results are shown in Table 10.
The null hypothesis for the Shapiro–Wilk test determines
3.8 Developing the Equipment
if model residuals are normally distributed (as indicated by
Fleet Utilization Management
a high P-value). All equipment estimation models produced
Program
a high P-value except that for the mechanical street sweeper
trucks indicating that the null hypothesis is not rejected Equipment utilization management plans can be influ-
and the residuals are distributed normally for these models. enced by several factors including budget, utilization thresh-
The null hypothesis for the Durbin–Watson test determines old, and agency needs (i.e., demand levels for each equipment
if the linear regression residuals are uncorrelated (as indi- type). These constraints make fleet utilization management
cated by a high P-value). For a 95% confidence interval, the challenging, even when the number of equipment assets is
Durbin–Watson test did not reject the null hypothesis for not large. The research team developed a mathematical opti-
any model, except the model for predicting the annual engine mization program based on the proposed equipment utili-
hours of drills, indicating that there is no autocorrelation zation management framework; users only need to provide
between residuals in these models. input data. The program incorporates statistical models that
The null hypothesis for the Breusch–Pagan test determines formulate the utilization cost functions and ensure that the
if the variance is constant for all residuals (as indicated by needs for each piece of equipment are satisfied (Figure 5).
Table 10. Model validation results.

Equipment Sample Adjusted Shapiro Test Durbin–Watson Breusch–Pagan
Predicted Factor
Type Size R-Squared P-Value Test P-Value Test P-Value
Dump Trucks Annual Mileage 98 0.65 0.455 0.080 0.056
Pickup Trucks Annual Mileage 78 0.89 0.432 0.634 0.717
Automobiles Annual Mileage 32 0.74 0.419 0.636 0.568
Vans Annual Mileage 55 0.80 0.752 0.164 0.388
Sport Utility Annual Mileage
37 0.81 0.947 0.064 0.367
Vehicles
Annual Mileage 72 0.68 0.759 0.080 0.944
Trailers
Frequency of Usage 39 0.67 0.171 0.996 0.677
Front Loader Annual Mileage
17 0.83 0.644 0.952 0.291
Trucks
Annual Mileage 24 0.87 0.962 0.966 0.851
Graders
Annual Engine Hours 6 0.87 0.967 0.356 0.709
Mechanical/Air Annual Mileage 29 0.92 0.525 0.338 0.911
Street Sweeper Annual Engine Hours
Trucks 19 0.75 0.558 0.142 0.518
Annual Mileage 15 0.60 0.995 0.550 0.217
Riding Mowers
Truck Tractors Annual Mileage 31 0.77 0.764 0.154 0.356
Snow Removal Annual Mileage
32 0.74 0.760 0.618 0.846
Attachments
Annual Mileage 25 0.91 0.514 0.302 0.303
Rollers Annual Engine Hours 11 0.54 0.695 0.800 0.311
Annual Mileage 6 0.99 0.810 0.382 0.132
Drills
Asphalt Annual Mileage
13 0.75 0.678 0.326 0.237
Distributors
Attachments Annual Mileage 18 0.75 0.862 0.180 0.072
Annual Mileage 18 0.76 0.821 0.248 0.042
Man Lifts
Large Trucks Annual Mileage
with Special 76 0.86 0.367 0.744 0.846
Body

25
3.8.1 Model Formulation

This section introduces a mathematical optimization
program that incorporates several models to estimate the
optimal utilization values and fleet composition in each
region in a state. The definitions of all sets, decision variables,
and parameters used in these models are listed in Table 11.
The objective of the optimization program is to deter-
mine the lowest annual total costs (i.e., fixed and operating
costs). The operating costs are influenced by fleet size in each
region, which is highly dependent on the demand in the
following year. Purchase, relocation, fuel, maintenance, and
Figure 5. Role of prediction models in the
repair costs of equipment affect the required fleet size and
fleet utilization management framework.
complicate decision making.
The objective function of the mathematical optimization
The optimization framework aims to minimize the total program estimates the lowest total fleet management cost
cost and improve equipment performance (through more for specific region j in a specific year t. This cost includes the
efficient utilization management) and simultaneously sug- operating cost, equipment purchase cost, and equipment
gests utilization values for each equipment type and fleet relocation cost and is presented by the following expression:
composition in each region to meet the demand. The opti-
T −1 J J
mization framework provides information on how the total min ∑ ∑ cijt+1 ( f ijt+1 , uijt+1 ) + µ tij+1nijt+1 + ∑ βti +1 γ jqlijq
t +1
(1)
operating cost of equipment is influenced by different t = 0 j =1 q =1
factors (e.g., age, fleet size, and annual maintenance cost).

The framework also compares the observed utilization of where i denotes the equipment type and q denotes the region
each equipment type with the optimal values and provides to which equipment is relocated.
recommendations for changing these variables (e.g., usage The first term in the expression is the cost of keeping an
value, fleet size, and allocation of the fleet to different equipment unit in-service (estimated from the predictive
counties or regions) to balance utilization. For example, the annual operating cost functions presented in Table 9). The
framework determines how an agency can reach the optimal second term is the cost of adding new units of equipment
utilization level for dump trucks by changing usage strategies type i to the fleet in region j in the following year, estimated
(e.g., by relocating a portion of the trucks to other regions by multiplying the purchase cost by the number of equip-
in the state). ment units purchased. The third term is the cost of relocating
Table 11. Definition of sets, decision variables, and parameters.
Decision Variables
Fleet size of equipment type ∈ in region ∈ at year ∈
Number of equipment type ∈ units purchased in region ∈ in year ∈
Number of equipment type ∈ units to be salvaged in region ∈ in year ∈
Number of equipment type ∈ units to be moved from region ∈ to region ∈ \{ } in
year ∈
Average utilization level required to meet the demand for equipment type ∈ in region ∈
in year ∈
Input Parameters
Cost per mile for moving one unit of equipment type ∈ in year ∈
The distance between region ∈ and region ∈ \{ }
Total demand for equipment type ∈ in region ∈ in year ∈
Maximum allowed utilization level for equipment type ∈
Purchase cost of one unit of equipment type ∈ in region ∈ in year ∈
Total number of time periods
Total number of counties/regions in a U.S. state
Note: is the number of discrete time periods (i.e., fiscal years) in the planning horizon.

26
equipment type i from region j to region q in the following nijt+1 ≥ 0 (5)

year, estimated using the distances between counties/regions
and the transportation cost. The objective function excludes sijt+1 ≥ 0 (6)
salvage costs.
The cost functions capture the effect of fleet size and utili
zation metrics (e.g., annual mileage) on operating costs for
t +1
lijq ≥0 (7)
different inputs in each region (e.g., annual downtime hours,
in-service age, equipment class). The annual operating cost Several factors such as the current fleet size, number of pur-
is the summation of the annual fuel cost, unscheduled repair chased and salvaged fleet, and number of the relocated fleet
cost, and scheduled maintenance cost. Equation (1a) presents between counties/regions affect the decision on next year’s
a general form of the operating cost function c ijt+1 ( f ijt+1, uijt+1), fleet size; these are considered in the optimization model.
which represents the annual operating cost of equipment Constraint (2) ensures consideration of the decision on
type i in region j in year t + 1 (i.e., the following year) as a the fleet size in the following year. Fleet size of equipment
function of fleet size f ijt+1 and utilization value uijt+1. type i will be updated by (a) adding the number of purchased
equipment nijt+1 and “brought-in” equipment from other
cijt+1 ( f ijt+1 , uijt+1 ) = αf ijt+1 + wuijt+1 (1a) counties/regions into region j ∈ J, i.e., Σ q=1
J l t+1 and (b) sub-
ijq
tracting the number of salvaged equipment s ijt+1 and “sent-out”
Parameters α and w reflect the effects of the fleet size equipment from region j to other counties/regions Σ Jq=1lijq t+1
.
and utilization metric variations, respectively, on the annual Constraint (3) ensures that the number of equipment
operating cost and found in the model fitting process. To units leaving region j to other counties/regions in the follow-
ensure that the total demand will be met for equipment ing year does not exceed the currently available fleet size in
type i in region j, the value of f ijt+1uijt+1 shall be equal to region j (i.e., a region cannot send more equipment units
total demand. Therefore, the cost function (1a) can be than it currently has to other counties/regions).
re-formulated as: Constraint (4) ensures that the demand will be met by
having sufficient fleet size for the following year. The value of
Dijt+1 Dijt+1
cijt+1 ( f ijt+1 ) = π i + αf ijt+1 + w (1b) provides the minimum required fleet size in region j
f ijt+1 U imax
for the following year to satisfy the demand. These constraints
The mathematical program imposes the following also ensure that the fleet is not driven more than the maximum
constraints: allowed annual mileage per year.
Constraints (5), (6), and (7) ensure that the number of
J J equipment purchases, salvages, and relocations will get
f ijt+1 = f ijt + nijt+1 − s tij+1 − ∑ lijq
t +1
+ ∑ lijq
t +1
(2) non-negative values in the following year.
q =1 q =1
J
3.9 Validating the Equipment
∑ lijqt+1 ≤ f ijt (3)
Fleet Utilization Management
q =1
Program
Dijt+1 Validation of the equipment fleet utilization management
fijt +1 ≥ (4)
U imax program is described in Section 2.9.

