HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Pavement Management Program - Eligibility for Measure M REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
February 1, 1993
Date
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator
PR BY CITY COUNCIL
Prepared by: Louis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works
199,3
Subject: ADOPT-A-BLOCK PROGRAM
WY CLERK
Consistent with Council Policy? [X] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The City Council has requested that the Public Works Department pursue the development
of an Adopt-A-Block Program.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a pilot Adopt-A-Block Program for the downtown area, and authorize the
redirection of funds in the amount of $1,500 previously budgeted for other purposes.
ANALYSIS:
There has been some community interest expressed in favor of developing an
Adopt-A-Block Program which would help clean and maintain the public right-of-way
utilizing the methodology now employed in the City's Adopt-A-Beach Program. Under
this proposal, volunteers would be recruited to monitor small areas of selected streets and
alleys for cleanliness, health and safety hazards, graffiti, and trash. This program would
allow the public to assume limited responsibility for designated areas.
Because the model for this new program is the existing Adopt-A-Beach Program, staff
purposes beginning this activity on a small scale similar to the way in which
Adopt-A-Beach was started. To this end, it is now proposed that Council approve
commencing such a program this Spring in the Downtown area. If successful, the program
would be expanded into other areas.
The Director of Public Works has designated a staff member to assume the responsibility
for coordinating this new venture, and hereby requests a funding of $1,500 to establish the
program. The funds will be used for various forms of advertising and any materials needed
by the participants.
The City Council will receive periodic reports on the progress of Adopt-A-Block.
Interested community members, service groups and organizations will be invited to
participate in this project. Both personal and financial support will be sought.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Funds could be redirected to this activity from:
1. General funds currently budgeted in the Graffiti/Vandalism Program Account No.
E-AA-PW-423-2-36-00; or
PIO 5/85
Request for Council Action
Adopt-A-Block Program
February 1, 1993
Page 2
2. Refuse Enterprise funds currently budgeted in Account No. E-ER-PW-421-4-01-00.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Do not approve the pilot Adopt-A-Block Program as proposed, and direct staff on how to
proceed.
LFS:JS:LD:lw
3380g/l & 2
F EIQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
May 4, 1992
Date
Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED By CITY C;0
Submitted to: O
Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator ------ __ -19--
Submitted by:,,p�
0 Louis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works
Prepared by: CITY CLER
MEASURE M ELIGIBILITY
Subject: &zj 3 �s
X
Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: OIR,?
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The City must adopt, by Resolution, a local Pavement Management Program as one of the
requirements to acquire and retain eligibility for Measure M funding.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the attached Resolution; thereby adopting the City's Pavement Management Program.
ANALYSIS:
On November 6, 1990, the Orange County voters approved Measure M, the Revised Traffic
Improvement Growth Management Plan. Pursuant to this measure, a one-half percent sales tax
revenue ordinance went into effect April 1, 1991. Of the total revenue generated, 14.6% will be
made available to eligible cities for local street maintenance and improvements.
To acquire and retain eligibility, the City must meet certain criteria. The adoption of the
City's Pavement Program is one of the last criteria necessary for securing Measure M funding.
Although the City's Pavement Management Program, (see Attachment A) has been in operation
since May 24, 1985, Council has never been required to adopt the program until the
establishment of Measure M.
Staff has prepared the necessary resolution; (see Attachment B) for the formal adoption of the
City's Pavement Management Program and recommends Council approval.
FUNDING SOURCE:
The failure to acquire and retain eligibility in the Measure M Program will result in a substantial
loss of revenue to the City.
PIO 5/85
FUNDING SOURCE:
The failure to acquire and retain eligibility in the Measure M Program will result in a substantial
loss of revenue to the City.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Deny approval of a Resolution adopting the City's Pavement Management Program and thereby
forego any Measure M funding for street maintenance and improvement projects.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — City's Pavement Management Program
Attachment B — Resolution
MTU:DRN:lb
3212g/2 & 3
1 �
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA
APRIL 4, 1985
Roy Jorgensen Associates, Inc.
31244 Palos Verdes Drive West, Suite 245
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90274
(213) 541-3511 or (301) 948-8190
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION 1
PROJECT OBJECTIVES 3
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION 4
Segment Number 4
Data Files 5
Condition Survey
Inventory
Strategies and Unit Cost
Strategy Selection 15
Segment Priority 16
Project Selection 18
SYSTEM OUTPUTS 20
Printouts 20
Screen Displays 26
SYSTEM OPERATION 30
APPENDIX
A. GUIDELINES FOR PAVEMENT EVALUATION A.1
Transverse Cracking A.2
Longitudinal Cracking A.3
Alligator Cracking A.4
Raveling A.5
Patching A.6
Rutting A.7
Riding Quality A.8
B. USERS' GUIDE
1.0 GENERAL
1.1 Purpose of the User's Manual B. 1
1.2 Computer Hardware Requirements B.1
1.3 Other Reference Materials B.2
1.4 System Software Support B.2
1.5 Operating the System B.2
2.0 SYSTEM OPERATION
2. 1 Compupro System Start-up and General Operation B.3
2.2 File Updates and Print Functions B.4
2.2.1 Initial Setup, Data Prep. and Organization B.5
2.2.2 File Maintenance B.5
2.2.2a Road Characteristics (Menu Item 5) B.5
2.2.2b Pavement Condition Survey (Menu Item 6) B.12
2.2.2c Unit Cost File (Menu Item 7) B.15
2.2.3 Print Reports B.16
2.2.3a Print Options B.18
2.2.3b Condition Reports (Menu Item 1) B.19
2.2.3c Proposed Improvement Report (Menu Item 2) B.21
2.2.3d Priority Report (Menu Item 3) B.23
2.2.3e Worksheet Report (Menu Item 4) B.25
2.2.3f Record Search (Menu Item 8) B.28
3.0 SPECIAL FUNCTIONS
3. 1 Record Deletion _ B.30
3.2 Data Backup B.30
INTRODUCTION
The Pavement Management System (PMS) developed for the City of, Huntington
Beach provides a systematic method for determining a five-year pavement improvement
plan for City streets. The system includes procedures for documenting existing pave-
ment conditions, recommending improvements for identified deficiencies and prioritizing
these improvements. The pavement management process is continuous and is updated
annually.
The processing of data is automated using a Compupro Computer System. The
flow chart shown below outlines the major components of the pavement management
system.
Figure 1
Generalized PMS Logic Flow
I NYEXTOAY DNS
•
FILE
UXli L057 CONDITION 50RYEY
COMPUTE
STEP I CONDITION
RATING
DETERMINE
STEP 2 5TRATEGY
ESTIMATE
STEP J LIFE AND
COST OF IMP.
STEP! DETERMINE
PRIORITY
STEP S
WDATES DATA PRINTED
BASE REP OR T5
• SYSTEM
FILE
SC
-1-
Three data files are used in the PMS. These are the:
o condition survey file,
o inventory file, and
o strategies and unit cost file.
In the condition survey file, the type, severity and quantity of roadway deficien-
cies are stored. The inventory file is used to store geometric (length, width) , traf-
fic (ADT, % trucks) , construction and improvement history data. The strategies and
unit cost file store all improvement strategies (slurry, reconstruction, etc. ) that can
be used to correct identified deficiencies as well as their associated unit cost.
