Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Ashish Shah & David Lovell - Logan City Council - Aligning pavement management practices to improve financial sustainability

771

Published on

Ashish Shah, Program Leader – Road Asset Management, Logan City Council and David Lovell, Engineer – Asset Data & Systems, Logan City Council delivered this presentation at the Asset Management and …

Ashish Shah, Program Leader – Road Asset Management, Logan City Council and David Lovell, Engineer – Asset Data & Systems, Logan City Council delivered this presentation at the Asset Management and Maintenance Conference. This conference addressed the effective maintenance strategies for a variety of private and public assets.

Find out more at http://www. Informa.com.au/assetmgmt2013

Published in: Business, Economy & Finance
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
771
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Potential Depreciation Savings - refining pavement management strategies to enhance financial sustainability By Ashish Shah and David Lovell
  • 2. Council and LG Roads •  Council is a complex biz owned by the community (in theory) •  Funding and financing challenge, community expectations and lowering of service standards –  National State of Arts Report 2013 –  Productivity Commission Inquiry on Provision, Funding, Financing and Costs for Public Infrastructure
  • 3. Financial Sustainability QLD LG Act definition •  A local government is financially sustainable if the LG is able to maintain its financial capital and infrastructure capital over the long term Austroads Series – Asset Valuation •  If the Agency’s long-term finances are sustainable, then disruptive tax increases or spending cuts can be avoided, the taxation burden will be fairly shared between current and future taxpayers and the stability or predictability of government taxes and charges will not be at risk
  • 4. Financial Sustainability •  NAMS Plus, •  IIMM, •  IPWEA Infrastructure Financial Management Guidelines and •  Long-term Financial Planning practice notes •  Austroads – Asset Management Series •  LGAQ – Factors Impacting LG Financial Sustainability Sept 2013 •  QLD LG act and regulations •  Australian Government – Strong Fundamentals for sustainable Local Infrastructure
  • 5. Financial Sustainability QLD LG Regulation Ratios (also adopted by NAMS Plus, IIMM, IPWEA Infrastructure Financial Management Guidelines and Long-term Financial Planning practice notes •  Asset Sustainability Ratio •  Asset Consumption Ratio •  Asset Renewal Funding Ratio An Austroads Project AT1693 “Using Financial Data in Asset Management Decision Making” Index •  Asset Sustainability Index (being explored by US DOT)
  • 6. In simple terms •  Asset Sustainability Ratio = Renewal Exp/ Depreciation Exp •  Asset Consumption Ratio = •  Asset Renewal Funding Ratio = •  Depreciation as expenditure in balance sheet
  • 7. Depreciation and (Road) asset renewals •  One of the most debated concept by elected representatives –  LGAQ Ministerial forum 2013 •  In simple terms, depreciation expense allocates the ‘using up’ of the capacity of an asset to provide services over its useful life –  Yearly asset cost or values allocation over the term it provides services
  • 8. Logan’s focus •  Ongoing review/refine of pavement rehabilitation strategies •  Review of depreciation methodology as ongoing Project •  Internal audit – depreciation methodology •  Challenge for Council as depreciation is biggest operational expenditure item (partially funded)
  • 9. Road Network
  • 10. Road Segmentation •  Roads are broken up into sections or segments –  Homogeneous –  Fixed Length –  Dynamic –  Based on construction and rehabilitation methods and practicalities
  • 11. Road Life Cycle •  Roads – long lasting infrastructure –  Need to measure performance over the life cycle –  Link the consumption to renewal treatments –  Need to predict future network condition/ needs and optimization of budget allocation –  Material shortages –  Resource prices –  Change of road use patterns (less vehicles on the road due to fuel price rise) –  Social pressure on users to be environmentally aware
  • 12. Road Life Cycle Right Treatment; Right Time & Right Place.
