Lifecycle Cost Modeling for Multi-State Highway Rehabilitation Using Hybrid Bitumen Rejuvenation Technologies

Harshit Sheladiya; Bhavesh Patel; Hemangini Patel

doi:10.63397/ISCSITR-IJET_2019_01_02_001

Authors

Harshit Sheladiya Author
Bhavesh Patel Author
Hemangini Patel Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63397/ISCSITR-IJET_2019_01_02_001

Keywords:

Bitumen Rejuvenation, Construction Project, Cost Analysis, Highway Infrastructure, Monte Carlo Simulation, Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement

Abstract

Highway infrastructure in multi-state corridors represents a critical economic asset, yet persistent funding shortfalls and data heterogeneity complicate optimal long-term asset management. Traditional, deterministic Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) models fail to account for the inherent uncertainty in projected service life, particularly for innovative pavement preservation technologies. This report develops a comprehensive, probabilistic LCCM framework specifically designed for evaluating Hybrid Bitumen Rejuvenation Technologies (HBRT) within multi-state highway rehabilitation programs. HBRT, defined as compound rejuvenators utilizing polymer modification and chemical restoration, offer superior long-term performance and colloidal stability compared to conventional diluents, enabling high utilization of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP). The proposed LCCM integrates agency costs, user costs, and stochastic inputs (e.g., service life and discount rate) via Monte Carlo simulation. Analysis reveals that the reliable performance characteristics of HBRT, evidenced by enhanced fatigue resistance and self-healing capacity, significantly reduce the variability (risk) of the Total Present Worth Cost (TPWC) distribution. This reduction in performance uncertainty, coupled with low initial application cost, positions HBRT as a financially optimal strategy for mitigating Deferred Preservation Liability, supporting sustainable resource circularity, and achieving multi-state asset performance targets. The framework provides transportation agencies with a risk-informed decision tool for strategic investment prioritization.

References

Abel, L. (2021). Chemical aspects of bitumen aging and rejuvenation for sustainable pavement recycling. Sustainability, 13(8), 4377.

Al-Akhras, K., & Ahmed, K. (2022). Life-cycle cost analysis of maintenance strategies for airport pavements. Sustainability, 14(5), 2905.

Anderson, E., & Taylor, S. (2023). Evolution of performance-graded specifications for emulsified asphalt. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Pavement Preservation.

Bhatt, R., & Wu, Y. (2025). Long-term performance of recycled asphalt mixtures containing high RAP and RAS. Construction and Building Materials.

Chen, L., Wang, Q., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Rheological properties of aged bitumen rejuvenated by polymer modified bio-derived rejuvenator. Construction and Building Materials, 281, 122550.

Chen, L., & Zhang, Y. (2024). Correct utilization of rejuvenators for improved recycled asphalt performance. International Journal of Pavement Engineering.

City of Raleigh. (2025). Raleigh extends street life with 2025 rejuvenation program.

Federal Highway Administration. (2016). Pavement preservation: The whole-life investment strategy.

Federal Highway Administration. (2017a). Interim technical bulletin: Recommended procedures for performing life-cycle cost analysis.

Federal Highway Administration. (2023). Accelerated implementation and deployment of pavement technologies (AIDPT) program.

Federal Highway Administration. (2024). Pavement management & performance.

Garcia, R. M., & Lee, H. S. (2018). Economic valuation of user costs in pavement preservation LCCA. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Part B: Pavements, 144(3), 04018005.

Gransberg, D. D., & Zaki, M. (2022). Life cycle cost methodology for short-lived pavement preservation treatments. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 28(4), 302–311.

Hassan, M. J., & Miller, P. D. (2019). Investigating the chemical restoration efficiency of bio-based asphalt rejuvenators using FTIR. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 20(4), 844–860.

Hawaii Department of Transportation. (2024). Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) Final.

Liu, W., Xu, T., & Wang, J. (2024). Classification and applications of asphalt rejuvenators in sustainable pavement engineering. Materials, 15(10), 1177.

Michigan Department of Transportation. (2024). Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) Program.

Mirhosseini, E., & Zaki, M. J. (2024). Application of rejuvenators in asphalt binders: Classification and micro- and macro-properties. Materials, 15(8), 917.

National Cooperative Highway Research Program. (2024). Simple performance tests for asphalt mixture characterization.

New Jersey Department of Transportation. (2016). Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for federal fiscal years 2016–2025.

Pew Charitable Trusts. (2025). States fall short of funding needed to keep roads and bridges in good repair.

Rodriguez, S. F., & Kim, J. H. (2024). Economic modeling of multi-agency highway projects: A uniform tool for evaluating life-cycle benefits and costs. Transportation Research Record.

Smith, A. B., & Jones, C. D. (2020). Probabilistic risk assessment in transportation infrastructure management. ASCE Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 26(4), 04020031.

Washington State DOT. (2017). Asset performance report.