As changes are made in these files, the system recomputes the condition rating,
the required strategy, a cost/benefit ratio and the improvement priority. This updated
information is then stored on a floppy disk.
The system is menu-driven and allows the user to view the data on four types of
print reports and four screens. Three of the screens are used to update the data
files. The fourth is used to display the stored information and assign project num-
bers.
Procedures are available for making annual file updates and for estimating annual
pavement maintenance needs.
-2-
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of the Huntington Beach Pavement Management System is to
optimize the use of limited resources for improving public roads and streets. . The
system is tailored specifically to the City's road network and is designed for future
use, including updating to reflect changes in the City's roadway network.
Specific objectives of the system were to develop:
o a methodology to estimate the existing condition of the City's roadway
facilities;
o a cost/benefit analysis methodology to allow for project prioritization;
o systematic procedures for evaluating the roadways for future modifications
and changes; and
o a computerized data base which stores road condition, inventory and impro-
vement history data using the City's Compupro Computer System.
-3-
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Segment Numbering
Within the PMS each City street is identified. When significant characteristics
change along the street, the street is further divided into segments. Characteristics
which will cause segments to change include:
o limits of past or present construction projects;
o limits of seal or overlay projects;
o changes in roadway geometries, such as:
+ from two lanes to four lanes or vice versa,
+ from four lanes divided to four lanes undivided or vice versa,
+ from roadway with curb and gutter section, to roadway without curb
and gutter section;
o significant changes in visual appearance of the pavement;
o significant changes in traffic characteristics; and
o changes in structural section -- surface and base.
The segmentation was determined by review of the City's records, staff
experience, Consultant's judgments and field review.
Each segment is assigned a unique six-digit number. The first three digits for
local streets identify the district. The second three digits are assigned during the
Pavement Condition Survey and are used to uniquely identify the segment within the
district.
For arterials the first three digits identify the arterial. The second three digits
are assigned in order of the traffic flow in each direction and are unique to the
segment. The codes for the thirty-two arterial streets are shown in Figure 2.
-4-
Figure 2
Arterial Numbering System
Bolsa Ave 501 Indianapolis 512 Newland 523
McFadden 502 Atlanta 513 Magnolia 524
Edinger 503 Hamilton 514 Bushard 525
Heil 504 Banning 515 Brookhurst 526
Warner 505 Bolsa Chica 516 Ward 527
Slater 506 Graham 517 Saybrook 528
Talbert 507 Springdale 518 Algonquin 529
Ellis 508 Edwards 519 Orange 530
Garfield 509 Goldenwest .520 17th. Street 531
Yorktown 510 Gothard 521 Main Street 532
Adams 511
The numbering system allows each particular segment to be uniquely identified in
the automated system and provides the basis for all subsequent analysis. It also
enables reports to be summarized by district or arterial.
Data Files
The system contains three primary files:
o Condition Survey File,
o Inventory File, and
o Strategies and Unit Cost Files.
Condition Survey
A visual survey of all City streets was conducted. Observations were made in an
objective and systematic manner and recorded by road segments. Six distress con-
ditions were assessed during this evaluation. Each condition was evaluated as to the
extent of the deficiency (percent of section impacted) and the severity of the defi-
ciency. An illustration of the six defects is shown in Figure 3.
-5-
Figure 3
Defect Types
LC TC AC
RUT
AW
4
pT RC
TRANSVERSE (TC)
LONGITUDAL (LC)
ALLIGATOR (AC)
RAVELING (RC)
PATCHING (PT)
RUTTING (RUT)
All streets were evaluated by the same raters (individuals making the assessment)
with verification by the Consultant. Figure 4 shows the form used to record observed
defects. Each line of the form represents a given segment of roadway.
Once all inventory data is entered into the system a condition rating is deter-
mined. This is computed by:
Condition Rating = 100 - pavement distress;
Where:
Pavement distress = f(severity X extent) for defect type i; and
i = one of the six types.
A distress value is computed for each type of defect based on severity and
extent. For each roadway segment, the distress values are determined by summing all
the segment's defect distress values for each distress type. A condition rating is then
computed. This condition rating is stored by segment in the condition survey file.
-6-
q- P"F-NIENT CON01TION SUVQF-J
CITY OF 1-IUNT1NG70N �EACN PAGE
TRANSVERSE ONGITUDINAL ALLIGATOR RAVELING/ PATCHING RUTTING/ RIDE
CRACKING CRACKING CRACKING >UREACE/WEA OORUGATION QUALITY
DATE: (1) <25% (1) <25% (1) <5% (1) <25% (1) <25% (1) <25%
RATER: (2) 26-50% (2) 26-50% (2) 6-20% (2) 26-50% (2) 26-SO% (2) 26-50%
(3) >50% (3) >50% 3 21-35% (3) >50% (3) >SO% (3) >50%
3 CJ of .).' „ o] .a• q .�' �• co .A' .� N v v E 3 .�-+
Roadway I.D. u V A V A V n V n V A
u
and Limits O a� QI Cn N N C) QI ¢ v U N C N O N Cl v Oi v N C1 v v 0 L L N 0 O O C C L y
m c c v c o > c > c o > c a > c v > o c E o L 9
z Cl o o v o o N o O v o o Y O o W O o N o o T L Gr Y L
v J 3 Z In f N Z f Vl Z 1.1 E V1 Z to E N Z N E N Z N E VI (] d /- d S K N lJ U ✓,
^O
O
� fD
"7
lD
O
'7
ROADWAY TYPE CODES PROPOSED MAINTENANCE CODES COMMENTS:
M - Major Arterial C - Collector (1) - Minor Mt. only (4) - Structural Overlay
P - Primary Arterial L - Local (2) - Slurry (5) - Stress Relief
S - Secondary Arterial 3) - Thin Overlay 6) - Reconstruction
A condition rating of one hundred would indicate an excellent roadway segment
with no identified surface distress. Increased distress is indicated as the condition
rating descreases:
o a zero value is the lowest possible rating;
o a fifty or lower rating indicates a poor facility in need of major rehabili-
tation;
o a rating between fifty and eighty indicates a poor to fair roadway, with
structural repair being warranted;
o ratings between eighty and ninety indicates a fair to good facility with a
potential for minor work, such as slurry; and
o a condition rating of ninety or above normally indicates a facility in
excellent condition with only routine maintenance being required.
Coding - The input form used for recording field data was shown in Figure 4.
Guidelines for assigning values to the various conditions are specified in Appendix A.
The steps for coding this form are as follows:
1. Enter the road name and segement limits.
2. Assign the road number as outlined above.
3. Enter the function classification (local or arterial) and direction of
travel for multi-lane highways (northbound, eastbound, etc. )
4. Enter the length of the road segment and typical roadway width.
5. Enter the rating for transverse cracking by the severity (slight, moderate or
severe) and amount (percentage of length). The severity column has a
value of 1, 2 or 3 entered depending on the amount of distress in the pave-
ment. A check is placed in the "None" column if no transverse cracking is
observed.
6. Following the procedures for transverse cracking, enter the rating for longi-
tudinal, alligator, raveling, rutting and patching distress.
7. Enter the ride rating assigned by the rater following the guidelines in
Appendix A.
-8-
8. The rater may recommend any of the six major maintenance strategies on the
bottom of the form based on field observations. Minor maintenance (Code
1 ) should be selected if any of the six minor maintenance items on the right
of the form have been checked. A check indicates that a specific type of
minor maintenance is required.