27
CHAPTER 4
Summary and Suggested Research
4.1 Summary trucks with a special body. The data were aggregated at the
region level over all years; each model estimated the annual
This research was conducted to develop a guide for utili mileage for a specific equipment type in a region. These
zation measurement and management of fleet equipment models were developed through a rigorous model fitting
and a software package for use by state highway agencies. process and considering various model structures for each
The research team reviewed the literature pertaining to equipment type (e.g., linear, quadratic, power, logarithmic,
equipment utilization measurement and management and and nonlinear forms). A statistical correlation test was used
performed an agency survey to identify the factors influenc- to ensure that there was no multicollinearity between the
ing equipment utilization and management strategies. The independent variables; other statistical tests were used to
research team then conducted further investigations and confirm applicability of the assumptions of regression analysis.
analysis and developed the guide and related software. The research team then incorporated equipment utilization
Annual mileage, annual engine hours, usage over the last management into a mathematical optimization program. The
12 months, and frequency of use were the utilization metrics program minimizes total cost by optimizing (a) fleet size,
most widely used by state DOTs. This research identified (b) number of equipment units to be purchased, (c) number
annual mileage as the recommended utilization metric for of equipment units to be salvaged, (d) number of equipment
mobile equipment having an odometer, engine hours for units to be relocated to another region, and (e) average utili-
stationary equipment with an engine, and frequency of use zation level required to meet the demand for an equipment
as the metric for other equipment. unit, for each year and region. These minimum costs were
The research showed that the demand for equipment, estimated for each equipment type separately and defined
in-service age, fleet size in a region, annual downtime hours, by the cost of keeping a piece of equipment in service, the
equipment class, utilization level in the previous year, and cost of adding new equipment to the fleet in a region in the
cost factors (including purchase, fuel, scheduled maintenance, following year, and the cost of equipment relocation consid-
and unscheduled repair costs) contribute to the utilization ering the distance between counties/regions and the trans-
value of fleet equipment. portation cost rates.
In response to a survey of state DOTs, 19 state DOTs The program updates the fleet size in each region in the
indicated availability of data for use in this research. After following year considering the number of purchased equip-
processing, cleaning, and reviewing the data received, the ment units, “brought-in” or “sent-out” equipment from/to
data from California, Louisiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, other regions, and salvaged equipment, and ensures that:
Pennsylvania, Utah, and Washington DOTs were selected
for use in this research. A utilization management frame- 1. The number of equipment units leaving each region to
work was proposed and utilization estimation models for other regions in the following year does not exceed the
19 equipment types were developed. These equipment were number currently available in that region;
dump trucks, pickup trucks, automobiles, vans, sport utility 2. The demand will be met by having sufficient fleet size
vehicles, trailers, front loader trucks, graders, mechanical in the following year (i.e., the product of fleet size and
street sweeper trucks, air street sweeper trucks, riding average utilization of each equipment type in each region
mowers, truck tractors, snow removal attachments, rollers, in the following year shall be equal to or greater than the
drills, asphalt distributors, attachments, man lifts, and large total demand);

28
3. No equipment will be utilized in excess of its maximum The research team developed a guide for utilization mea-
allowed utilization level; and surement and management of fleet equipment (presented
4. The number of purchased, salvaged, and relocated equip- in Part II). The guide integrates the utilization management
ment units will not be less than zero for the following framework and discusses the data input requirements and
year. utilization measurement models; these models are embedded
in the UPM software. Part III is the UPM’s user manual.
The fleet size of an equipment type in each region is highly
dependent on the demand in the following year as well as
4.2 Suggested Research
purchase, relocation, fuel, maintenance, and repair costs of
the equipment. The fleet size in the next year depends on the Several models were developed in this project based on
current fleet size, number of purchased and salvaged equip- data obtained from seven state DOTs. Improved models
ment, and number of equipment units relocated between could be developed by using data from a larger number of
counties/regions. Therefore, the mathematical model con agencies and considering factors such as seasonality and
siders the cost per mile for relocating equipment units of each ownership. These improved models could then be used to
equipment type in each year, the distance between each two upgrade the software developed in this research.
counties/regions, the total demand for an equipment unit Because of the complexity of the process for utilization
of a specific type in each region in each year, the maximum prediction, training of fleet managers and other interested
allowed utilization level for an equipment unit of a specific parties on the use of the software is suggested. Such train-
type, and purchase cost of an equipment unit of a specific type ing would facilitate use of the software and achieve the
in each region in each year. The numerical results showed desired utilization prediction. Developing training material
that by applying the equipment utilization management and holding training sessions in the form of workshops,
framework, the total costs (including capital investments and webinars, and other means would facilitate use of the devel-
operating costs) are reduced. oped software.

29
References
1. Lauria, P. T. 2011. “Challenges and Opportunities: A Strategic 17. Minnesota Department of Transportation. 2012. Minnesota State
Plan for Equipment Management Research.” NCHRP Project 20-7/ wide Highway Systems Operation Plan. Minnesota Department of
Task 309. Transportation Research Board of the National Acad Transportation.
emies, Washington, D.C. 18. CTC & Associates LLC. 2012. Fleet Equipment Asset Management
2. Laird, M. 2013. “How to Manage Fleet Data.” Wireless Machine- Performance Measures. Caltrans Division of Research and Innova-
Information Systems. Available: https://www.construction tion. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/
equipment.com/how-manage-fleet-data (As of Sep. 10, 2019). research-innovation-system-information/documents/preliminary-
3. Osterstock, T., W. Kidd, A. Eliason, and P. Hicken. 2005. A Perfor investigations/fleet-equipment-performance-measures-pi-a11y.pdf
mance Audit of the Division of Fleet Operations. Utah. Legislature. (As of Sep. 10, 2019).
Office of the Legislative Auditor General. 19. Kauffmann, P., J. Hildreth, and R. Williams. 2013. Fleet Manage
4. BEB Industrial Asset Management. 2015. “Optimize your assets – ment Performance Monitoring. North Carolina Department of
fast and easy.” Available: http://www.bebsoft.com/index.html (As Transportation.
of Sep. 10, 2019). 20. Kauffmann, P., E. Howard, J. Yao, D. Harbinson, N. Brooks,
5. Imhoff, C., and C. White. 2006. “Master Data Management: R. Williams, and C. Gurganus. “Criteria for Fleet Management:
Creating a Single View of the Business.” Powell Media, LLC. Identification of Optimal Disposal Points with the Use of Equiva-
Intelligent Solutions and BI Research. lent Uniform Annual Cost.” Transportation Research Record: Journal
6. Mercury Associates, Inc. 2005. NASA Official Fleet Management of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2292, 2012, pp. 171–178.
Handbook. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 21. Kader, M., T. L. Ramani, J. D. Johnson, C. Speigelman, J. Zietsman,
Available: https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/npg_img/chapterview/ and T. Jacobs. 2014. Fleet Equipment Performance Measurement
chapter-0preface.htm (As of Sep. 10, 2019). Preventive Maintenance Model. Texas Transportation Institute.
7. Cook, R. D. 1977. “Detection of Influential Observation in Linear 22. Vance, R. J., M. S. Renz, M. A. Coccia, P. Croyle, and J. J. Karchner.
Regression.” Technometrics, Vol. 19, pp. 15–18. 2014. Optimizing the Life Cycle of PennDOT Equipment. The
8. Cook, R. D. 1979. “Influential Observations in Linear Regression.” Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.
Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 74, pp. 169–174. 23. Wyrick, D. A., and B. Storhaug. 2003. Benchmarking Fleet Manage
9. Efroymson, M. A. 1960. “Multiple Regression Analysis.” Mathemat ment. University of Minnesota: Center for Transportation Studies.
ical Methods for Digital Computers, pp. 191–203. 24. Lee, S., J. Turner, M. S. Daskin, T. Homem-de-Mello, and
10. Halinski, R. S., and L. S. Feldt. 1970. “The Selection of Variables in K. Smilowitz. 2012. “Improving Fleet Utilization for Carriers by
Multiple Regression Analysis.” Journal of Educational Measurement, Interval Scheduling.” European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 7, pp. 151–157. Vol. 218, pp. 261–269.
11. R. Core Team. 2013. “R: A Language and Environment for Statistical 25. Regan, A., H. Mahmassani, and P. Jaillet. “Evaluation of Dynamic
Computing.” R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Fleet Management Systems: Simulation Framework.” Transporta
12. Shapiro, S. S., and M. B. Wilk. 1965. “An Analysis of Variance tion Research Record, No. 1645, 1998, pp. 176–184.
Test for Normality (Complete Samples).” Biometrika, Vol. 52, 26. Figliozzi, M., J. Boudart, and W. Feng. “Economic and Environ-
pp. 591–611. mental Optimization of Vehicle Fleets: Impact of Policy, Market,
13. Durbin, J., and G. S. Watson. 1971. “Testing for Serial Correlation Utilization, and Technological Factors.” Transportation Research
in Least Squares Regression. III.” Biometrika, Vol. 58, pp. 1–19. Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2139,
14. Breusch, T. S., and A. R. Pagan. 1979. “A Simple Test for Heteros 2011, pp. 1–6.
cedasticity and Random Coefficient Variation.” Econometrica: 27. Jin, D., and H. L. Kite-Powell. 2000. “Optimal Fleet Utilization
Journal of the Econometric Society, pp. 1287–1294. and Replacement.” Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
15. Yost, D. 2013. Ohio Department of Transportation Performance Transportation Review, Vol. 36, pp. 3–20.
Audit. Ohio Department of Transportation. 28. Chen, C., and J. Lin. 2006. “Making an Informed Vehicle Scrappage
16. Management Partners Inc. 2007. City of San Bernardino Fleet Decision.” Transport Reviews, Vol. 26, pp. 731–748.
Services Assessment and Utilization Analysis. San Bernardino Fleet 29. Lin, J., C. Chen, and D. A. Niemeier. 2008. “An Analysis on
Services Division. Long Term Emission Benefits of a Government Vehicle Fleet

30
Replacement Plan in Northern Illinois.” Transportation, Vol. 35, 33. Said, H., T. Nicoletti, and P. Perez-Hernandez. 2014. “Utilizing
pp. 219–235. Telematics Data to Support Effective Equipment Fleet-Manage-
30. Johnson, P. D. 2002. Principles of Controlled Maintenance Manage ment Decisions: Utilization Rate and Hazard Functions.” Journal
ment. The Fairmont Press, Inc. of Computing in Civil Engineering, Vol. 30, p. 4014122.
31. Lee, W.-S., A. Y. Huang, Y.-Y. Chang, and C.-M. Cheng. 2011. 34. Roy, B., and P. Windover. 2015. Idle Reduction Assessment for
“Analysis of Decision Making Factors for Equity Investment by the New York State Department of Transportation Region 4 Fleet.
DEMATEL and Analytic Network Process.” Expert Systems with New York State Department of Transportation.
Applications, Vol. 38, pp. 8375–8383. 35. Kargul, A., Glaese, A., Kessler, S. and Günthner, W.A. 2016. “Heavy
32. Vujanović, D., V. Momčilović, N. Bojović, and V. Papić. 2012. Equipment Demand Prediction with Support Vector Machine
“Evaluation of Vehicle Fleet Maintenance Management Indicators Regression Towards a Strategic Equipment Management.” Inter
by Application of DEMATEL and ANP.” Expert Systems with Appli national Journal of Structural and Civil Engineering Research, Vol. 6,
cations, Vol. 39, pp. 10552–10563. No. 2, pp.137–143.