  • 13. ROAD HIERARCHY 1 – Urban Access (ESA = 1 x 10^5) 2 – Minor Urban Collector (ESA = 8 x 10^5) 3 –Urban collector (ESA = 5.4 x 10^6) 4 – Arterial (ESA = 8.5 x 10^6) 5 – Industrial Access (ESA = 3.9 x 10^6) 6 – Industrial Collector (ESA = 8.5 x 10^6) 7 – Rural Access (ESA = 1 x 10^5) 8 – Rural Collector (ESA = 2.5 x 10^5) 9 – Rural Arterial (ESA = 5 x 10^6) LCC – Road Defect Flow Chart Road Defect/ Severity Surface age: >7 years; and Surface Failure: <3%; and Structural Failure: 0% and <0.1%. Surface age: >7 years; and Surface Type: 1 (spray seal); and Surface Failure: >=3%; and Structural Failure: <25%. Rejuvenation Reseal Surface age: >7 years; and Surface Type: n/a; and Surface Failure: n/a; and Structural Failure: >=5% and <25%. Overlay Surface age: >7 years; and Surface Failure: n/a; and Structural Failure: >=25%. Select Reconstruction Reconstruction Surface Type: 1 Spray Seal enrichment Traffic / Hierarchy Hierarchy 5/6; or Surface Type 2 (asphalt) and sum of cracks >=15% Surface Type 2 (asphalt) and Sum of cracks<15% Traffic / Hierarchy / Surface Type Rejuvenation (PRV) Asphalt Single Rubberise d 5 or 6 10mm Polymer Binder (P10) 10mm Polymer Binder (Q10) Surface Type 1 (spray seal) Double Rubberised 1,2,3,4,7,8 or 9 Multigrade 30mm Overlay with Digouts (B30) Size of Crack Sum of Cracks <15% 3,5,8 50mm Overlay with Digouts (B50) Hierarchy 5/6 or Sum of Cracks =>15% Asphalt Traffic / Hierarchy 1,2,7 50mm Asphalt (A50) 50mm with Multigrade Binder and Digouts (D50) Asphalt and SAMI 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 or 9 4,6,9 10mm seal with Digouts (N10) Asphalt and SAMI Traffic / Hierarchy 4,6,9 3,5,8 30mm Asphalt (A30) Spray Seal 4,6,9 Sum of Cracks>=30% 1,2,7 Asphalt with Multigrade, SAMI Sum of cracks <30% Asphalt surface rejuvenation Sum of cracks <30% Surface Type: 2 Surface age: >7 years; and Surface Type: 2 (asphalt); and Surface Failure: >=3%; and Structural Failure: <5%. 3,4,5,6,8,9 1,2,7 50mm with 14mm Multigrade (C50) 30 mm Asphalt with SAMI (G30) 3,5,8 1,2,7 50mm Asphalt with SAMI (G50) 30mm Asphalt with SAMI and Digouts (H30) 50mm Asphalt with SAMI and Digouts (H50) 50mm Asphalt with Multigrade, SAMI and Digouts (J50) Traffic / Hierarchy/ CBR/Surface Type Mill and Fill Visual Inspection / Constructability Spray Seal Note: For roads classified as reconstruction mill and fill is assumed to be detected during visual inspection of pavements. This treatment type is to be used at: • Locations where a quick remedy is required due to the user demand. 300 Gravel (V30) 450 Gravel (V45) 600 Gravel (V60) 750 Gravel (V75) 300 Gravel (W30) 450 Gravel (W45) 600 Gravel (W60) 750 Gravel (W75) 300 Gravel (X30) 450 Gravel (X45) 600 Gravel (X60) 750 Gravel (X75) 300 Gravel (Y30) 450 Gravel (Y45) 600 Gravel (Y60) Road: 4,6,9 AND CBR: <=5 Road: 4,6,9 AND CBR: >5 Road: 3,5,8 AND CBR: <=5 Road: 3,5,8 AND CBR: >5 250 mm (M25) Road: 1,2,7 AND CBR: <=5 200 mm (M20) Road: 1,2,7 AND CBR: >5 150 mm (M15) Road: 4,6,9 AND CBR: <=5 100 mm (M10) Road: 3,5,8 AND CBR: <=5 250 mm (L25) 4,6 Road: 4,6,9 AND CBR: >5 9 200 mm (L20) Surface Type: 2 (asphalt) Road: 1,2,7 AND CBR: <=5 150 mm (L15) 50mm Asphalt with Multigrade Surface Type: 2 (asphalt) Road: 3,5,8 AND CBR: >5 3,5,8 Road: 1,2,7 AND CBR: >5 100 mm (L10) 50mm Asphalt Surface Type: 2 (asphalt) Multigrade Asphalt 1,2,7 30mm Asphalt Surface Type: 1 (spray seal) Traffic / Hierarchy 750 Gravel (Y75)