Guidelines were established and field checked with the raters to ensure a con-
sistent and systematic evaluation. The complete guidelines are provided in Appendix
A. In addition to the six areas of pavement distress, an objective ride rating is
recorded. Each segment was rated corresponding to the guidelines provided in
Appendix A.
The form shown in Figure 4 is the input document. An example of the screen on
the City's Compupro System used to enter the data is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5
Condition Survey Data Entry Screen
*W w*x*x W X W* k X** k k W* X**w* *w***W W********W* **'******X****** * A ****** *** *W**W k W* x
HUNTTNGTON BEACH PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
CONDITION SURVEY
RECORD NUMBER 117001 CHINOOK DR SPRINGDALE END
W**W***X**X A** ** ***X X W X** x* X k W** ** **k k* *X*'k rt K****k**W**x** I ***** k*x**X k*x k R
DISTRESS SLIGHT MODERATE SEVERE
TRANSVERSE 0 : 0 : 0 :
LONGITUDAL 0 : 0 : 0 :
ALLIGATOR 0 : 0 : 0 :
F..A V E L I N G 0 : 0 : 0 :
PATCHING 0 : 0 : 0 :
RUTTING 0 : 0 : 0 :
RIDE RATING 1 :
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT BY RATER 0 :
MINOR MAINTENANCE
R&R. 0 : PATCH: 0 : .✓PATCH: 0 :
XG 0 : C&G 0 . SWALK 0 :
-9-
After the initial data is entered, the system generates a worksheet that is used
as the input coding document for future updates. Using the worksheet, the rater
indicates only those items that have changed. If no change has occurred, the par-
ticular roadway segment data would not be revised. An example of the computer
generated worksheet is shown in Figure 6.
Minor Maintenance - In addition to evaluating the identified distress mechanisms
and ride rating, the rater identifies minor maintenance work that will be performed in
the immediate future. This work will normally be performed by City forces. The
intent of recording this data is to:
o help provide coordination of needed minor maintenance work prior to
making other improvements such as slurry or thin overlay, and
o to take advantage of annual inspections to identify needed work.
Examples of minor maintenance work are minor asphalt and concrete repair which
is normally performed by in-house forces.
The rater also indicates whether a type of maintenance is required for the par-
ticular road section. In addition, the rater must indicate this in the "recommended
improvement" section as a value of one unless another improvement is being recom-
mended by the study along with these minor improvements.
Inventory
The City's records were researched to obtain traffic, geometric, and structural
data. Using these records, road segments were identified which had homogeneous
characteristics. Each segment was field checked during the Pavement Condition
Survey to verify that pavement properties were similar.
Traffic - After segment limits were defined, the City's traffic counts and percen-
tage truck figures were used to assign traffic values to each segment. The number of
bus routes were calculated from OCTD bus route maps. The week-day routes were
used for determining the number of buses per segment.
Geometric - The length and width of each segment was determined by field
measurements. The length of each section was measured with an electronic distance
measuring unit. Widths were determined from City records and were verified during
the Pavement Condition Survey.
-10-
Figure 6
Pavement Condition Survey Worksheet
N O O O O O O O O O O O O _ _ J O O
I t'1 O O - O O O p p -
N V
`U O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O
j= O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0
¢N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
IL7L c O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
1
1
W
l a o o - o - - o c o o - - -. o o n -
1 >
wI
0
m I ow O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
I z
m
n i ti L O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
n i7
J ¢
I N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
1
Z N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
I r
I
I U L O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
r
I ¢
a
I N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
I
1
t U N o 0 0 0 0 0 o p o o c o 0 0 0 0 0
I z
N
U J L O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
uw
w>
LLa
❑W¢N o 0 o J o c o o J o 0 0 0 0 _ o 0
a
w>
m W I C N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
> 1 O
Q
O N 12 L O O O O O O _ O O O O O O O O O O
H z J
00I 1 J
z F w ; Q N C N -. O -� O O O O O - N O N ..2- -
1
z O NS I J
Z Y
O I Q N O O O O _ O O O O O O O O O O O O
C I O
U 0 I
3 I
LL 1 L O O O O J O O O O O C O O O O O O
z
O z 1 0
W Z
L 0
>W I J N O O - O O _ O O O O O O O O - O O
U a
U d W
I N N O O O O O _ O O O O O O O O O O O
I ¢
W
I N L O O _ O O O ry O O O O O O O O O O O
I lL
I �I r N C O O O O W U wz O o N O/ O o o O O'/ o x o
n W Q M tUL 4Q q
Q Z Q J I Z I C
Q Q Z U f� ll J
Y J 0 Q Q 0 W W N
0 Z U > 0 N H Q F 0 0 W I Q
aw Oa°((lmO<Wi;°e((I'oQ°Mo<W":NoaFeoOnal'1".WQo naJ�oeq°00� oQP0g o
LL
�z Zm Wry f4n qn an Zo n Zn On QN (7" n 0- 1n On
=_' M Z U Z 0 J Z 0 0 I 0 Q x Q Z J >
J I J Q Q Q Q fL Q 0 Q F- (1 0 W
U 0 I 0 F U N W U 0 Z 0 I 0 F q Z
0 co 0 I, Q 110 0 0 0 V r r
a Oo (Vy M CaaY) • '0Y ¢ ma 0,ao4w Na r) C q rz:1
¢ �0 Vowo Noz`-'ONoo Vo 0w Vw zrl LLw w .i o^I ova
z zol,Zo(` LL s8 D rair �nra.�zn a>nawrward�ln
„a z x a ti z a ti F ti a- S 4 a z
U Z Z
s s s ¢ ¢ s ¢ s ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢
LL LL 4 LL LL LL 4 4 LL LL LL LL LL LL 4 LL LL
-11-
Structural - Based on research of the Department of Public Works files sub-
divisions, arterial facilities and structural section information was obtained. This pro-
cess required a review of construction plans and subdivision notes, and the inspection
of files. The surface, base, subgrade type and thickness were determined. In addi-
tion, the year of construction and all major improvements within the last five years
were identified. Estimates were made by the Project Review Committee or its
designee for those facilities for which no information could be located.
Coding and Data Entry - All of the road characteristics are coded on the form
shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7
Inventory Record Update Form
HUNTINGTON BEACH PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
INVENTORY RECORD UPDATE
DATE: RECORD NUMBER:
FACILITY: BEGIN: END:
ROAD WIDTH: LENGHT:
N T (IN FEET
MENU 5 ROAD CHARACTERISTICS
TRAFFIC
ADT: f BUS ROUTES: % TRUCKS:
STRUCTURAL SELECTION
SURFACE TYPE: THICKNESS IN INCHES:
BASE TYPE: THICKNESS IN INCHES:
SUBBASE TYPE: THICKNESS IN INCHES:
IMPROVEMENT HISTORY
YEAR CONSTRUCTED *TYPE
(IF KNOWN)
OZ - SLURRY
IF NOT NEW ROAD 03 - THIN OVERLAY
04 - STRUCTURAL OVERLAY
TYPE* OF IMPROVEMENT: YEAR: OS - STRESS RELIEF
06 - RECONSTRUCTION
MENU 6 CONDITION SURVEY
TRANSVERSE LONGITUDAL ALLIGATOR RAVELING PATCHING RUTTING RIDE IMPROVEMENTS
S M S S M S S M S S M S S M S S M S TYPE RR SP WP XG CG SW
-12-
The Inventory Record Form is the document that is used to record road charac-
teristic data. The interactive inventory screen is used to update the inventory
records. An example of the screen is shown below in Figure 8.
