Review Process for Medium Term Maintenance Programme

1
Review Process for Medium Term Maintenance
Programme
NZTA and NZIHT 9th Annual Conference
NABIN PRADHAN October 2008 NZTA Conference
2
BackgroundReview MethodologyConfidence Level of
DataNetwork Performance HistoryBenchmarking of
Maintenance Needs Comparison of FWP with Needs
3
Background

• WHY REVIEW MAINTENANCE FWP ?
• 3 years funding cycleMore definite work
  programme for 3 years
• Various systems/process used to prepare FWPNeed
  to check credibility of programme
• A funding agency would be interested with
• Ensuring best practices followed in programme
  development for best value for money
• Consistent level of maintenancein various
  territorial authorities

4
Background

• TREATMENT SELECTION ALGORITHM (Eg. RAMM TSA,
  CUSTOM DEVELOPED TSA)
• TSA identifies sections exceeding certain
  thresholds, For example
• Wheel path alligator cracking gt 3
• Wheel path flushing gt 25
• Output of TSA, i.e.
• Summary of maintenance needs
• Short list of sections requiring
  treatmentsGenerally verified in field to
  finalise work programme

5
Background

• ISSUES WITH TSA ?
• Work needs for section identified by TSA is based
  on snapshot valid only at the time when the
  condition survey was carried out.
• For example if condition survey was undertaken in
  2006, some of the sections may already have been
  fixed and new defects may have appeared in other
  sections
• Generally suitable up to 2 years work programme

6
Background

• PAVEMENT PREDICTIVE MODELLING (Eg. NZdTIMS,
  HDM-4)
• Optimised forward work programme is generated
• based on the life cycle analysis
• considering the constraint budget and agreed
  level of service

7
Background
NZdTIMS ANALYSIS PROCESS
RAMM Data
NZdTIMS Analysis
Opt Work Prg Refined during Site Inspection
FWP
Calibration of Work Standards
Additional Data Collection
Standard NZdTIMS Setup
Calibration of Models
Data Review
Using the default setup without customisation and
poor quality of input data are the major issues
8
Background
9
BackgroundReview MethodologyConfidence Level of
DataNetwork Performance HistoryBenchmarking of
Maintenance Needs Comparison of FWP with Needs
10
Methodology

• REVIEW STEPS
• Defining confidence level of data.
• Understanding historical network performance
• Benchmarking with national guidelines
• Comparison of FWP with needs
• NODEM software was used for development of
  prototype audit tool for generating required
  reports.

11
Methodology

• PROTOTYPE SOFTWARE FOR REVIEW
• FWP Audit Tool was used to
• Generate Info - Tables Graphs on
• Status of the network
• Issues related to data
• Estimate
• Network maintenance needs for 3 years(based on
  standard guidelines)
• Forecast impact on FWP condition based on
  extrapolating historic trend

12
Methodology

• 3 RCAs NETWORK STUDIED

13
BackgroundReview MethodologyConfidence Level of
DataNetwork Performance HistoryBenchmarking of
Maintenance Needs Comparison of FWP with Needs
14
Confidence Level of Data - SUMMARY
NETWORK A
NETWORK B
NETWORK C


15
Confidence Level of Data
ISSUE WITH HISTORIC TREND (ROUGHNESS)
NETWORK A
NETWORK C
16
Confidence Level of Data
RATING DATA COLLECTION PRACTICE
NETWORK A
NETWORK C
17
BackgroundReview MethodologyConfidence Level of
DataNetwork Performance HistoryBenchmarking of
Maintenance Needs Comparison of FWP with Needs
18
Performance of Network

• CURRENT STATUS ROUGHNESS DISTRIBUTION

NETWORK A
URBAN
RURAL
NETWORK C
URBAN
RURAL
19
Performance of Network
VARIATION IN ACHIEVED LIFE
NETWORK A
B
C
20
Performance of Network
DEFECTS ON SECTIONS TREATED (2004-2007)
B
C
NETWORK A
21
Performance of Network
MAINTENANCE COST HISTORY
NETWORK A
NETWORK C
22
Performance of Network
PERFORMANCE HISTORY - PII
NETWORK A
NETWORK C

23
BackgroundReview MethodologyConfidence Level of
DataNetwork Performance HistoryBenchmarking of
Maintenance Needs Comparison of FWP with Needs
24
Benchmarking of Maintenance Needs

• WHY BENCHMARKING?
• Helps to understand where the given network stand
  with respect to national standard
• RAMM TSA default distress thresholds gt for
  resurfacing
• NZTA maintenance guidelines on roughnessgt for
  shape correction

25
Benchmarking of Maintenance Needs

• CURRENT STATUS ROUGHNESS DISTRIBUTION

NETWORK A
URBAN
RURAL
NETWORK C
RURAL
URBAN


26
Benchmarking of Maintenance Needs

• DEFINING MAINTENANCE NEEDS
• Maintenance Need estimated based on
• RAMM data. It may not agree if FWP is based on
  information which is not captured by available
  RAMM data.
• Investigatory Thresholds (RAMM TSA Maintenance
  Guidelines)
• Condition forecast based on extrapolation of
  historic trend

27
Performance of Network
Table 3 Maintenance Needs Analysis

• MAINTENANCE NEEDS ANALYSIS

28
BackgroundReview MethodologyConfidence Level of
DataNetwork Performance HistoryBenchmarking of
Maintenance Needs Comparison of FWP with Needs
29
Comparison - Network Needs FWP

• FWP LENGTH SUMMARY

30
Comparison - Network Needs FWP
FORECASTED NETWORK CONDITIONNETWORK C
31
Conclusions

• Not all RCAs are maintaining up-to-date FWP
• Not all data items used for maintenance decision
  making are well maintained. -Gap analysis and
  improvement plan required
• Following systematic approach could help FWP
  review process
• Audit tool can help to quickly generate reports
  to help to identify issues, BUT experienced
  reviewer plays the major role

32
Thank You