PA RT I I
Guide for Utilization

Measurement and
Management of Fleet
Equipment

CONTENTS
33 Chapter 1 Introduction and Purpose

34 Chapter 2 Organization of the Guide
35 Chapter 3 Equipment Classification
37 Chapter 4 Utilization Estimation Factors
37 4.1 Utilization Measurement Metrics
37 4.2 Factors Contributing to Equipment Utilization
38 Chapter 5 Asset Utilization Measurement

41 Chapter 6 Equipment Utilization Management Framework

41 6.1 Area-Level Utilization Management
42 6.2 Region-Level Utilization Management
42 6.3 Unit-Level Utilization Management
43 Chapter 7 Equipment Utilization Management Process

33
CHAPTER 1
Introduction and Purpose
This guide for utilization measurement and management mation. The UPM software identifies individual equipment
of fleet equipment discusses (1) data input requirements, that is under- or overutilized, needs to be salvaged, or needs
(2) utilization measurement models, and (3) a framework to be relocated. The UPM software also helps identify the
for utilization management. The equipment utilization fleet management strategy that minimizes the total fleet
measurement models were developed through rigorous management costs.
statistical analyses of data obtained from state DOTs to This guide describes (1) the general methodology for utili
estimate equipment utilization and cost as functions of zation measurement and management and (2) the process
a set of contributing factors (e.g., fleet size and demand). that should be followed to estimate equipment utilization,
The management framework uses statistical models and find the optimal utilization thresholds for different equip-
cost functions to determine the optimal equipment utili- ment types using the UPM software, and determine under-
zation level, fleet size, and number of equipment fleet units and overutilized individual equipment and adjust their level
to be purchased/salvaged/relocated in each region. These of utilization accordingly.
models were developed for different equipment types and In general, the guide helps (1) estimate equipment utili-
embedded in a software application for utilization predic- zation; (2) find the optimal utilization level, fleet size, and
tion and management (UPM). The UPM software allows number of equipment units to be purchased, salvaged, or
the user to estimate equipment utilization and manage the relocated in states, counties, and regions; and (3) identify
fleet at a region-level based on available measurable infor- over- or underutilized equipment units.

34
CHAPTER 2
Organization of the Guide
This guide is designed to facilitate use of the UPM software ment metrics and their contributing factors. Chapter 5
and the interpretation of its output. details utilization measurement models for each equipment
Chapter 3 of the guide describes equipment types and type and the relationships between equipment operational
classifications within each type based on the National Asso- cost, utilization level, and fleet size. Chapter 6 clarifies the
ciation of Fleet Administrators (NAFA) classification system. role of the mathematical optimization framework in opti-
It also identifies equipment types that are included in the mizing the utilization. Chapter 7 provides a general frame-
UPM software. Chapter 4 presents the utilization measure work for using the UPM software.

35
CHAPTER 3
Equipment Classification
The utilization measurement and management framework Some of these equipment types have several classes based
provides the capability to manage certain fleet equipment on their weight or their purpose of use; therefore, each type
types and classes. This guide adopts the NAFA classification and class of equipment may contain several NAFA codes
system to provide a standardized definition that can be used (see Table 1). Dump trucks, pickup trucks, automobiles,
by different entities. The guide considers 19 equipment types: vans, sport utility vehicles, front loader trucks, mechanical
dump trucks, pickup trucks, automobiles, vans, sport utility street sweeper trucks, air street sweeper trucks, truck tractors,
vehicles, trailers, front loader trucks, graders, mechanical and asphalt distributors are classified solely based on their
street sweeper trucks, air street sweeper trucks, riding gross vehicle weight (GVW). Trailers, graders, riding mowers,
mowers, truck tractors, snow removal attachments, rollers, snow removal attachments, rollers, drills, attachments, man
drills, asphalt distributors, attachments, man lifts, and large lifts, and large trucks with a special body are classified based
trucks with a special body. on their use.
Table 1. Equipment classification.

8,501-10,000 GVW 2712
10,001-14,000 GVW 3712
14,001-16,000 GVW 4712
1 Dump Truck 16,001-19,500 GVW 5712
19,501-26,000 GVW 6712
26,001-33,000 GVW 7712
> 33,000 GVW 8712
1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524,
< 8,500 GVW
1530, 1531, 1532, 1533, 1534, 1540, 1547, 1548
2 Pickup Truck 8,501-10,000 GVW 2510, 2511, 2512, 2513, 2514, 2540, 2547, 2548
10,001-14,000 GVW 3510, 3511, 3512, 3513, 3514, 3540, 3547, 3548
14,001-16,000 GVW 4510, 4511, 4512, 4513, 4514, 4520, 4527, 4528
1310, 1311, 1312, 1313, 1320, 1321, 1322, 1323, 1324, 1330,
3 Automobile < 8,500 GVW
1331, 1332, 1333, 1338, 1340, 1341, 1342, 1343, 1348
1410, 1411, 1412, 1413, 1414, 1418, 1420, 1421, 1422, 1423,
< 8,500 GVW
1424, 1425, 1426, 1427, 1428
2410, 2411, 2412, 2413, 2414, 2420, 2421, 2422, 2423, 2424,
8,501-10,000 GVW
2425, 2426, 2427, 2429
3410, 3411, 3412, 3413, 3414, 3420, 3421, 3422, 3423, 3424,
4 Van 10,001-14,000 GVW
3425, 3426, 3427, 3429
4410, 4411, 4412, 4413, 4414, 4420, 4421, 4422, 4423, 4424,
14,001-16,000 GVW
4425, 4426, 4427, 4429
16,001-19,500 GVW 5420, 5421, 5422, 5423, 5424, 5425, 5426, 5427, 5428, 5429
19,501-26,000 GVW 6420, 6421, 6422, 6423, 6424, 6425, 6426, 6427, 6428, 6429
1610, 1611, 1612, 1620, 1621, 1622, 1623, 1630, 1631, 1632,
<8,500 GVW
1633, 1634, 1640, 1647, 1648
5 Sport Utility 8,501-10,000 GVW 2610, 2611, 2612, 2613, 2614, 2640, 2647, 2648
10,001-14,000 GVW 3610, 3611, 3612, 3613, 3614, 3640, 3647, 3648
(continued on next page)

Air Compressor 320, 321, 322, 323
Auxiliary Power 390, 397, 398, 399
Boat 780, 781, 782, 783
Concrete Mixer 380, 381, 382, 383
Construction 0360
Dump Body 750, 751, 752, 753
Flat Bed 710, 711, 712, 713
Generator 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318
Office 790, 791, 792, 793
6 Trailer
Pressure Washer 340
Public Utility 350, 351
Pump 330, 331, 332, 333, 334
Refrigerator 760, 761, 762, 763
Sanitation 770, 771, 772, 773
Sewer Equipment 370, 371, 372, 373, 374
Tank Body 730, 731, 732, 733
Tilt Bed 720, 721, 722, 723
Van Body 740, 741, 742, 743
16,001-19,500 GVW 5763
19,501-26,000 GVW 6763
7 Front Loader
26,001-33,000 GVW 7763
> 33,000 GVW 8763
8 Grader Off-Road and Construction 9160
16,001-19,500 GVW 5771
Mechanical 19,501-26,000 GVW 6771
9 Street Sweeper 26,001-33,000 GVW 7771
Truck > 33,000 GVW 8771
16,001-19,500 GVW 5772
Air Street 19,501-26,000 GVW 6772
10
Sweeper Truck 26,001-33,000 GVW 7772
> 33,000 GVW 8772
11 Riding Mower Off-Road and Construction 9610, 9611, 9612
19,501-26,000 GVW 6810, 6820, 6830, 6840, 6890
12 Truck Tractor 26,001-33,000 GVW 7810, 7820, 7830, 7840, 7890
> 33,000 GVW 8810, 8820, 8830, 8840, 8890
Nose Plows 111
V Plows 112
Wing Plows 113
Snow Removal
13 Underbody Plows 114
Attachment
De-icer Equipment 115
Snow Blowers 116
Material Spreaders 117
Static 9441
14 Roller Vibratory 9442
Compactor 9443
15 Drill Off-Road and Construction 9530
16,001-19,500 GVW 5778
Asphalt 19,501-26,000 GVW 6778
16
Distributor 26,001-33,000 GVW 7778
> 33,000 GVW 8778
Spreader 0121
Aerator 0122
Soil Preparation 0123
Planter 124
Shredder/Mulcher 125
17 Attachment
Mower 126
Bucket 131
Backhoe 132
Breaker 133
Tamper 134
18 Man Lift Off-Road and Construction 9330
Beverage Body 2716, 3715, 4715, 5715, 6715, 7715, 8715
Crew Cab 4513
Extended Cab 4512
Fifth Wheel 4718, 5718, 6718, 7718, 8718
Large Truck Flat Bed 2711, 3711, 4711, 5711, 6711, 7711, 8711
19 with Special Refrigerator Body 2717, 3716, 4716, 5716, 6716, 7716, 8716
Body Regular Cab 4511
Tanker 2718, 3717, 4717, 5717, 6717, 7717, 8717
Tilt Bed 2714
Utility Bed 2713, 3713, 4514, 4713, 5713, 6713, 7713, 8713
Van Body 2715, 3714, 4714, 5714, 6714, 7714, 8714

37
CHAPTER 4
Utilization Estimation Factors
This chapter introduces the utilization measurement The survey also indicated that 62.5% of respondents use
metrics and describes the factors that are important to the “equipment age” and “engine hours” to measure utilization.
utilization estimation of fleet equipment. The respondents also noted that engine hours can provide
the actual utilization of equipment and is easy to use, but it
does not report unit conditions and is confusing to collect
4.1 Utilization Measurement Metrics
for equipment with two engines. Therefore, “engine hours”
Annual mileage, annual engine hours, usage over the last and “frequency of use” are used as the utilization metrics for
12 months, and frequency of use are the utilization metrics stationary equipment with an engine and stationary equip-
most widely used by state DOTs. While annual mileage can ment without an engine, respectively.
only be used for moving equipment and annual engine hours
can be used for equipment that has an engine, other measure-
4.2 Factors Contributing
ment metrics can be used for all types of equipment. A recent
to Equipment Utilization
survey performed as part of this project indicated that 72%
of state DOTs use “driven miles” as a utilization metric. The Factors that contribute to equipment utilization in a region
survey results also indicated that state DOTs believe that were identified based on the review of the literature, the agency
mileage metering is accurate, is easy to report, indicates survey, and statistical modeling results. These factors are:
actual usage, makes replacement predictable, and is consis-
tent across various classes of an equipment type, but it does • In-service age,
not report unit conditions and is hard to collect in equip- • Fleet size in a region,
ment without an odometer. Therefore, “annual mileage” is • Annual downtime hours, and
used as the utilization metric for moving equipment with • Cost factors (purchase cost, annual maintenance cost, and
an odometer. annual unscheduled repair cost).