Figure 8
Interactive Inventory Screen
* w* k W k'k W k *W k * W k* k WNW k k * * * * WNW W k ** ** * x * W W* * * k * x W * x k k* w k ***x*w * w k W * k k k*x *
HUNTINGTON BEACH PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
W** k* * W k*x * x W * * * *x x* * W * * * * ** W* *x****'k**** k * ** ** W* k k *W k W **** **W****W* k
INVENTORY RECORD
RECORD NO 117001
FACILITY : CHINOOK DR
BEGIN : SPRINGDALE END : END
** k'k W W**W*W W**** *** k *W x****** *********W***W************W*** *W * *W W
ROAD WIDTH 90 ( IN FEET) LENGTH 861 : ( IN FEET)
TRAFFIC
ADT'. 500 3t BUS ROUTES 0 : % TRUCKS : 1 :
STRUCTURAL SECTION
SURFACE TYPE : AC : THICKNESS IN INCHES 2 :
BASE TYPE : AB : THICKNESS IN INCHES 6 :
SUBBASE TYPE THICKNESS IN INCHES 0 :
IMPROVEMENT HISTORY YEAR CONSTRUCTED 1962 :
TYPE YEAR TYPE YEAR TYPE YEAR
2 : 1982 : 0 : p : 0 : 0 .
*****x* *W W***W** *** ***** W** ****W****** x W***************k******** ****W***
Strategies and Unit Cost
The Consultant and the City, through its Project Review Committee, identified a
set of maintenance/rehabilitation strategies. These strategies were assigned unit costs
(per square foot) based on historical work in Huntington Beach.
These strategies along with their unit cost are shown below in Figure 9.
-13-
Figure 9
Improvement Strategies and Unit Cost
TYPE IMPROVEMENT DESCRIPTION COST/S. F.
1 MINOR MAINTENANCE 0.90
2 SLURRY SEAL 0.04
3 THIN OVERLAY 0.40
4 STRUCTURAL OVERLAY 1.50
5 STRESS RELIEF 0.55
6 RECONSTRUCTION 7.50
7 OTHER 0.00
This data is stored in the strategies and unit cost file which is accessible by
selecting menu item 3. This interactive screen display is used to display unit cost
information and is also used to modify unit cost. Unit costs should be updated
annually to reflect current improvement prices. An example of the interactive unit
cost screen is provide in Figure 10.
Figure 10
Interactive Unit Cost Screen
02/ 28 / 85
*X**X X X***X X W*k**x**X W k X W*k*X**W W******X** *X*W W W*x* k*W* k x x \x W k* *W** k k k k*X k X *X *X
HUNTINGTON BEACH PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT ffYSTEM
***X k X k* k W****X*k X k *X** It** k X X *x * * ***************** k **X * k ** **X *k X X** * *x X * *W X x X k k
IMPROVEMENT UNIT COST
TYPE DESCRIPTION COST
I MINOR MAINTENANCE 0 . 90
SLURRY SEAL 0 04
3 THIN OVERLAY 0 . 40
a STRUCTURAL OVERLAY 1 . 50
5 STRESS RELIEF 0 . J5
6 RECONSYRUCTION 7 50
7 OTHER 0 00
*X k X*k x*X * k *** k* W X k k* k *****X*** x W** *X k*** ** k X* * * * k'***W W*X k k*X*X * * X x'x
DO YOU VANT TO UPDATE ) ( Y/N)
-14-
Strategy Selection
The determination of the appropriate improvement strategy for each segment iden-
tified as needing improvement is performed at several levels. First, during the
Pavement Condition Survey the rater proposes a strategy. Secondly, a strategy is
determined by the PMS based on condition data. This is determined by the computer
program using a projection model based on the criteria presented in Figure 11.
Figure 11
Criteria for Initial Maintenance Strategy
Type of Defects
TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT TC LC AC RC PAT RUT COND
MINOR MAINTENANCE (01) AS IDENTIFIED
1/L and
SLURRY -SEAL (02) 2/L or 2/L - - - No MorS or 2/M or 2/M - - -or - - - 1/M-S -or - - - 2-3/L-S 1-3/L-M or - - 1/L-S - No SorM -
THIN OVERLAY (03 3/M-S or 3/M-S - - NoS NoS/No3/M -
or - - 2/L-M - NoS NoS/No3/M -
or - - 1/L - NoS NoS/No3/M -
STRUCTURAL OVERLAY (04) - 3-4/14-S - - -or - - 2/M-S - 2-4/L-S -or - - 2-4/L-S - - 2-3/M-S -
THIN OVERLAY & (05) - - 2/S - - - -
STRESS RELIEF or 3/S or 3/S - - - -or - - - - - 1-3/S -
RECONSTRUCTION (06) - 3-4/M-S - - - <40
or - - 2/M-S - 2-3/L-S - <40
or - - 2/L-S - - 2-3/M-S <40
-15-
The maintenance strategy criteria is based on previous studies and the Consultant's
experience. The condition rating information is evaluated for each roadway segment
and an improvement strategy is selected. The process involves checking the highest
improvement type first (reconstruction) and searching sequentially toward the lowest
(slurry) until a strategy match is made.
Determining strategy at the final level is done through a review of the condition,
inventory and improvement data using the interactive screen. The user can assign an
improvement strategy based on this data and other considerations such as budget, com-
patibility, complaints, etc. If an improvement is identified other than the one deter-
mined by the rater or the system, the strategies and user cost data file will need to
be revised. The final selection of a strategy should take all relevant factors into
consideration.
Segment Priority
The system assigns a value to each road segment identified as needing improve-
ment. This value is the cost per square foot per additional year of road life added to
the roadway by the improvement.
Life
The life added is the difference between the current roadway life and the life
after the improvement. The following curves illustrate how this is computed (see
Figure 12).
Figure 12
Road Life Curves
Y
100
C
O 90
N
D so
I YA Y . YEAR TO FIRST CRACK
T 70
1 L - AVERAGE LIFE TO IMPROVEMENT 21 YEARS
0 60
N YA . LIFE ADDED BY THE IMPROVEMENT
SO
R
A 40 NOTE THIS INFORMATION IS BASED ON
r
30 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION/FHWA
N
G 20 REPORT FHWA/AZ-=169
L
10
YEARS CURRENT
AFTER IMPROVEMENT
-16-
The year to first crack is a estimate of when the facility begins to deteriorate.
It is theorized by most pavement experts that the life-cycle curve is curvalinear. The
curve used by the system is a combination of two straight lines. The three points
give the termini of these lines and are based on extensive studies performed by agen-
cies in the southwestern United States. The use of this combination of straight lines
approximates the curvilinear life cycle.
The curve is used to determine the life added. Given the proposed improvement
type, the system determines the year to first crack (y). This value is used to
establish the shape of the curve. The condition value is then entered on the horizo-
nal axis and a line is extended in the vertical direction until it intersects with the
generated curve. The number of years can be determined (YA) by extending a line
perpendicular to the condition rating until it intersect the horizontal axis. The years
indicate the additional years of life added to the road facility by this improvement.