  • 14. LCC – Road Defect Flow Chart Road Defect/ Severity Surface age: >7 years; and Surface Failure: <3%; and Structural Failure: 0% and <0.1%. Surface age: >7 years; and Surface Type: 1 (spray seal); and Surface Failure: >=3%; and Structural Failure: <25%. Rejuvenation Surface age: >7 years; and Surface Type: 2 (asphalt); and Surface Failure: >=3%; and Structural Failure: <5%. Reseal Surface Type: 1 Spray Seal enrichment Traffic / Hierarchy Surface age: >7 years; and Surface Failure: n/a; and Structural Failure: >=25%. Reconstruction Hierarchy 5/6; or Surface Type 2 (asphalt) and sum of cracks >=15% Surface Type 2 (asphalt) and Sum of cracks<15% Traffic / Hierarchy / Surface Type Rejuvenation (PRV) Asphalt Single Rubberise d Surface Type 1 (spray seal) Double Rubberised 1,2,3,4,7,8 or 9 Multigrade 5 or 6 10mm Polymer Binder (P10) 30mm Overlay with Digouts (B30) 10mm Polymer Binder (Q10) Size of Crack Sum of Cracks <15% 3,5,8 50mm Overlay with Digouts (B50) Hierarchy 5/6 or Sum of Cracks =>15% Asphalt Traffic / Hierarchy 1,2,7 30mm Asphalt (A30) 4,6,9 50mm Asphalt (A50) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 or 9 4,6,9 10mm seal with Digouts (N10) 3,4,5,6,8,9 30 mm Asphalt with SAMI (G30) Mill and Fill Asphalt and SAMI Mill and Fill 1,2,7 50mm with 14mm Multigrade (C50) 50mm with Multigrade Binder and Digouts (D50) Asphalt and SAMI Traffic / Hierarchy 3,5,8 Spray Seal 4,6,9 Sum of Cracks>=30% 1,2,7 Asphalt with Multigrade, SAMI Sum of cracks <30% Asphalt surface rejuvenation Surface age: >7 years; and Surface Type: n/a; and Surface Failure: n/a; and Structural Failure: >=5% and <25%. Sum of cracks <30% Surface Type: 2 ROAD HIERARCHY 1 – Urban Access (ESA = 1 x 10^5) 2 – Minor Urban Collector (ESA = 8 x 10^5) Overlay Select 3 –Urban collector (ESA = 5.4 xReconstruction 10^6) 4 – Arterial (ESA = 8.5 x 10^6) 5 – Industrial Access (ESA = 3.9 x 10^6) 6 – Industrial Collector (ESA = 8.5 x 10^6) 7 – Rural Access (ESA = 1 x 10^5) 8 – Rural Collector (ESA = 2.5 x 10^5) 9 – Rural Arterial (ESA = 5 x 10^6) 3,5,8 1,2,7 50mm Asphalt with Traffic SAMI (G50) / Hierarchy 30mm Asphalt with SAMI and Digouts (H30) 50mm Asphalt with SAMI and Digouts (H50) 50mm Asphalt with Multigrade, SAMI and Digouts (J50) Traffic / Hierarchy/ CBR/Surface Type Multigrade Asphalt Visual Inspection / Constructability Spray Seal Note: For roads classified as reconstruction mill and fill is assumed to be detected during visual inspection of pavements. This treatment type is to be used at: • Locations where a quick remedy is required due to the user demand. 300 Gravel (V30) 450 Gravel (V45) 600 Gravel (V60) 750 Gravel (V75) 300 Gravel (W30) 450 Gravel (W45) 600 Gravel (W60) 750 Gravel (W75) 300 Gravel (X30) 450 Gravel (X45) 200 mm (M20) 600 Gravel (X60) 750 Gravel (X75) 250 mm (M25) 300 Gravel (Y30) 450 Gravel (Y45) 600 Gravel (Y60) Road: 4,6,9 AND CBR: <=5 150 mm (M15) 4,6 Road: 4,6,9 AND CBR: >5 100 mm (M10) Road: 3,5,8 AND CBR: <=5 9 Road: 3,5,8 AND CBR: >5 250 mm (L25) Road: 1,2,7 AND CBR: <=5 200 mm (L20) Road: 1,2,7 AND CBR: >5 200 mm 250 mm 150 mm (L15) (M20) (M25) Road: 4,6,9 AND CBR: <=5 100 mm 150 mm 100 mm (L10) (M10) (M15) Road: 3,5,8 AND CBR: <=5 250 mm (L25) 4,6 Road: 4,6,9 AND CBR: >5 9 200 mm (L20) Surface Type: 2 (asphalt) Road: 1,2,7 AND CBR: <=5 150 mm (L15) 50mm Asphalt with Multigrade Surface Type: 2 (asphalt) Road: 3,5,8 AND CBR: >5 3,5,8 Road: 1,2,7 AND CBR: >5 3,5,8 1,2,7 100 mm (L10) 50mm Asphalt Surface Type: 2 (asphalt) Multigrade Asphalt 1,2,7 30mm Asphalt Surface Type: 1 (spray seal) Traffic / Hierarchy 750 Gravel (Y75)
  • 15. Some Treatments •  200mm asphalt with multigrade binder Arterial Roads and Industrial Collector Roads •  200mm asphalt with normal bitumen binder - Roads with significant structural failure •  150mm asphalt with normal bitumen binder - Minor roads with moderate structural failure
  • 16. Capturing Information New subdivisions §  Developer donated/gifted infrastructure §  On Maintenance notification §  As constructed drawings Internal work and rehabilitation §  Practical Completion forms §  Rehabilitation program
  • 17. Austroads