38
CHAPTER 5
Asset Utilization Measurement
The UPM software estimates either average annual mileage, 5.1 Equipment Cost
annual engine hours, or frequency of usage for each equip- Estimation Models
ment type and class at a region-level based on the data pro-
vided by the user for the equipment types and classes listed In addition to the utilization estimation models, models
in Table 1. The factors contributing to region-level utilization to estimate the annual operating cost of the 19 equipment
and their definitions are listed in Table 2. Data for these factors types are required to provide a relationship between the
are required for each equipment type in order to estimate the average operational cost of an equipment type, average
annual mileage. utilization, and fleet size. The annual operating cost func-
Table 3 lists the models developed and validated in this tion (xOC) is defined as the summation of annual fuel cost,
research for the equipment types listed in Table 1. unscheduled repair cost, and scheduled maintenance cost;
it is influenced by (a) annual mileage, (b) annual downtime
hours, (c) in-service age, (d) fleet size in a region, and (e) class
of equipment. Table 4 lists the cost functions (the variables
are explained in Table 2).
Table 2. Parameters in utilization models.

Factor Description
Fleet Size Average fleet size in a region
Class 1: if the equipment is in class based on the NAFA class code

39

Equipment Utilization
Utilization Estimation Model
Type Metric
Dump Annual log( ) = 9.321 + 0.238 log( ) − 0.635 log( )+
Truck Mileage 0.129 log( ⁄ ) − 0.503 ( 5 + 6 + 7 )
log( ) = 7.081 + 0.461 log( ) − 0.153 ( )0.5 +
Pickup Annual ⁄ ) + 0.237 log( ) − 0.024 ( )0.5 − 0.049
0.275 log( −
Truck Mileage 2
0.144 3 − 0.464 4
Annual
Automobile log( ) = 9.119 + 0.256 + 0.0781 log( ) − 0.147 log( )
Mileage
Annual log( ) = 9.256 − 0.111 + 0.103 log( ⁄ ) + 0.188 log( )−
Van
Mileage 0.002 + 0.289 ( 5 + 6
)
Sport Utility Annual
log( ) = 10.222 − 0.461 log( ) + 0.248 log( ) − 0.002
Vehicle Mileage
Annual log( ) = 5.349 + 0.814 log( ) − 0.003 ( )2 + 0.663 log( )+
Mileage 0.481 log( ) − 0.009
Trailer
Frequency = 135.65 + 1.365 + 18.073 log( ) − 125.681 12 +
of Usage 61.966 14 + 46.051 17
Front
Annual
Loader log( ) = 5.590 − 0.004 ( )2 + 0.786 ( + )
Mileage 3 4
Truck
Annual
log( ) = 6.710 − 0.861 log( ) + 0.493 log( ) + 0.905 log( )
Mileage
Grader
Engine
log( ) = 7.619 + 0.505 log( ) + 1.113 log( ) − 0.455 log( )
Hours
Annual log( ) = 12.985 − 1.812 log( ) + 0.343 log( ⁄ )−
Mechanical
Mileage 0.470 log( ) − 0.096 log( ) + 0.973 4
Sweeper
Truck Engine
log( ) = 6.291 − 0.220 + 0.541 log( ) + 0.416 log( )
Hours
Annual log( ) = 12.985 − 1.812 log( ) + 0.343 log( ⁄ )−
Air Street
Mileage 0.470 log( ) − 0.096 log( ) + 0.973 4
Sweeper
Truck Engine
log( ) = 6.291 − 0.220 + 0.541 log( ) + 0.416 log( )
Hours
Annual
Riding log( ) = 4.445 + 0.222 log( ) + 0.440 log( )
Mileage
Mower
Frequency log( ) = −0.921 + 0.512 log( ) − 0.042 − 0.441 +
of Usage 1.384 log( )
Truck Annual log( ) = 10.014 − 0.004 ( × 10−1 )2 − 0.810 log( ) + 0.061 +
Tractor Mileage 1.064 3
Snow
Annual
Removal log( ) = −0.674 + 1.042 log( ) + 0.095 ( ⁄ ) − 0.015
Mileage
Attachment
Annual log( ) = 4.399 + 1.095 log( ) − 1.148 log( ) + 1.072 log( )−
Mileage 0.872 2 + 0.624 3
Engine log( ) = 4.196 + 10.235 ( )−2 − 0.004 −
Roller
Hours 0.806 log( ) log( ) + 2.084 2
Frequency
log( ) = 129.893 + 0.316 ( ⁄ )2 +107.621
of Usage 3
Annual
log( ) = 4.079 + 0.008 + 0.163 − 0.153 ( )0.5
Mileage
Drill
Engine
Hours = 26.481 + 16.841 ( ⁄ )
Asphalt Annual log( ) = 22.406 − 2.417 log( ) − 0.476 log( ) − 0.005 ( )2 −
Distributor Mileage 3.527 ( )2
Annual
Attachment log( ) = 5.056 + 0.354 log( ) − 0.127 ( )0.5 −1.031
Mileage 2
Annual
log( ) = 4.101 + 0.938 log( ) + 0.317 − 0.167 ( )0.5
Mileage
Man Lift
Engine
log( ) = 7.766 − 0.031 ( )2 + 1.653 − 0.754 log( )
Hours
Large Truck
Annual log( ) = 9.712 − 0.080 + 0.158 log( ) − 9.27 ( × 10−3 )2 +
with Special
Mileage 0.284 2 − 0.296 5 − 1.032 8 − 0.278
Body 11

40
Table 4. Summary of equipment operating cost estimation models.

Equipment
Operating Cost Estimation Model
Type
= 12.3 × 10−9 ( )2 ( )2 − 27.244 + 6262.58 ( + + + )+
Dump Trucks 1 2 3 4
14161.67 5 + 13891.45 ( 6 + 7 )
Pickup Trucks = 0.174 − 0.018 + 2719.20 ( 1

+ 2
) + 3442.98 ( 3
+ 4
)
Automobiles = 0.14 − 3.90 + 699.72 ( )0.5 − 0.73 ( )0.5
Vans = 0.36 − 3.85 + 145.84
Sport Utility
= 0.24 − 1115.04 log( ) + 2679.59 log( ) − 3.99
Vehicles
= 0.002 ( )2 + 1300.84 1 + 2264.87 3 + 1286.74 5
+ 399.71 6
+
Trailers 1420.31 7 + 718.24 8 + 7828.37 9 + 873.75 10 + 1383.05 11
+
1315.92 12 + 2005.43 14 + 1699.40 16 + 633.10 17
Front Loader
= 0.048 ( )2 + 2818.14 ( + ) + 8296.82 ( + )
Trucks 1 2 3 4
Graders = 359.76 ( ⁄ ) − 21.43
Mechanical/
Air Street = 19.87 + 51.72 ( )2
Sweeper Trucks
Riding Mowers = 2.87 − 8274.57 ( ⁄ )
Truck Tractors = 0.92 − 25.349 + 3093.94 2

+ 6933.45 3
Snow Removal 2 2
= 11.4 × 10−5 ( ⁄ ) − 1505.08 ( ⁄ ) + 8266.77 + 3007.77
Attachments 1 6
Rollers = 3.29 ( ⁄ ) + 0.72 + 408.59 log( )
Drills = 10.75 log( ) − 961.32
Asphalt 2
= 13.20 ( ⁄ ) + 3704.04 ( ⁄ )
Distributors
Man Lifts = 8.82 log( ) + 45.51
Large Trucks )2 + 1151.60 log(

= 0.32 − 229.44 ( ) − 53.64 +
with Special
20.15 log( ) + 3696.48 5 + 3006.28 8 + 6582.92 11
Body

41
CHAPTER 6
Equipment Utilization
Management Framework
Optimal fleet size and utilization level in a region minimize or actual transportation costs between them. Also, the cost
the total fleet management costs while meeting available function does not consider salvaging equipment to avoid
budget, maximum utilization thresholds, and demand con- salvaging too many equipment assets to make income. The
straints. A mathematical program is required to account for program updates the fleet size in each region in the following
these constraints, find the optimal fleet size and utilization year considering the number of purchased equipment units,
level in each region, and determine how to achieve these opti- “brought-in” or “sent-out” equipment from/to other regions,
mal sizes and levels by purchasing, salvaging, and relocating and salvaged equipment, and ensures that:
equipment assets while minimizing total fleet management
costs. This chapter describes the details of such a program. 1. The number of equipment units leaving each region to
The fleet utilization management program determines other regions in the following year does not exceed the
optimal (a) fleet size in each region in a year, (b) the number number currently available in that region;
of equipment units to be purchased in each region in a year, 2. The demand will be met by having sufficient fleet size
(c) the number of equipment units to be salvaged in each in the following year (i.e., the product of fleet size and
region in a year, (d) the number of equipment units to be average utilization of each equipment type in each region
relocated from a region to another, and (e) average utiliza- in the following year shall be equal to or greater than the
tion level required to meet the demand for an equipment total demand);
unit in each region in a year. Utilization optimization of 3. No equipment unit will be utilized in excess of its maxi-
each equipment type is performed separately. The program mum allowed utilization level; and
finds the lowest total fleet utilization management costs, 4. The number of purchased, salvaged, and relocated equip-
including capital, operating, and maintenance costs. The ment units will not be less than zero for the following year.
objective function of the mathematical program formulates
three cost items: The results of the equipment utilization management
framework are used at three levels: analysis area-, region-, and
1. The costs of keeping an asset in service using the predic-
unit-level. More details follow.
tive annual operating cost functions obtained from esti-
mation models. These costs consider the effect of fleet
size and utilization metrics (e.g., mileage) on equipment 6.1 Area-Level Utilization
operating costs in each region for the various inputs Management
(e.g., annual downtime hours, in-service age, and equip-
ment class). The fleet utilization management program allows users to
2. The cost of adding new equipment to the fleet in a region determine the optimal fleet size, utilization level, and number
in the following year (by multiplying the purchase cost by of equipment units to be purchased, salvaged, and relocated.
the number of equipment units purchased). The optimal area-level utilization values are expected to
3. The relocation cost considering the distances between vary within the analysis area from one region to another,
regions and the transportation cost rates. but they can be used to provide a high-level reference point
for optimal usage. The area-level values are determined
The users have the capability of defining regions and by post-processing the outcome of the region-level analyses
providing either distances, transportation cost per mile, (by averaging the optimal region-level utilization levels), and

42
a weighted average (based on the fleet size in each region) is 6.3 Unit-Level Utilization
calculated. The optimal area-level fleet size is the summation Management
of region-level fleet sizes. The number of equipment units to
be purchased, salvaged, and relocated are determined similarly. The UPM software compares the actual annual mileage
of individual equipment units to the optimal analysis area-
level and region-level utilization thresholds. As a result,
6.2 Region-Level Utilization a state DOT, for example, can detect individual under- or
Management overutilized equipment units and make plans to adjust their
The UPM software determines the optimal fleet size and utilization. The software also reports specific unit ID for
utilization level in each region (and how to achieve them). equipment that should be relocated or salvaged. Equipment
The software also determines if the equipment units in a with the lowest utilization levels is sent to other regions
region, in general, are over- or underutilized. The software if a region has to send out any equipment. The software
reports overutilization and underutilization if the average reports equipment with highest in-service age if a region
utilization is at least 20% more or less than the optimal utili needs to salvage equipment. However, state DOTs need to
zation level, respectively; these thresholds are inputs that consider operational conditions of equipment in making
can be changed in the software. Generally, the program will relocation and salvage decisions, as the UPM assumes that
direct a region having underutilized equipment to send the operational conditions are a function of equipment age
out its fleet to regions that have overutilized equipment to for salvage decisions and does not consider poor opera-
balance the utilization throughout the analysis area. tional conditions.