Cost/Benefit
The improvement type indicates the curve parameters (i.e. the termini of the
location of the two straight lines). The life is then determined by using:
Life added = Y + ((90 rating))40)x(21-Y) for rating < 90
The benefit is the life added. The cost is the unit cost. Thus, the cost/benefit
is unit cost divided by life added.
The lower the cost/benefit value the lower the cost of the improvement for each
year of added life. This method allows direct quantifiable comparison of all recom-
mended improvements (i.e. slurry versus overlay, overlay versus recon-struction).
Priority
While the cost/benefit allows for comparison of cost versus total benefit, it does
not directly consider the magnitude of road users impact. This can be done by com-
puting the cost/benefit per road user. This can be expressed as:
COST OF IMPROVEMENT AVERAGE
= DAILY
ROADWAY UFE ROADWAY UFE TRAFFIC
AFTER - SEFORE
PAPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT
-17-
Prioritization provides the cost/benefit per vehicle. The units are dollars per
square foot per year per 10,000 vehicles. The 10,000 vehicle value was chosen as the
unit to equate user impact and is also used to simplify the results by keeping the
significant values in the one to ten range. This value is used to place the improve-
ment in priority order. The greatest public benefit will result when improvements are
made on segments with the lowest priority number. The user benefit cost increases as
the priority number increases.
Project Selection
The user can apply the condition rating, priority and improvement selection infor-
mation from the system along with other non-system factors to identify specific
improvement projects. The system allows the user to assign a project number to any
segment or segments. This allows for grouping and summarizing of segments by poten-
tial project.
The project limits should be determined by combining road segments with similar
pavement conditions considering feasibility of construction, traffic, future development
and total cost.
The system allows for entering a project number through menu item 8. All high-
lighted entries can be changed on this screen. An example of the display is shown
below in Figure 13.
Figure 13
Record Retrieval Screen
HUNTINGTON BEACH PAVEMENT SYSTEM
k+,*f IFw�lf µfiYar!r•4#M Fir♦aF it kar if MiF Mir it Mf.*♦rtMiF iF Ir iF lr iF iF;?�F iF it iF it�F iF 1F+F♦ar�Rs*iF+F iF
RECORD RETRIEVAL
STREET CHINOOK. DR NUMBER 117001
FROM SPRINGDALE TO END
warar+r+r+r+r r rta+r�r w w+c+r+rar+r attar+f,t+Fu-+arif*r w+t+riF�*+t+F+t�t wir sir itariF+t+�t+r+rt�t�+r+h+Ft
INVENTORY DATA
--------------
WIDTH IN FEET 40 LENGTH IN FEET 861
ADT 500 # BUS ROUTES 0 % TRUCKS 1
CONDITION DATA
--------------
RATING 10li
RECOMMENDED ACTION
------------------
SYSTF_M 0 RATER: 6
COST/BENEFIT 'b 0.00 PER SF/ADDITION YEAR OF LIFE
PRIORITY S 0.00 PER SF/ADDITIONAL YEAR OF LIFE / 1000 VECHILES
PROJECT INFORMATION
-------------------
TYPE IMPROVEMENT 0 PROJECT NUMBER
ENTER R)RECORD OR P) PRINT OR S)SKIP OR OTHER bEY)MODIFY
-18-
SYSTEM OUTPUTS
The PMS generates two types of outputs -- print reports and screen displays.
There are four printed reports: condition rating, proposed improvement, program
priority and worksheet reports. The screen outputs include screens which can be used
for display and for entering or modifying data.
Print Reports
The system provides the user the opportunity to select from several options prior
to producing the reports. These include:
1. Limiting the printing of the report to the entire city or for one particular
district or arterial.
2. Selecting the normal or condensed printing mode. The condensed mode pro-
vides 8211 wide output which can be placed directly in notebooks. However,
the condensed mode is not recommended as it slows the print speed and
doubles the time required for printing.
3. Selecting the printing of all improvements or just one particular
improvement. This option is only valid for the proposed improvement
and priority reports.
Condition Report
The condition report is the document used to determine the relative condition of
the streets. Menu item 1 is used to select this report. The roadways requiring the
greatest improvement as identified by the condition rating, are displayed first. A
sample output of this report is shown in Figure 14.
Proposed Improvement Report
The Proposed Improvement Report is created by using menu item 2 and is ordered
by type of improvement. The main purpose of the proposed improvement report is to
provide the user the capability to review estimates of improvements by type for
budgeting and planning purposes. The capability to group, for example, all facilities
-19-
in need of slurry for District 116, is helpful in planning, organizing and scheduling of
this work. An example of the report is shown in Figure 15.
Figure 14
Condition Rating Report
CITY OF HUNTINGTON PEACH 02/28/85
CONDITION RATING REPORT
RECOMMENDED CONDITION
F0411 nwIE:II !^I i5 ROAD NUMBER ADT LENGTH WIDTH AREA IMPROVEMENT RATING
(FEET) (FEET) (SO FEET)
CI-1 1 NCD C7 Y; DFZ
SFP INGDALE END 117^01 5J0 B61 41) _4440 0 100
DUNES LAh1E
CH 1Nljc1 HACIENDA 117020 500 210 40 8720 0 85
H A C I E N D A
END SANDS 117070 500 1575 40 61400 0 94
S�1 hlDS
HAI—ID T-CFIC4NA 117040 500 504 40 20160 0 95
T F<O F-I CANA
GANGS CHI NOCK 117050 500 307 40 12120 1 100
C A L N E V A L A N E
CH INOOK SPA 117060 500 1025 40 41000 1 95
SAN SC)UCH I CF2
CALNEVA END 117070 500 545 40 2I8O0 0 100
FF F:GNT I EFZ CF:
CAL NE'VA END 117080 5J0 545 40 21800 0 1DO
CRUUF'I EFL DE'
CALNEVA SPPINGDALE 117090 500 579 40 2::160 0 100
S A H A E A L N
CROUP IEF' NUGGET 117100 500 2'2 40 9280 O 100 -
N U G G E T
SAHAFA END 117110 5J0 346 40 13840 J 100
S!^A
CALNEVA END 117120 500 3137 40 125400 0 95
HAFT GLD
CF4 END 117170 500 184- 40 73720 O 85
1:3T AFZ DUST 0F2
H4r^'.CI NE111AD4 117140 500 780 41) 71200 0 100
7-AN6 I EF__S DF:
SPA NE!'ADA 117150 500 579 40 27,160 0 84
D CDLL AF_ DR
NEV'ADA 9F4 117160 500 391 40 15640 0 95
NE VlA DA DF:
HAZOta tSTAPDUST 117170 500 1424 40 56960 0 95
F< I V I ERA DF2
HAMMON ST4F.CUST 117101) 510 997 40 39880 0 100
T/-I U"D E FZ E. I F2D
STAPDUST END 117190 500 32S 40 17,000 O 85
F-/A I"1 r-1 Q
HAP OLD 5'A 117200 500 1425 40 57000 0 8::
-20-
Figure 15
Proposed Improvement Report
n �
m
C 41 ? n 0 O N O N rl rl Co CA Y7 ? P M m
1-L 47 m M m O P m ,0 h t` Yl r 1 P fJ P P — fv
co
N O 1- — - -. N - N f l (•1 N - -�
U 0
W
2
>m
>O
O O CI Yl N N N 0• ? N ? b] o. ? m ? h
K 1-O P h d M M M rV N
O LL
- o _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e o
z
Z 0:0—
W a�
L M¢
W W
> a
❑w X
Q.z
Q.z>
L W ? N M N ry N O N
0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
In 0
O
U M
Z
O
..m
Z
O m P ? ? ? N d M m O m O M m m
,0 m a. O
Z�- U. m m m m m N t` m m m 0 m 0 m m
Z C
U o rr
u
Q �
W w w`
LI z w
W> N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
L O
L¢
ma
U L
w _
Z K O 0 O O O 0 O O O m O O m ? m m 0
C w m O ? O O CI O d N O J) O m O to (J m N
0 W w m 4 ? O O M O Yl M 11 ? m M — P M N N
a LL !) ? m (v O N ry — ? ? 10 n rl M P rJ bl M
I^Z C -. -+ ? — ? �+ M n N M Yl b7 'o d M ? N
V= O
zw
�I O
C H 2
O O O 0 O O d d d
Z L Oa O W ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? M rl M M M PI M M PI
J w 3 LL
I Li _
O O 0 O 0• m Il M O N M ? m m Y7
O m W ? .0 O 0 n Y7 m Yl I bl h7 0 ? P bl ?