  • 18. Piece by Piece •  Complex and bigger problems should be broken down into smaller manageable chunks •  Road Hierarchies are already there!!! for a purpose!! – Traffic Capacity and Function •  Urban, Rural and Industrial categorisation (neighbourhood) •  Asphalt vs Spray Seal vs Unsealed •  Other criticality factors?
  • 19. Road Life Cycle Management •  Consumption (current and forecast) –  i.e. deterioration of network, performance degradation •  Hence renewal forecasts/needs vs •  Depreciation (current and forecast) –  Funding reflection
  • 20. Valuation methodology Components •  Surface/ Wearing Course •  Pavement / Base •  Earthworks/ sub base/ formation Consumption / Depreciation •  Austroads Surface Health Indices •  Austroads Pavement Health Indices Research Seminar, Toowoomba Regional Council, February 2013 21
  • 21. Road Profile composition AKA Pavement Thank you Research Seminar, Toowoomba Regional Council, February 2013 22
  • 22. Ongoing improvement That means •  Pavement Management Strategies –  PM system data •  Geography, condition, environmental effect, traffic, HDM4 model etc –  Intervention Levels –  Treatment types •  Valuation exercise –  PM system using AustRoads Health Indices –  Unit rates –  Depreciation methodology
  • 23. Other factors •  Growth – short term n long term (due to land change use or subdivisional activities) •  Possibility of failure, impact on reputation, road user costs, delay, newspaper articles, congestion •  Location and only link! •  Vicinity (school, railway, feeder to main roads or motorways) •  Shopping centres, other key activity centres, parks, markets •  Etc etc
  • 24. What do LG own/owe? –  A large complex network with varied characteristics, demands, needs, prescribed standards and service level expectations –  The hierarchy of roads categorizes roads according to their functions and capacities broadly on traffic capacity and speed environment at top end to access to property/ facility at a bottom end –  Associated technical standards are well accepted (such as no. of lanes, carriageway width, divided vs undivided carriageways, noise, rural vs urban environment, design speed etc )
  • 25. Too complex, lets simplify •  What is so common among top end of the network (combination of some hierarchies) from pavement management point of view Mainly •  Pavement composition •  Intervention •  Treatment options viable and being used •  Higher valuation and •  Greater confidence in data & performance
  • 26. Asphalt Sealed Network •  Table 1 - Hierarchy Breakdown Hierarchy Total Length (kms) % of sealed network Arterial 107 8.55% Industrial Access 37 2.98% Industrial Collector 8 0.62% Rural Access 59 4.72% Rural Arterial 3 0.23% Rural Collector 31 2.46% Urban Access 851 68.07% Urban Collector 154 12.37% Total Asphalt Sealed Network 1,250
  • 27. Asphalt Sealed Sub Network •  Table 2 - Hierarchy Breakdown Hierarchy Total Length (kms) % of sealed sub network Arterial 107 34.85% Industrial Access 37 12.17% Industrial Collector 8 2.62% Urban Collector 154 50.43% Total Asphalt Sealed Sub Network 306
  • 28. Behaviour Scenarios 1] The combined depth of Asphaltic Concrete (AC) is greater than or equal to 150mm 2] The combined depth of Asphaltic Concrete (AC) is less than 150mm
  • 29. Even smaller! Table 3 - Road Length Breakdown Scenario Number of Road Sections (Blocks) Total Length (kms) % of Asphalt sealed sub network 1 (Combined AC depth>=150mm) 78 31 10.42% 2 (Combined AC depth < 150mm) 762 275 89.58% Total Asphalt Sealed Sub Network 840 306
  • 30. Scenario I – Pavement Life Cycle Mgmt >150 AC means •  Treatment will most likely be mill partial AC and replace with AC overlay due to –  Need to re open road quicker –  Level to match existing kerb n channel –  Mainly surface distress –  Surfacing layer well protected from sides –  Long term performance –  Lower life cycle costs –  Construction/ practical limitations