43
CHAPTER 7
Equipment Utilization Management Process
Figure 1 shows the general process for fleet UPM. This engine hours, annual mileage, and frequency of usage. The
process heavily depends on equipment input data, and users fleet size (i.e., the number of units within the same class in
need to provide accurate data regarding fleet equipment the same region) is also required. Users can input data in
current utilization, costs, and other characteristics. The data UPM either manually or automatically. A template Excel
need to exactly follow a predefined format so that it can be sheet is provided to facilitate preparing the input data.
used by the UPM software for equipment utilization estima- Figure 2 shows the required layout (i.e., specific columns
tion and management. The process consists of eight steps; with their names and order). The entry data MUST exactly
these are described below. follow the format shown in Figure 2 for the software to
work properly (the UPM aggregates the data and creates
Step 1: Define the Analysis Area region-level data).
Before managing the utilization plans, users need to The required information on each equipment unit
define the desired analysis area (e.g., State of California or must be presented in one row in the following order:
City of Raleigh). A. Unit ID: Identifies the specific unit ID that does not
Step 2: Update the Distance Matrix change over time. The input should be a number or
It is very likely that equipment needs to be relocated a set of characters.
among different regions of an analysis area to optimize the B. NAFA class code: Identifies each fleet equipment type
utilization and meet the demand. The equipment reloca- and class. The input should be an integer based on
tion cost highly depends on the distance and unit transpor- the NAFA equipment classification system.
tation cost per mile between regions. The users need to fill C. Equipment group: Identifies the group type of each
out two Excel files for distance and transportation cost per equipment unit (e.g., sedan, trailer, or truck). This is
mile between every two regions in an analysis area and load an informative column and can have any character.
them in the software. The software calculates total trans- D. Equipment class: Identifies equipment classification
portation cost by multiplying the distance, transportation based on the GVW and functionality. This is an infor-
cost, and the number of equipment assets. If transporta- mative column and can have any character.
tion cost per asset between two regions is known, the user E. User-defined classification code: Identifies each fleet
can enter a value of one in the distance matrix and the cost equipment type based on a user-defined classification.
value in the other matrix. Also, the name of regions must This input is optional and can be in numeric or text
match those shown in the equipment utilization input file. formats.
Step 3: Import the Data F. User-defined equipment description: Provides a user-
In this step, users need to import equipment-level utili- defined description of each equipment unit. This input
zation data into the UPM software. Each row of data deals is optional and can be in numeric or text format.
with an individual equipment unit and includes data on its G. Report year: Indicates the year of the provided infor
unit ID, NAFA code, equipment group, equipment class, mation. The input should be an integer.
user-defined classification code, user-defined equipment H. Region: Shows the region where the equipment is
description, report year, region, in-service age, purchase located in the report year. Each word in the region name
cost, annual fuel cost, annual maintenance cost, annual should start with a capital letter (e.g., Los Angeles,
unscheduled repair cost, annual downtime hours, annual Whitman, Walla Walla).

44
Figure 1. Utilization measurement and management process.
Figure 2. Input data layout.

45
I. In-service age: Shows the years an equipment unit is that contribute to the equipment utilization. This will
being operated. The input should be a real number. allow the users to understand the association between each
J. Purchase cost: Shows the purchase cost at the time variable and the proper utilization metric that helps design
of buying the equipment. The input should be a real more effective fleet utilization management scenarios. For
number. instance, users can see the relationship between changing
K. Fleet size: Indicates the number of available equipment fleet size in a region and the annual mileage.
assets with the same NAFA class code in the fleet in Step 6: Input Optimization Parameters
a region in the report year. The input should be an Users need to enter equipment NAFA class code and
integer. analysis year. The optimization framework requires data
L. Annual fuel cost: Represents the fuel cost of an equip- on the annual demand, purchase cost, maximum allowed
ment unit in the report year. The input should be a utilization, and transportation cost per mile per equip-
real number. ment to run the mathematical program (these parameters
M. Annual scheduled maintenance cost: Shows the total are region-based average values, and the software provides
scheduled maintenance cost for an equipment unit default values for them that can be changed by the user).
in the report year. The input should be a real number. The default value for demand in a year is the average
N. Annual unscheduled repair cost: Represents the total annual mileage or annual engine hours in the current
unscheduled repair cost for an equipment unit in the year. This means that the demand level does not change
report year. The input should be a real number. if there is no good estimation for it. The default value for
O. Annual downtime hours: Shows the inoperative hours the purchase cost is found the same way. The maximum
of an equipment unit in the report year. The input utilization threshold is equal to the average of the top
should be a real number. 15 percent observed utilization in the previous year. The
P. Annual engine hours: Represents the engine hours software provides a value of $1.00 as the default value for
of an equipment unit in the report year. The input the transportation cost. However, users are encouraged to
should be a real number. enter appropriate values for these parameters and only
Q. Annual mileage: Represents the miles driven of an use the default values in the absence of more appropriate
equipment unit in the report year. The input should estimations.
be a real number. Step 7: Manage Fleet Utilization
R. Frequency of usage: Represents the number of days In this step, the software solves the optimization problem
in a year an equipment unit is used. The input should and estimates the optimal utilization level, fleet size, and
be a real number. number of purchased/salvaged/relocated equipment units
Step 4: Estimate the Utilization in each region based on the input data; users can record
The UPM software estimates the utilization of each the outcome in an Excel file. The software provides a total
equipment type and class. Users need to enter the NAFA fleet management cost for do-nothing and optimal sce-
class code of the desired equipment (it should be among narios. However, the do-nothing scenarios may lead to
the codes provided in Table 1). In addition, users need to infeasibility (i.e., the demand may not be met or the maxi-
enter the analysis year that utilization is being estimated mum utilization threshold may be violated). The software
for. After defining the equipment class and analysis year, marks infeasible solutions in red. For a do-nothing infea-
the software estimates the utilization based on the models sible scenario, a total cost may be less than the optimal cost.
shown in Table 3. The software extracts values for the Step 8: Analyze User-Defined Scenarios
different variables from the imported data and estimates Users can define scenarios and study their effects on
the annual mileage, annual engine hours, or frequency of fleet utilization management. After selecting the equip-
usage for the desired equipment class and analysis year. ment class and analysis year, users can load the predefined
Step 5: Analyze Utilization Metric Sensitivity to its scenarios (in an Excel file) in the software. The software
Contributing Factors provides fleet utilization management costs for that scenario
After estimating the desired utilization metric, users and specifies its feasibility. The user can generate reports
can perform sensitivity analyses on any of the variables on defined scenarios and compare a set of scenarios.


PA RT I I I
User Manual for the

Utilization Prediction and
Management Software

CONTENTS
49 1.1 Background
49 1.2 About this User Manual
49 1.3 UPM Software Capabilities
50 Chapter 2 UPM Software Installation

51 Chapter 3 Distance Matrix Setup
53 Chapter 4 Data Preparation
53 4.1 Dataset Setup
53 4.2 Dataset Configuration
56 Chapter 5 Running UPM Software and Importing Agency Data

56 5.1 Run UPM Software
56 5.2 Import Distance Matrix into UPM Software
56 5.3 Import Equipment-Level Dataset into UPM Software
57 5.4 Import Region-Level Data into UPM Software
63 Chapter 6 Predict Utilization

66 Chapter 7 Utilization Management Processes
66 7.1 Determine Optimal Utilization Values
70 7.2 Define Scenarios
74 7.3 Generate Summary Report
76 Chapter 8 Use Case Example

49
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
1.1 Background • Installing the UPM software,

• Preparing the input data based on UPM software
Because of the significant role of equipment fleet in the requirements,
delivery of agency programs and projects and their signi • Importing equipment data into the UPM software, and
ficant contribution to capital investments, it is critical to • Using UPM software to generate utilization prediction and
determine the optimal utilization levels and management management reports.
procedures for equipment fleet. This project has developed
a set of utilization measurement and management models
and utilization prediction and management (UPM) soft- 1.3 UPM Software Capabilities
ware to estimate optimal utilization levels. This user manual The UPM software has the following capabilities:
describes how to use the UPM software and extract optimal
management reports. 1. Predict the annual utilization;
2. Analyze the impact of each contributing factor on equip-
ment utilization (generate sensitivity analysis graphs);
1.2 About this User Manual
3. Determine optimal fleet size and utilization levels to find
This document describes the steps to follow in the UPM lowest equipment management costs;
software to obtain fleet equipment utilization measure- 4. Determine the number of equipment units to be pur-
ment and management reports. It is recommended to first chased, relocated, or salvaged;
review the Guide to understand how the statistical models 5. Identify candidate equipment units to be salvaged or
and cost functions were developed and incorporated into relocated in a desired analysis area; and
the management models. This user manual explains the 6. Generate user-defined scenarios and compare them with
following: the optimal scenario.

50
CHAPTER 2
UPM Software Installation
Minimum system requirements to run the UPM software The UPM software was developed in Java, which calls
are as follows. SQLite database manager (Mozilla Firefox add-ons) and
Dynamic-link libraries of several solvers to run and solve
• Windows
the mathematical optimization framework. All files should
– Windows 10 (8u51 and above)
– Windows 8.x (Desktop) be downloaded and kept in the same directory as the
– Windows 7 SP1 executable file (i.e., NCHRP13-05.bat) to avoid installation
– Windows Vista SP2 problems.
– Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1 (64-bit) Note: Mac users must run “NCHRP13-05.jar” located in
– Windows Server 2012 and 2012 R2 (64-bit) the “\bin” folder, while Windows users are recommended
– RAM: 3072 MB to run “NCHRP13-05.bat” to avoid memory issues.
– Disk space: 124 MB for JRE; 2 MB for Java Update The user needs to copy the UPM software from the
– Processor: Minimum Pentium 2 266 MHz processor “NCHRP 13-05” folder to the desired directory (Figure 1).
• Mac OS X The computer’s desktop folder is assumed to be the main
– Intel-based Mac running Mac OS X 10.8.3+, 10.9+ directory for the UPM software throughout this user
– Administrator privileges for installation manual.
Figure 1. File location.