a Z w M M M N O M f` m0 O b] ? n P m N d
0 J
a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O 0 O O C, O c O O O 0 O O O O O
� Y7 n Y] Yl Yl Y) Ll Ll to I(1 h Yl M 4l hl 0 Y] Y)
C
L}
r H
M U
m m M m m 0 m 0 P N M M n r. n (1 ? n
U 2 N M M Il f 1 1] fl M N 4l Y7 4l Yl Y7 v1 d
N
O
1 W W
w Z LL
Q D m O O
�y W J O W U > W W
LL Z C\Y(y W i W Y1/O C O Q W x j W w 1�I ; fl
0 O O`O`�� U,LL�11 Z,L}x LLO J W//~yy U1 7 OLLZ 0 OLL�L}pZ C C
cc
w w r L�l o Q W Q L m w LL m Q W w W> w L 0 LL F W J m a
'= } N a 0 d 0 i1 U E U J N
Z } } Z N Q Z J W W Q co W
0 i Q 0 N 0 0 0 J J Q J U Q G - J I � I
�z UPI( 0>0 N J J x L N 0 0 0 0 M J 0
o Uoxtcrywmj�J JJW W'WInJwQ ZaZ flzA z W J
o J.JQ>4LzOwOWOW2 IaJr�cQ�W IU �It I Ou
}>IzF�mzlLifU0UlZ 0Qa3zUIoUIw Z 11 JQI z w
o Ln W a o z o o w z w ¢ W w z w
¢ In w % o W w m w > w v, w L w a w a
-21-
Priority Report
The Priority Report is generated using menu item 3. The segments are grouped in
priority order. An example of the report is shown in Figure 16.
The priority report is used to rank the projects in order by cost/benefit per user.
The first projects listed are those that the system estimates would bring the most
benefit to the motoring public per dollar expended.
Worksheet Report
The Worksheet Report is a report with a dual function. It is created using menu
item 4. The first function is to provide documentation of the Pavement Condition
Survey. The second is to provide an input form for future updates. The annual
update of the Pavement Management System allows the rater to use this report to
indicate current condition by marking only the changes in the condition. A copy of
this report is shown in Figure 17.
Screen Displays
The three data files can be displayed as screens. In addition, a fourth screen is
generated indicating the parameters such as condition rating, cost/benefit and priority
that are determined by the system for each roadway facility. Each of these four
screens allows the user to modify information as well as display information. The
screens are discussed below.
Inventory Record
The Inventory screen is generated using menu item 5. The user is asked to enter
the record number. Upon entering this information, the inventory file is displayed.
The user can then either modify, select another record or return to the main menu.
The major purpose of this screen is to allow for annual modification of road
characteristics when items such as ADT, improvement, structure and segments change.
In addition, new facilities can be added using this screen. A secondary application
would be to use this option to search or review the data in the inventory file. An
example of the screen is shown in Figure 18.
-22-
Figure 16
Priority Report
n
m
m
n
ry
0
S
>
0
0
0
> .
O O O O O O N n N n Yl n
^ - - - - ^ -� f•1 [V [[ N IV N N N N fV N N N N
C
^
o 0 0 o c o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0
0 It
C>
^G�
U ❑ In
c 0
w . Wo.
m O 0 d n N P N M N n a C n N Yl .0 d n O O 0
d d d d N N n N n n n n N n n n 0 m In m m
Q
L cc
Z F M P P m M n v 0• N d 1/ n n O N N m n m d O
m d fV d m N O P ^ .0n a. d •- m N n m d O 0 0• N m M
LOL LL Z O n n ^ m n O N P m P P m M !1 M 17 P N n a O P N d
rr OLW .. ... .. - N
U LL>
zw°
~�E
L W
r G N N N N N N N (V N fV fV N N f i CV N CJ N N (V N N N fV
Z>
L
IM ��
L mZ W O P o m < N O C M m (J M n d d d P (V - n N n N
J O m P P P M n N (J d M o P N P P n !v n m
O W- - - O N 0 - - - - CJ ^ O C. O C - 0 - N .. O O
J L
w k - O O O O O O O C• O O O O O G O O C C O C O O O C
O T O O O O O C, O O 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O
(� ❑ O 0 O 0 O O O 0 O O O O 0 0 O O O O 0 '` O O O O
LL Q N Yl r7 in n n n 4l N N N N n N In 0 N N n N n N Yl n
L>
r ti
H W
C
U P N N N M M N d M (V n P Il Il m m rl 17 n n
m d 1'1 d d d d
❑
2
w
`ZC'Z W G O W
I-LOL O H m >L> W ,T O Q U W C
¢f`^?/�p Q 7 C f p(�U G' p LL L p O O J W O W/� p m Q O _p
4 U L W W W In ¢¢r I J W U W 3 W Z L~cc In w e W W m W W LL W E W N L W W
w z z 0 W W c z 0 0 0 N > > c D w
J H c 0 0 m W F iL c J J U x m w >
:X, Z F ! `U¢Ei if 0 m Z (C I J W E J J E 0 U' 0 0 0
a Z Z Z' (M 2 Z E J W c F _F cam 0 W WSJ c Z J m if
vp 0¢J 1cQi0 O O Wwm I I I :CCa W c 0 0.J❑
I-UiE Exc C °o0Fm2zL (CE,0'CCoFo0 Na ]Qo E ❑wJaEa
rC 2 Z E J N Vf .. - �- ¢ J J m J ¢ x
~ In 7 x O ¢. Z Q r z > > 0 J 3 0 0 Q r
W Q Q W' W ¢ W O O Q If Q Q Q Q Z O W Z Z W O O
L' ¢ L G G > W W G m O
-23-
Figure 17
Pavement Condition Survey Worksheet
3 c O O O O O O O O O O O _ -
J J O
I m
m O O - 0 - - - - O O - -. - O O
111 U
F
'L7 O O O O O O O O O O O J
W x
C
3 O O O O O O O _ O O O O G O O O O
O
¢a c c 0 J c c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 m
-x o 0 0 0 o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Cc
0
I
1
w
14 o O o o O o o - - - o o n -
I Y
W�-
m
Yl I m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
m O
I Z
m 1 +
O O O O 0 0 G O O G O _ O O 0 O
1 H
J s
I m o o c o 0 0 o G c o O o r._ o 0 0 0
I
I
1 Z m O O O O O O O G O O O O O O J O O
I -
u r c o 0 0 0 o O O o o _ 0 0 0 0 0 0
I r
I ¢
a
I m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1
I
m o 0 0 0 o c 0 0 G o c o 0 0 0 0 0
I (9
m
I J L O O O O O O O O O O O 0 v O O O O
U W
W>
4 a
= w¢cn 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U ❑ 0 -
0 0
a
W Y
mw I ¢m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o
> 0
fr
a
z m I c7 L o 0 0 0 o e _ o 0 0 0 o G o 0 0
o I -
rz J
O O J
Z W I a m O N -. - 0 - O O O O G I'I O N .. ..