  • 31. Scenario 1 Browns Plain Road AC14 225mm CBR80 255mm
  • 32. Scenario 1 Chambers Flat Road AC14 35mm AC20 130mm GV80 310mm
  • 33. Scenario 1 Loganlea Road AM14 50mm AC20 200mm GV60 250mm
  • 34. Scenario 1 Plantain Road AC10 30mm AC20 180mm
  • 35. In simple terms •  Gravel component (also referred to as Pavement component) may be perpetual •  Partial AC component may also be perpetual)
  • 36. Scenario I – Pavement Layer!! Table 4 - Pavement Depreciation Expense Breakdown for year ending 30 June 2013 Scenario 1 (Combined AC depth >=150mm) Total Asphalt Sealed Network Pavement Depreciation Expense $ % of Total Pavement Depreciation Expense $288,465 1.97% $14,653,183
  • 37. Scenario I – Surface Layer!! •  As only 31km and only marginal partial AC component, it may not be a significant / marginal benefit •  The $ calculation to be undertaken
  • 38. Scenario II Pavement Lifecycle Management < 150 AC •  AC partially in surface and partially in base layer (historically as it was constructed and functioning) •  Treatment may vary from mill of partial AC and replace with AC overlay to milling of partial pavement and restoration Parameters –  May increase depth of Asphalt (improvement) –  Both surface and pavement distress
  • 39. Scenario 2 Bayliss Road AC14 40mm GV80 280mm 120mm
  • 40. Scenario 2 First Avenue AC10 25mm GV80 125mm 205mm GV80 255mm
  • 41. Scenario 2 Loganlea Road AC14 450mm 50mm GV80 600mm
  • 42. Scenario II •  For Scenario 2 the pavement structure was analysed to determine: •  What percentage of these blocks has a combined Asphalt and Gravel Depth of over 200mm Treatment options: •  Either mill top AC layer (virtually no touching to pavement) or undertake at least 200mm deep treatment affecting both surface and pavement •  Anything intermediate is not viable
  • 43. Scenario II Table 5 - Pavement Depreciation Expense Breakdown for year ending 30 June 2013 Scenario Pavement Depreciation Expense $ % of Total Pavement Depreciation Expense 2 (Combined AC depth <150mm) 4,539,393 30.98% Total Asphalt Sealed Network 14,653,183
  • 44. Scenario II •  Gravel depth for those blocks over 200mm Of the 274kms that make up Scenario 2 •  25kms (9.1%) has a combined Asphalt and Gravel Depth of less than 200mm •  4kms (1.6%) has a combined Asphalt and Gravel Depth of 200mm •  245kms (89.3%) has a combined Asphalt and Gravel Depth of greater than 200mm
  • 45. Scenario II - Behaviour •  For the 245kms the following calculation gives results varying from 12.5 to 86.7 percent. •  (AC Depth + Gravel Depth - 200mm) / (Gravel Depth) •  This represents the percentage of the existing gravel layers that would become perpetual
  • 46. Pavement Layer in Scenario II •  The pavement depreciation of the 245kms for the 12 months ending 30 June 2013 $4,326,751 •  Introducing the concept of a perpetual gravel layer would yield as estimated saving in depreciation of approximately $2,337,200
  • 47. Anticipated outcome •  Total of $2.6 Million potential savings in depreciation •  Will improve our Asset Sustainability Ration for Roads substantially and overall Council balance sheet
  • 48. Next phases Further data analysis of this sub network: •  Performance behaviour and treatment history of these scenario segments •  Network segments which should have similar pavement profile as of above sub-network and their rehabilitation strategies and intervention •  Data integrity check on hierarchy, traffic volume •  Data integrity check on pavement composition •  Pavement component of AC to be shifted in Surface component or vice versa (may impact depreciation savings)
  • 49. Questions Thanks very much Contact: Ashish Shah ashishshah@logan.qld.gov.au M: 0434 327 923 Acknowledgement: Anthony Southon

×