51
CHAPTER 3
Distance Matrix Setup
Users are required to update the distance matrix based on 1. The first row should have the same layout as default
their agency needs before they use the UPM software. The distance matrices where the user-defined name of the
impact of the distance inputs (among different regions) on analysis area is written in column B;
the optimal utilization management solutions is discussed 2. The names of regions should be filled in the second row
in the Guide. This chapter explains how the distance matrix and the first column, where the intersection of any row
should be changed to fit the user’s specification. (starting from the third row) and any column (starting
In the UPM software directory, there is a “Distance from column B) represents the distance between the
Matrices” folder (Figure 2) that contains an Excel file named two regions;
“Example Problem—Distance Matrix.xlsx” for the example 3. The names of regions must be identical to those reported
problem used in this project. By default, the Excel file shows in equipment record inputs; otherwise, the software does
the distances among different regions in a user-defined not work properly. For example, if the name of a reported
analysis area in miles (Figure 3). Distances can be modified region for a piece of equipment is “Box Elder,” the exact
and should be saved before exiting the Excel file. Users can name with the same format (i.e., capitalized words with
create similar distance matrices for any desired analysis area. a space between them) must be written in the distance
Agencies have a different organizational design to capture matrix;
their equipment records. To make the software widely appli- 4. The number of regions in rows and columns must be
cable for all agencies, users can modify the distance matrices identical to create a square matrix; and
based on their organizational design. Users can modify their 5. All distances should be entered in the Excel file as real
current analysis area’s distance matrix or create a new one numbers with nonnegative values.
with the following conditions.

52
Figure 2. Location of distance matrices.
Figure 3. Screenshot of distance matrix for the example problem.

53
CHAPTER 4
Data Preparation
Equipment historical costs and usage data are required to recording system and can have any character (i.e., number
help fleet managers determine the optimal utilization mea- and/or letter).
sures that find lowest utilization costs. This chapter explains 2. NAFA class code (Column B)—Required. The NAFA
how to prepare and organize the data to make them readable classification system is a comprehensive and standard
by the UPM software. system to categorize equipment based on their class,
group, service, and type. Each equipment unit in the
fleet is presented with its NAFA class code. The code
4.1 Dataset Setup entered in this column should be one of the standard
In the UPM software directory, there is an “Input Data” reported NAFA class codes in the dataset.
folder that contains the “Example Problem—Input Data.xlsx” 3. Equipment group (Column C)—Optional. This column
file (Figure 4). In this Excel file, the first row should show stores the group category of each equipment unit (e.g.,
the name of the defined analysis area under column B, and sedan, trailer, or truck). This is an informative column
and can have any character (i.e., number and/or letter).
the second row represents the equipment specifications
4. Equipment class (Column D)—Optional. The equipment
such as “Unit ID,” “NAFA Code,” and “Equipment Group”
classification based on the gross vehicle weight (GVW)
(all equipment specifications can be found in the “Example
and functionality is saved in this column. This is an
Problem—Input Data.xlsx” file) (Figure 5).
informative column and can have any character.
The required format of the dataset file follows.
5. User-defined classification code (Column E)—Optional.
The equipment classification based on the user-defined
• Blank white cells require agencies’ inputs. Each row repre-
classification is saved in this column. This is an infor
sents the information of one equipment unit in the analysis
mative column and data can have any character.
area.
6. User-defined equipment description (Column F)—
• Gray cells are locked and cannot be modified.
Optional. The equipment description based on the
description of each equipment unit defined by the user is
Note: The number and the order of columns MUST be
saved in this column. This is an informative column and
identical to that in the template in “Example Problem—Input can have any character.
Data.xlsx” file (Figure 5); otherwise, the software does 7. Report year (Column G)—Required. This column indi-
not work properly. Detailed information about the dataset cates the year in which the data are collected. The input
columns is provided in the following section. should be an integer.
8. Region (Column H)—Required. This column shows the
region where the equipment unit is located at the time
4.2 Dataset Configuration
of the report. Each word in the region name should start
The required information for each equipment unit is kept with a capital letter (e.g., Los Angeles, Whitman) and be
in the following column format. identical to the region’s name in the distance matrix.
9. In-service age (Column I)—Required. This column shows
1. Unit ID (Column A)—Required. This column indicates the years an equipment unit is being operated. The input
the exclusive equipment ID based on the agency’s data should be a real number.

54
Figure 4. Equipment-level dataset location.
Figure 5. Template of data entry.

55
10. Purchase cost (Column J)—Required. This column shows 15. Annual downtime hours (Column O)—Required. This
the purchase cost at the time of purchasing an equip- column shows the inoperative hours for an equipment
ment unit, and it should be reported in real numbers. unit in the report year. The data should be entered in real
11. Fleet size (Column K)—Required. This column indicates numbers.
the number of available equipment units with the same 16. Annual engine hours (Column P)—Required. The engine
NAFA code in the fleet in a region. The data should be hours for each equipment unit should be entered in real
entered as an integer. numbers in this column.
12. Annual fuel cost (Column L)—Required. This column 17. Annual mileage (Column Q)—Required. The miles driven
represents the fuel cost in the report year in real numbers. for each equipment unit should be entered in real numbers
13. Annual scheduled maintenance cost (Column M)— in this column.
Required. This column shows the total scheduled main- 18. Frequency of usage (Column R)—Required. The number
tenance cost for an equipment unit in the report year. of days in a year the equipment is utilized should be
The data should be entered in real numbers. entered in real numbers in this column.
14. Annual unscheduled repair cost (Column N)—Required.
This column represents the total unscheduled repair Note: If any input value is missing or unavailable, leave the
cost for an equipment unit in the report year. The data cell blank or enter “NA” in the Excel file. Please avoid using “0”
should be entered in real numbers. or other characters.

56
CHAPTER 5
Running UPM Software

and Importing Agency Data
Once the distance matrix and equipment dataset have button. Figure 9 presents the screenshot of the main window.
been completed, users should import the information into The main window contains four tabs as described below.
the software. This chapter describes running the UPM soft-
ware, importing the distance matrix file, and importing the 1. Input tab: Provides users with data input capabilities.
equipment-level dataset or creating a region-level dataset Data can be entered either manually or via the Automatic
using the UPM software. Equipment Specification Input panel.
2. Utilization Prediction tab: Provides users with the utili
zation prediction values of an equipment type based on
5.1 Run UPM Software
the (a) equipment specifications entered in the Input tab
Users should open the software directory and double- and (b) developed utilization prediction models in this
click on the executable file (either “NCHRP13-05.bat” for project.
Windows or “\bin\NCHRP13-05.jar” for Mac operating 3. Utilization Management tab: Delivers the optimal values
systems) to run the UPM software (Figure 6). of utilization and fleet size for an equipment type based
on the equipment inventory (i.e., Example Problem—
Input Data.xlsx file), user preferences, and input data.
5.2 Import Distance Matrix
4. About tab: Summarizes the objectives of the project and
into UPM Software
lists the partner institutions involved in the project.
Once the UPM’s opening window appears, the software
asks the users to type in a name for the analysis area and The Input tab helps import the equipment dataset into the
import the distance matrix file (Figure 7). Use the following UPM software using either of the following panels:
steps to import the distance matrix.
• Automatic Equipment Specification Input (for importing
1. Enter a name for the desired analysis area to perform the the equipment-level dataset) or
equipment utilization analyses. • Manual Equipment Specification Input (for importing the
2. Click on the Browse button and find the distance matrix average region-level dataset).
file of the defined analysis area in the software directory.
Click on Open to select the file (Figure 8). The procedure for importing the equipment-level dataset
Note: The update procedure for distance matrix files using Automatic Equipment Specification Input follows.
is explained in Chapter 3. Users should click on Browse to select the prepared dataset
3. Click on Enter to close the software opening window. This (Figure 10). The steps for providing equipment-level data
action opens the UPM software’s main window. are explained in Chapter 4 (i.e., Data Preparation). After the
Excel dataset is located, a message window displays “Import
Data to Interface . . . ,” which shows that the data import is
5.3 Import Equipment-Level Dataset
in progress (Figure 11). This step may take up to several
into UPM Software
minutes, depending on the size of the dataset.
Once an analysis area is defined and a distance matrix file is Note: The Input Data panel shows the dataset in a table
selected, the main window will open by clicking on the Enter where users can ensure that the imported data are correct. The

57
Figure 6. UPM software location.
Input Data label will be changed to Input Data—Individual window confirming that the data are being processed for
Equipment Entry to show that each row of the table has the the next steps.
information on one equipment unit (Figure 12). Note: The duration of the data processing step depends on
The imported data provide the information on each the size of the dataset and can range from a few seconds to
equipment unit separately, while the prediction and manage- several minutes.
ment models are developed based on average values for
an equipment type in each region. Therefore, imported 5.4 Import Region-Level Data
data should be processed before moving forward to other into UPM Software
tabs. Users should click on the Process button after ensur-
ing that their data are imported correctly (using the Input This option enables the users to enter available average
Data panel). Figure 13 shows a “Processing . . .” message values of equipment utilization for each region using the
Manual Equipment Specifications Input panel. In this panel,
the input data should be entered manually using text
boxes and drop-down lists in the exact format described in
Chapter 4 (instead of automatic data importing from an
Excel dataset). All values should be averaged for a selected
NAFA class code over a region. Users should first select the
NAFA classification code to enter equipment data. Users can
select the NAFA classification code directly using the drop-
down list (1 in Figure 14) or search for it by clicking on the
Search by Class button (2 in Figure 14). The Descriptions box
shows the detailed classification of the selected equipment
(3 in Figure 14).
The Search by Class button opens another window where
the user will be able to search for an equipment type by
knowing its group and class (Figure 15). By clicking on the
Search button, the Options box displays equipment assets
that are matched with the selected items in the group and
class drop-down lists. Users can select the desired equipment
and go back to the main window (i.e., the Input tab) by click-
Figure 7. UPM software opening window. ing on the Select button (Figure 15).