H
Z O m I J O O O O
Y I a m c G o o _ G o 0 0 o G o
2 O
u 0 I ❑
ol �
3 I H
O O J O O G O O O O O O O O O
O Z z
W
O
W Y I J m O G - O O _ O O O O O O _ p .- O O
a
U
U LL W
I m m _ O O O O _ O O O O O O O O C' O
I s -
I w
I >
Z s _ o _ o o cx c e G o 0 o p 0
I � W U
�m _ 0 0 o eZ o Oo� Ox c 0 0 o Ox Gcc
2 W Q " U 0 q q
q Z Q J I Z I C
Q Q Z U fL ff J N q 0
W W N
0 Z U > 0 N N Q
3w O�eNmvWiiv(jfpQl-IJoWw+v[Qvv�oa(Ln<Cc t;v W<a noJoogmcMnvQP0
=Z Zm WN "Yl q11 �n Zc n z0 Dn QN (n 2 Om 1n oLD
f
Z U Z 0 J Z 0 0 I (7 Q (f Q Z J >
J 2 7 Q Q Q Q fL tI Q 7 W Q I- Q 0 W
U 0 I N F U N lL U N Z 0 I N F q Z
_ 11
a GG f � 1 S❑cY7 , Na @a D'aoC' [la ~M
a z > G0OW0 m0 o L 0m0 w w C ozo^
~'I m J
"mW Ua Wm xU"Um"UW"UW"UmUZaUWmW Z Z"m Z"I Z m"$N
00 C.
0 O 0 O L O 0 O O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O F O =O L O L O OL O C O
¢Z C. O. Or O O. �r O- O'- O OI- O�- Or O O� C
Ir IT ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ tL ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ (L~ ¢ ¢
4 4 4 LL 4 4 4 4 4 4 LL LL LL 4 4 4 4
-24-
Figure 18
Inventory Record
w k W w w W W w k k W w w x k k k W k *W W w*w* W w w* w**W* k W
HUNTINGTON BEACH PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
INVENTORY RECORD
RECORD NO 117001
FACILITY : CHINOOK DR
BEGIN : SPRINGDALE END : END
ROAD WIDTH 40 ( IN FEET) LENGTH 861 : ( IN FEET)
TRAFFIC
AD-: 500 4 BUS ROUTES 0 . % TRUCKS : 1 :
STRUCTURAL SECTION
SURFACE TYPE : AC : THICKNESS IN INCHES 2 :
BASE TYPE : AS : THICKNESS IN INCHES 6 :
SUBBASE TYPE : THICKNESS IN INCHES 0 :
IMPROVEMENT HISTORY YEAR CONSTRUCTED 1962 :
TYPE YEAR TYPE YEAR TYPE YEAR
2 : 1982 - 0 : p 0 : 0 .
*w** W w x W W W W W W x w*W W*W W w W*w*W* *w W W W k W w k w W W W W W x w w w W w x W W W W w ***k*x W*W W W **W w w w
-25-
Pavement Condition Survey
The Pavement Condition Survey screen is created by selecting menu item 6. The
user must enter a record number to view the Pavement Condition Survey. The major
use of this screen is to modify the file based on the annual update. An example of
the screen is shown below in Figure 19 .
Figure 19
Pavement Condition Survey
k X*W k R X* X fi** * A *****x************ k************ ** ************X* k*X *
HUNTINGTON BEACH PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
CONDITION SURVEY
RECORD NUMBER : 117001 CHINOOK DR SPRINGDALE END
DISTRESS SLIGHT MODERATE SEVERE
TRANSVERSE 0 : 0 : 0 :
LONGITUDAL 0 : 0 : 0 :
ALLIGATOR 0 : 0 : 0 :
F:AVE LING 0 : 0 : 0 :
PATCHING 0 : 0 : 0 :
RUTTING 0 : 0 : 0 :
RIDE RATING : 1 :
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT BY RATER 0 :
MINOR MAINTENANCE
R&R: 0 SPATCH: 0 : WPATCH: 0 :
XG 0 . C&G 0 : SWALK 0 .
Unit Cost
The Unit Cost screen is generated when menu item 7 is selected. The entire file
is displayed on the screen. The user may select any of the improvement strategies
and modify the unit cost as appropriate. This file is normally updated on an annual
basis. The format of this display is shown in Figure 20.
The user, after modifying the screen, has the choice to update all cost calcula-
tions. If the user chooses not to update cost calculations, then the roadway cost
calculations will only occur if the corresponding inventory or pavement condition sur-
vey files are changed.
-26-
Figure 20
Improvement of Unit Cost
02/ 28185
*x*x****W W********* * ** k w**W****W*****k W********W W*****k*** k W*w*k*** k k*W*W**W***
HUNTINGTON BEACH PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
***w x k k x w k***x W w*x k x x*x W k W k w x w k k k k*k**w *w* k*W*w W k*k W k*W k k* *x* k k w** k k k* *k w w k x x k W
IMPROVEMENT UNIT COST
TYPE DESCRIPTION COST
1 MINOR MAINTENANCE 0 . 90
2 SLURRY SEAL 0 . 04
3 THIN OVERLAY 0 . 40
4 STRUCTURAL OVERLAY 1 . 50
5 STRESS RELIEF 0 . 55
6 RECONSTRUCTION 7 . 50
7 OTHER 0 . 00
*x k w x N x*x k x * k x k w W w k*It x x k w** k w*W****W x k* x w k W w*W k***x W k W W W W k k W W W***** *x W w k w k x** k W
DO YOU WANT TO UPDATE ' tY/N>
-27-
Record Display
The final screen is the Record Display. This screen has the main application of
record search or as a generator of user information. An example of this screen is
illustrated below in Figure 21.
The user has four options once the data is displayed. He can return to the
menu, print the display, skip to the next record or assign a project number to this
road segment. The project number assignment enables the user to group segments
together as projects. Under most conditions an actual road project will consist of
several roadway segments.
Figure 21
Record Display
+.++rrt»�r+r+�s.+r+rt+f+r.r+rr�rw+r.+t+*rw+f Wkt+f+wr*-krr.f+rrrtt�rwr+.irit k**-it*ir*tr
HUNTINGTON BEACH PAVEMENT SYSTEM
RECORD RETRIEVAL
STREET CHINOOk. DR NUMBER 117001
FROM SPRINGDALE TO END
INVENTORY DATA
--------------
WIDTH IN FEET 40 LENGTH IN FEET 061
ADT 500 # BUS ROUTES 0 7 TRUC)'S 1
CONDITION DATA
--------------
RATING 100
RECOMMENDED ACTION
------------------
SYSTEM 0 RATER, i
COST/BENEFIT 0.00 PER SF/ADDITION YEAR OF LIFE
PRIORITY $ 0.00 PER SF/ADDITIONAL YEAR OF LIFE / 1000 VECHILES
PROJECT INFORMATION
-------------------
TYPE IMPROVEMENT O PROJECT NUMBER
ENTER R)RECORD OR P) PRINT OR S)SKIP OR OTHER k.EY)MODIFY
-28-
SYSTEM OPERATION
The Pavement Management System designed for the City of Huntington Beach uses
a Compupro 816 Computer equipped with two 8-inch dual-sided, double-density, floppy
disk drives. An Epson MX100 Printer and Visual 50 CRT Terminal complete the
system configuration. The system has 128K of RAM storage with 2400K disk storage
capacity.
Software
The PMS uses the Ashton-Tate dBASE II data base system designed for the
Compupro's CPM/80 Operating System. All data entry, data modification, com-
putations and report output, both printed and screen displays, are performed using
command files. These command files are dBASE program commands in a text file.
The user is not required to have any background of dBASE II or any other
programming language. The system is menu-driven including disk backup routines; this
allows the user to concentrate on solving pavement problems, not computer problems.
Command Files
The programs are stored as text files and are executed as requested by the user
through program menus. There are approximately fifty such files within the system.
All command files are stored on the system disk which is placed in Drive A.
Data Files
The system creates three data files along with five indices. These files are
stored on the data disk and are accessed from Drive B. Currently three data disks
are being used; one for North Locals, South Locals, and one for Arterials.
Condition File
This file stores all Pavement Condition Survey information. It can be displayed
using menu item 6 or can be printed using menu item 4. The segment number is used
as the key for accessing this file.
-29-
Inventory File
The inventory file contains all geometric, traffic and structural information in the
roadway section. The road construction and improvement history data is stored on
this file. In addition, the system-determined values, such as condition rating, type of
improvement, and priority are stored in this file.
Strategies and Unit Cost File
The Unit Cost file stores each improvement strategy along with its cost per square
foot. This file is updated using Menu item 7.
User Access
By using dBASE II commands, such as Report, the user can design reports that
are not included in the system menu. The flexibility should allow the City to create
new reports without modifying or making the system more cumbersome and still satisfy
the City's data needs.
-30-
APPENDIX A
PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY
GUIDELINES
GUIDELINES FOR PAVEMENT EVALUATION
In the Huntington Beach PMS, six types of distress are evaluated. This Appendix
contains a discussion of the criteria used in making the evaluation. The six types of
distress are shown in the diagram below.
DEFECT TYPES
LC TC AC
RUT
AW
pT RC
TRANSVERSE (TC)
LONGITUDAL (LC)
ALLIGATOR (AC)
RAVELING (RC)
PATCHING (PT)
RUTTING (RUT)
Each type of distress is defined in terms of severity (type of distress) and density
(amount of distress). In addition, the definition of ride rating is given. By
following the guidelines provided in this Appendix raters should be able to consistently
evaluate roadway pavements. It should be noted that the rating is applied on roadway
sections which have homogenous roadway qualities; therefore, the road section will
vary in length. How,.e:ver.,,for practical,,,reasons;-,,-no; segment should be longer than one
mile�4,or-shorter than 200 feet.
A. 1
TRANSVERSE CRACKING
Cracks which follow a course approximately 900 to the pavement 'centerline.
Severity Description
Slight - Cracks are barely visible.
Moderate - Cracks are '41, or wider in places, but sides of crack are
not fully separated; multiple cracks may exist.
Severe - Cracks are excessively wide, sides of crack are fully
separated.
Density Number of cracks per 100 linear feet
1 1
2 2-3
3 >3
A.2
LONGITUDINAL CRACKING
Cracking that is nearly parallel to the centerline. Normally situated at or
near the middle of the lane or at construction joints.
Severity Description
Slight - Cracks are barely visible (1/16 - 1/811); normally a
single crack.
Moderate - Very noticeable (1/81, or larger) possibly with multiple cracks.
However, cracks are not fully separated.
Severe - Obvious (411 and larger) and there may be multiple cracks.
Cracks are fully separated.
Density Percentage of roadway length with longitudinal crack
1 0 - 25%
2 26 - 49%
3 > 49%
A.3
ALLIGATOR CRACKING
Cracking which forms multi-sided blocks on the pavement surface. May accom-
pany depressions and "softened" material in road surface.
Severity Description
Slight - Cracks are barely visible; no distortion of pavement.
Moderate - Cracks larger than i" width in some places with possibly
minor distortion (211) ' of pavement. The sides of crack
are not fully separated.
Severe - Cracks are fully separated; potholes may have occurred
and/or distortion of 2" or more.
Density Percentage of area affected
1 0 - 5%
2 6 - 20%
3 21 - 35%
4 > 34%
A.4
i
RAVELING
The progressive loss or breaking of the surface with visibly loose pieces of aggre-
gate.
Severity Description
Slight - Noticeable with some pieces of aggregate visible; surface
is rough.
Moderate - Very noticeable with open texture and loose aggregate
present over wide areas of pavement. Light "hum" may be
heard when traveling over surface.
Severe - Disintegration of pavement areas , large amount of aggregate
missing from matrix; surface rough enough to be very noticeable
to the driver.
Density Percentage of area affected raveling
1 0 - 25%
2 26 - 49%
3 > 49%
A. 5
PATCHING
Potholes, utility cuts or other major failures that have been repaired.
Severity Description
Slight - Patch is level with pavement and shows no sign of
deterioration.
Moderate - Patch is somewhat deteriorated and/or not level with
pavement surface, however a vehicle's speed does not have
to be reduced.
Severe - Patch is deteriorated and/or not level with the pavement
surface such that a vehicle's speed must be reduced. The
existence of potholes in these patches also meets this
criteria.
Density Percentage of area patched
1 0 - 25%
2 26 - 49%
3 > 49%
A.6
,- I
RUTTING
Depressions in the pavement parallel to the centerline. Normally located in wheel
paths.
Severity Description
Slight - Depression is less than I" deep.
Moderate - Depression is " to 111; may include longitudinal crack;
does not affect steering of the vehicle.
Severe - Depression is 1" or greater and does affect easy steering
of the vehicle.
Density Percentage of length of roadway
1 0 - 25%
2 26 - 50%
3 > 50%
A.7
RIDING QUALITY
Riding quality of the pavement is the degree of riding comfort which the pave-
ment segment in question provides to the traveling public. The rater drives over
the pavement segment at the average roadway speed classifying the pavement's
riding comfort according to the descriptions given below.
It is important that the rater not be influenced by the appearance of the pave-
ment surface when rating riding comfort. It is also important that the rater not
be influenced by the pavement's function class.
Ride quality
Good - No problems at the posted speed limit.
Fair - Some roughness and bumps when driving at the posted speed
limit. Some situations may occur that require the driver
to reduce his speed below the posted limit.
Poor - Difficult or impossible to safely handle the vehicle when
adhering to the posted speed limit.
A .8