58
Figure 8. Distance matrix file importing procedure.
Figure 9. UPM main window.

59
Figure 10. The procedure of importing the equipment-level dataset into

the UPM software.
Figure 11. Screenshot of message window while data are being imported.

60
Figure 12. Screenshot of the main window when data are imported

automatically.
Figure 13. Screenshot of the main window when data are being processed.

61
Figure 14. Screenshot of the main window for manual equipment specification input.
After selecting the equipment, users should enter the • Fuel cost,
user-defined classification code, user-defined equipment • Fleet size,
description, report year, and region and then provide average • Downtime hours,
values for the selected equipment type in the region for • Annual mileage,
(box 1 in Figure 16): • Annual engine hours,
• Maintenance cost,
• In-service age, • Unscheduled repair cost, and
• Purchase cost, • Frequency of usage.
Note: The average cost values should be entered in the

textboxes. The Fleet Size should be entered as the total
number of equipment units with the same NAFA class codes
in a region.
By clicking on the Add Equipment button (box 2 in
Figure 16), the assigned values for the selected equipment
will be added to the list of added equipment and shown in
the Input Data panel (box 3 in Figure 16). If the entered data
do not match the defined format (described in Section 4.2),
an error message will be displayed to point out the fields with
the wrong input. The panel label changes to Input Data—
Average Region-Level to clarify that entered values for each
Figure 15. Screenshot of search by class. equipment unit must be averaged in each region. Before the

62
Figure 16. Screenshot of the main window, manual data entry.
equipment is added to the list, users should confirm that the

information is correct. Figure 16 shows a screenshot of the
main window while data are added manually. Users can
save the added equipment dataset into an Excel file for
future reference and start the processing step by clicking
on the Save & Process button (box 4 in Figure 16). Figure 17
shows the Save a File window (that appears after clicking on
the Save & Process button), where users can set the desired
name and directory for their generated Excel dataset.
Figure 17. Screenshot of the save window.

63
CHAPTER 6
Predict Utilization
After the input data are processed in the Input tab, the UPM – Column A shows the row number in the generated
software can estimate the equipment utilization in each report Excel file, where each row represents the relevant infor-
year in the Utilization Prediction tab. The UPM software mation in one region.
extracts the average values of significant factors from the input – Column B displays the NAFA class code.
data to calculate the utilization of the selected equipment. – Columns C and D provide a description of the selected
Users should go through the following steps in the Utiliza- NAFA class code.
tion Prediction tab to predict equipment utilization. – Columns E and F provide the user-defined classifica-
tion/description of the selected NAFA class code.
1. Select the desired equipment type from the NAFA Class – Column G includes the estimated annual mileage in a
Code drop-down list. region.
2. Choose the analysis year, from the Analysis Year drop- – Column H includes the estimated annual engine hours
down list, to use the average input values of the given year in a region.
in the prediction models. – Column I includes the estimated frequency of usage in
3. Click on the Predict Utilization for the Selected Equipment a region.
button to display the utilization prediction results in a – Column J shows the selected analysis year in the Utiliza-
table, as shown in Figure 18. Columns 1 to 5 of the table tion Prediction tab.
show the selected NAFA class code and user-defined speci- – Column K represents the name of each region.
fications (box 1 in Figure 18). Columns 6 to 10 present – Column L shows the fleet size based on input data.
the analysis year and predicted utilization (e.g., annual – Columns M through U show the average values of
mileage, annual engine hours, and frequency of usage), different contributing factors to utilization for each
whichever is available for the selected equipment type region based on the input data.
in each region, based on the input data and statistical
prediction models (box 2 in Figure 18). Note: The predicted utilization is tagged by “NMA”
Note: Once users select another equipment type, their (no model available) for selected equipment in each region
prediction results will be added to the end of the table if the corresponding utilization prediction model is not
(to the bottom of the existing rows), unless they click on available.
the Clear Table button. Clicking on the Sensitivity Analysis button provides the
4. Click on the Generate Utilization Report button to export users with the capability to analyze the sensitivity of the
the displayed table along with input parameters/variables estimated utilization to each input parameter/variable. As
into an Excel file. Select the desired directory and name shown in Figure 21, the average value drawn from the data
the Excel file; then click on the save button (Figure 19). will be displayed by selecting the sensitivity parameter.
A confirmation message will be displayed to indicate that Furthermore, the sensitivity graph for the entered analysis
the file is created successfully. interval will be generated by clicking on the Generate Sen-
Figure 20 shows the generated Excel report in step 4 for sitivity Graph button. Clicking on the Generate Sensitivity
pickup trucks in the defined analysis area as an example. Analysis Report button exports the generated graph into an
The explanation of each column follows. Excel file in the desired directory.

64
Figure 18. Screenshot of utilization prediction tab.
Figure 19. Export the utilization report into an Excel file.

65
Figure 20. Sample estimated utilization report.
Figure 21. Screenshot of the sensitivity analysis window.

66
CHAPTER 7
Utilization Management Processes
This chapter describes how users can find the optimal The Transportation Cost per Mile per Equipment represents
utilization values and compare them with defined scenarios the cost of relocating an equipment unit from one region
for different equipment types. to another region in dollars per mile. Click on the Browse
button and find the transportation cost per mile per
equipment matrix in the “Transportation Cost Matrices”
7.1 Determine Optimal
folder. Click on Open to select the file (Figure 24).
Utilization Values
Note: Users should change the values in the Input
Use the following steps to generate the optimal utilization Parameters window based on their available data. After
values based on the developed optimization models. applying all changes, users should click on the Save button
to save all inputs and close the Input Parameters window.
Step 1. Select the Equipment and Analysis Year Step 3. Run the Utilization Optimization
In the Utilization Management tab, select the desired Clicking on the Optimize Fleet Utilization button
equipment class from the NAFA Class Code drop-down list runs the utilization optimization model based on avail-
(1 in Figure 22). Select the analysis year from the Analysis able inputs. Before providing the optimal values, the
Year drop-down list (2 in Figure 22). Utilization Threshold window will open to ask users the
Step 2. Provide Required Information for the Utilization under- and overutilization thresholds to respectively flag
Optimization underutilized and overutilized equipment in the manage-
Click on the Input Parameters button that opens a ment report.
window to enter average demand, purchase value, and
maximum allowed utilization in each region (3 in Fig- Note: The software shows 20% as the default values
ure 22). Figure 23 shows a screenshot of the Input Param- where the users can change them to the desired values. For
eters window. The default input parameters are provided example, a piece of equipment will be considered overutilized
as follows. when it is utilized at least 20% more than the optimal average
– The default values for the demand are the average utili- utilization obtained from the optimization program.
zation in the selected analysis year. For regions with no After setting the under- and overutilization thresholds,
usage, a value of zero is used. click on the Save & Process button to select the desired direc-
– Suggested purchase costs are averaged for regions in the tory to save the management report and start running the
selected analysis year. optimization. Figure 25 shows the steps of generating the
– Maximum allowed utilization shows the maximum management report.
utilization that is allowed for an equipment unit in Before the Utilization Management tab is filled out with
each region in a year. Here, the maximum utilization in results, a message is displayed to inform users that the solution
a year should be reported in dedicated cells in front of is found (Figure 26).
each region. Default values for the maximum allowed The analysis area-level costs (1 in Figure 27) and region-
utilization are set based on the average value of top level optimal values (2 in Figure 27) for the selected NAFA
15% of highly used equipment in the input data in the class codes and analysis year will also be shown in a box and
selected analysis year. a table in the software; see Figure 27.

67
Figure 22. Screenshot of utilization management window.
The Analysis Area-Level Cost panel includes the following

costs (1 in Figure 27).
• Total Cost Before Optimization ($): Presents the total oper-

ation cost of the selected NAFA class code in the analysis
area based on the input data in the selected analysis year.
• Operation Cost if Do Nothing ($): Shows the operation cost
of the selected NAFA class code in the analysis area when
no optimization is performed (e.g., keeping the same fleet
size in each region) in the report year.
• Total Cost After Optimization ($): Represents the (a) total
operating cost in the analysis area after utilization opti-
mization, (b) purchased cost, and (c) transportation cost.
• Operation Cost After Optimization ($): Displays the total
operating cost in the analysis area after performing the
utilization optimization.
Note: When the current fleet composition does not satisfy

the demand and maximum allowed utilization, the color
of the Operation Cost if Do Nothing label will change to red
to inform users about the infeasibility. Also, a note will be
Figure 23. Screenshot of the input parameter window. provided in the management report to inform the users.

68
Figure 24. Transportation cost matrix importing procedure.
Figure 25. Steps of generating management report.

69
Figure 26. Screenshot of utilization management window when a solution

is found.
Figure 27. Screenshot of software with obtained values from optimization.

70
Figure 28. Management report tab in the Excel report file.
The description of Region-Level Utilization, Fleet Size, and between every two regions. Then, the software updates the
Cost shown in the table (box 2 in Figure 27) follows. fleet size in the management framework and calculates the
utilization levels and costs corresponding to the user-defined
• Column 1 displays the region names. scenarios.
• Column 2 presents the optimal utilization (on average for Note: If the composition of input parameters is infea-
each region) based on the optimization results. sible, an error message will be shown to the user (e.g., see
• Column 3 is the optimal fleet size in each region that
satisfies the demand.
• Column 4 displays the operating cost (in dollars) in each
region.
• Columns 5 and 6 show the required transportation and
purchase costs (in dollars) to be spent in each region to
reach the optimality and reduce the total costs.
The created management report in the Excel file includes

four tabs as follows.
• Management Report tab: Includes the optimal analysis

area-level utilization, region-level utilization, and fleet size
accompanied by purchased, transportation, and operation
costs for each region (Figure 28).
• Detailed Costs tab: Reports detailed transportation costs
between regions in addition to the purchased costs,
salvaged costs, and total costs (Figure 29).
• Detailed Relocation Matrix tab: Indicates the number of
relocated equipment between every two regions based on
the optimization results (Figure 30).
• Equipment-Level Analysis tab: Includes the comparison of
each equipment type’s actual utilization with its optimal
analysis area-level and region-level utilizations (Figure 31).
7.2 Define Scenarios

UPM software provides users with the capability to define
and analyze scenarios. Users can enter into the software the
number of purchased and salvaged equipment units in each
region along with the number of relocated equipment units Figure 29. Detailed costs tab in the Excel report file.

71
Figure 30. Detailed relocation matrix tab in the Excel file.
Figure 32), and the software marks the infeasible solutions in the Relocation sheet, users can enter the desired number of
red (Figure 33). For example, if a user’s input regarding the relocated equipment units between every two regions. In the
number of transferring-out or salvaging equipment from a relocation matrix, the regions in the first row send equip-
region is more than the current fleet size, the software will ment to regions located in the first column. All inputs should
show an error but record the results. be entered as integers. Figure 35 shows a sample of a user-
To define a scenario, users are required to create a sce defined scenario in an Excel file.
nario and then import it into the UPM software. A scenario Note: The number and order of regions MUST be identical
template is provided as an Excel file in the “User-Defined to the distance matrix. The layout of the distance matrix is
Scenarios” folder. Opening “Example Problem—User-defined explained in Chapter 3.
Scenario.xlsx” file allows defining a new scenario (Figure 34). After creating the input file of a scenario, the users should
The Excel file contains two sheets to capture the input data. go back to the UPM software to import their generated input
In the Purchase-Salvage sheet, the number of purchased and Excel file and get the analysis results. Therefore, users should
salvaged equipment for each region should be defined. In (a) redo Step 1 and Step 2 of Section 7.1 and (b) click on
Figure 31. Equipment-level analysis in the Excel report file.

72
Figure 32. Screenshot of error message for an infeasible scenario.
Figure 33. Screenshot of utilization management tab for an infeasible scenario.

73
Figure 34. Location of the template scenario file.
the Load Defined Scenarios button to open the User-Defined 4. Click on the Save & Process button to select the desired
Scenarios window and follow the steps listed below. directory for saving the report and start the analysis
(Figure 37).
1. Assign a name for the scenario in Scenario Name textbox.
2. Click on Select to locate the saved scenario Excel file, and After a confirmation message (Figure 38), the software
then click on Open (Figure 36). shows the analysis area-level and region-level values based on
3. Adjust the under- and overutilization thresholds as defined user-defined scenarios. The definitions of costs and columns
in Step 3 of Section 7.1. are provided in Step 3 of Section 7.1.
(a) (b)
Figure 35. Sample of user-defined scenario: (a) purchase and salvage and (b) relocation.

74
Figure 36. Import the scenario Excel file into the software.
7.3 Generate Summary Report

relocated equipment in the analysis area and the operation
To export the summary of all optimal and user-defined cost (in dollars) before and after performing the optimization/
scenarios into an Excel file, users can click on the Generate user-defined scenario.
Summary Report button. This process creates an Excel file Note: All performed optimization and user-defined sce-
containing reported values in a display table (Figure 39) narios will be available in the summary report, where each
along with the total number of purchased, salvaged, and row represents the information of one scenario solution.
Figure 37. Save the scenario report.

75
Figure 38. Screenshot of message for successfully creating a scenario.
Figure 39. Sample of the summary report.

76
CHAPTER 8
Use Case Example
This chapter presents a use case example to illustrate the Figure 41 shows the optimal utilization management
steps discussed in previous chapters. The input data is pro- results for different regions in the analysis area. The total
vided in the “Example Problems” folder so that the users can operating cost of truck tractors before the optimization is
follow the same steps and get identical results. Reviewing the $163,112. The total operating cost is reduced to $142,260
UPM software’s user manual is recommended before going after finding the optimal management plan.
through the example. This example illustrates how to create Step 6: Analyze User-Defined Scenarios
user-defined scenarios and compare the results with the Users can define scenarios using a template Excel file that
optimal solutions. The input data for truck tractors with is provided in the UPM software package. In this example,
NAFA code 8810 in 2018 is used in this example. The data for sample scenario files “Scenario-1.xlsx” and “Scenario-2.xlsx”
this case example is in the “Example Problem” folder. in the “Example Problem” folder are used. The template
Excel file has two tabs:
“Purchase/Salvage” tab
Step 1: Define the Analysis Area
The number of purchased and salvaged pickup trucks
Type in “Example Problem” to define the analysis area in each region should be entered in the “Purchase/
in this step. Salvage” tab, as shown in Figure 42. In the scenario
Step 2: Update the Distance Matrix defined in sample file “Scenario-1.xlsx,” District 3 pur-
The distance matrix “Example Problem—Distance chases one truck tractor and District 11 salvages a truck
Matrix.xlsx” in the “Distance Matrices” folder should be tractor (see Figure 42).
selected and imported into the software. “Relocation” tab
Step 3: Import the Data In the “Relocation” tab, users define the number of
“Example Problem—Input Data.xlsx” in the “Example truck tractors that need to be moved among regions.
Problem” folder contains the input parameters for truck In this example, District 2 sends one truck tractor to
tractors with NAFA code 8810 in 2018. Users need to District 4, and District 10 sends two truck tractors to
import and process the data in the “Input” tab in the District 8 (see Figure 43).
software.
Step 4: Input Optimization Parameters Users need to load the predefined scenario into the soft-
After importing the data, the equipment class and ware, as shown in Figure 44. The name of the scenario is
analysis year should be specified in the “Utilization defined as “Scenario 1” in this example, and the “Scenario-1.
Management” tab. In this example, truck tractors with xlsx” Excel file is uploaded to the software. The under- and
NAFA code 8810 in 2018 are selected. overutilization thresholds are assumed to be the default
Step 5: Manage Fleet Utilization value (20% for both over- and underutilization).
The default parameters are shown in Figure 40, and After saving and processing the predefined scenario, the
the default 20% thresholds for under- and overutilization UPM software compares the total and operating costs of
are selected in this example. The transportation unit cost is the user-defined scenario with the cost of the do-nothing
imported from “Example Problem—Distance Matrix.xlsx” scenario. In addition, detailed costs in each region are shown
in the “Transportation Cost Matrices” folder, and it is in a table in the software (see Figure 45). The defined scenarios
assumed to be $1.00 per mile. increased “Total Cost After Scenario” to $270,699 with an

77
operating cost of $168,812. Both costs are higher than those

that were optimally found by the UPM software.
The UPM software generates all outputs of optimization
for the defined scenarios in an Excel file. The output of this
example is saved as “Scenario-1 Report.xlsx” in the “Example
Problem” folder. Figure 46 shows the analysis area-level and
region-level optimal annual mileage of truck tractors with
NAFA code 8810. In addition, the utilization levels based
on the predefined scenario are compared to the optimal
values shown in red, yellow, and green, which indicate
overutilization, underutilization, and acceptable utilization,
respectively. In this example, District 3 utilizes truck tractors
in an acceptable range. Since District 3 buys one equipment
unit based on Scenario 1, the purchase cost is reported as
$100,459, and the operating cost is decreased from $10,957
to $10,681.
As shown in Figure 47, the “Detailed Costs” tab reports
transportation, purchase, and salvage costs. Moreover, the
IDs of truck tractors that need to be relocated or salvaged are
suggested. For instance, District 2 should relocate one truck
Figure 40. Default parameters for utilization tractor with ID 537396 to District 4. District 11 also needs to
management of truck tractors. salvage the equipment ID 40568.
Figure 41. Optimal utilization plans for truck tractors with NAFA code 8810.

78
Figure 48 shows that two truck tractors with ID 5537151

and 336617 in District 7 are overutilized. District 12 only has
one truck tractor, and its average utilization is 23,396 miles.
More truck tractors are needed to lower the utilization level.
As a result, District 12 buys a truck tractor instead of District 3.
Also, one underutilized truck tractor is transferred from
District 7 to District 12. The new scenario is defined in the
“Scenario-2.xlsx” file in the folder “Example Problem.” In
this scenario, District 12 buys one truck tractor, District 11
salvages one truck tractor, one truck tractor is moved from
District 2 to 4, two are moved from District 10 to 8, and one
is moved from District 7 to 12 (Figure 49).
Scenario 2 is loaded into the software, as shown in Figure 50.
The Excel output file is saved as “Scenario-2 Report.xlsx”
in the “Example Problem” folder.
The result of Scenario 2 is shown in Figure 51. The total
cost is $261,492, with the operation cost of $159,558. To
compare the results of the optimization, Scenario 1, and
Scenario 2, users need to click on the “Generate Summary
Figure 42. The number of purchased Report” button in the “Utilization Management” tab, as
and salvaged equipment units in the shown in Figure 51. The output Excel file is saved as “Sum-
user-defined scenario. mary Report.xlsx” in the “Example Problem” folder. Figure 52
shows that the total cost is the lowest when the optimal plan
is utilized. In addition, Scenario 2 is more efficient than
Scenario 1, with lower total cost and operation costs.
Figure 43. Defining the relocation matrix in the user-defined scenarios.

79
Figure 44. Loading the user-defined scenarios.
Figure 45. The result of the user-defined scenario.

80
Figure 46. Management reports in the user-defined scenario.
Figure 47. Detailed costs in the user-defined

scenario.

81
Figure 48. Equipment-level analysis in the user-defined scenario.
Figure 49. Defining a new user-defined scenario.
Figure 50. Loading a new scenario into the software.

82
Figure 51. The result of the new scenario.
Figure 52. Summary report of all scenarios.

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TDC Transit Development Corporation
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
Washington, DC 20001
500 Fifth Street, NW
NON-PROFIT ORG.
COLUMBIA, MD
PERMIT NO. 88
U.S. POSTAGE
ISBN 978-0-309-67366-2
90000
PAID
9 780309 673662

Utilization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Utilization

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Utilization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/26067 SHARE

Utilization Measurement and Management of Fleet Equipment

90 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

FIND RELATED TITLES

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2021. Utilization

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 957

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 957

Published research reports of the

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

Transportation Research Board

and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 957

NCHRP PROJECT 13-05 PANEL

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

9 Chapter 2 Research Approach

12 Chapter 3 Research Findings

27 Chapter 4 Summary and Suggested Research

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

P A R T I I Guide for Utilization Measurement

P A R T I I I User Manual for the Utilization Prediction

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

9 Chapter 2 Research Approach

12 Chapter 3 Research Findings

27 Chapter 4 Summary and Suggested Research

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Utilization Measurement and

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Equipment Fleet Utilization Prediction

Equipment Fleet Utilization Management

Table 1. Utilization parameters used in utilization models.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Table 2. Equipment utilization estimation models.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

The mathematical model showed a reduction in total costs as a result of optimizing

Guide for Equipment Fleet Utilization Measurement

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Figure 1. Snapshot of some steps in the UPM process.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

1.1 Background processes and suitable computer-based tools that provide

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

2.1 Introduction 2.2 Literature Review

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

maintenance hours and cost, (scheduled) maintenance

2.5 Data Processing

2.7 Validating the Models

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

2.8 Developing the Equipment * Minimize costs

P A R T I I Guide for Utilization Measurement

P A R T I I I User Manual for the Utilization Prediction

2.8 Developing the Equipment * Minimize costs

3.2.6 Summary of the Literature 3.3.2 Utilization Measurement Metrics