Impact of Alternative Project Delivery Systems on the International Roughness Index: Case Studies of Transportation Projects in the Western United States
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2017
Impact of Alternative Project Delivery Systems on the International Roughness Index: Case Studies of Transportation Projects in the Western United States
The impact of alternative project delivery methods (APDM) was compared with that of the traditional method of design–bid–build (DBB) on the long-term performance of transportation projects. The metric used to quantify long-term performance differences between projects is the international roughness index (IRI), which is an indicator of ride quality. Data were collected on four alternative delivery projects on the National Highway System in Arizona and Colorado, along with data on their comparable DBB projects. Two of the projects provided northbound and southbound data and their respective comparisons, so six pairs of projects were investigated. In the study of the IRI time series, five of the six APDM projects were found to perform better than their traditional counterparts. This exploratory study contributes to the body of knowledge by starting to quantify the impact of APDM on the actual long-term performance of transportation projects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide: A Manual of Practice, 2nd ed. AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2015.
2.
CominskyR. J., LeahyR. B., and HarriganE. T.. Level One Mix Design: Materials Selection, Compaction, and Conditioning. Publication Shrp-A-408. SHRP, 1994.
Superpave: Performance By Design. Final Report of the TRB Superpave Committee. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sp/superpave.pdf.
SullivanJ., El AsmarM., ChalhoubJ., and ObeidH.. Two Decades of Performance Comparisons for Design–Build, Construction Manager-At-Risk, and Design–Bid–Build. A Quantitative Analysis of the State of Knowledge on Project Cost, Schedule, and Quality. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 143, No. 6, 2017. http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CO.1943-7862.0001282.
MolenaarK. R., SongerA. D., and BarashM.. Public-Sector Design–Build Evolution and Performance. Journal of Management Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1999, pp. 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1061/(Asce)0742-597x(1999)15:2(54).
9.
El AsmarM., HannaA. S., and LohW.-Y.. Quantifying Performance for the Integrated Project Delivery System as Compared to Established Delivery Systems. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 139, No. 11, 2013, pp. 0401–3012. https://doi.org/10.1061/(Asce)Co.1943-7862.0000744.
10.
El AsmarM., HannaA. S., and LohW. Y.. Evaluating Integrated Project Delivery Using the Project Quarterback Rating. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 142, No. 1, 2016, pp. 0401–5046. https://doi.org/10.1061/(Asce)Co.1943-7862.0001015.
SayersM. W., GillespieT. D., and PatersonW. D. O.. Guidelines for Conducting and Calibrating Road Roughness Measurements. Final Report. WTP-46. The World Bank, Washington, D.C., 1986.
EllisR. D., HerbsmanZ. J., and KumarA.. Evaluation of the FDOT Design/Build Program. Final Report. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, 1991.
16.
AllenL. N.Comparison of Design–Build to Design–Bid–Build as a Project Delivery Method. MS thesis. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, Calif., 2001.
17.
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas Inc. Design–Build Practice Report. New York State Department of Transportation, Albany, 2002.
18.
Florida Department of Transportation. Design–Build Program Evaluation. Final Report. Tallahassee, 2004.
19.
WarneT. R.Design–Build Contracting for Highway Projects: A Performance Assessment. Tom Warne and Associates, South Jordan, Utah, 2005.
20.
FHWA. Design–Build Effectiveness Study. U.S. Department of Transportation, 2006.
21.
ShresthaP.Performance Benchmarking of Large Highway Projects. PhD dissertation. University of Texas at Austin, 2007.
22.
ShresthaP. P., MigliaccioG. C., O’ConnorJ. T., and GibsonG. E.. Benchmarking of Large Design–Build Highway Projects: One-to-One Comparison and Comparison with DBB Projects. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2007, 1994, pp. 17–25. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.3141/1994-03.
23.
GransbergD. D., DatinJ., and MolenaarK.. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 376: Quality Assurance in Design–Build Projects. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008.
24.
MigliaccioG. C., BogusS., and ChenA.. Effect of Duration of Design–Build Procurement on Performance of Transportation Projects. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2151, 2010, pp. 67–73. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.3141/2151-09.
25.
GransbergD. D., and ShaneJ. S.. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 402: Construction Manager-At-Risk Project Delivery for Highway Programs. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.17226/14350.
26.
TouranA., GransbergD. D., MolenaarK. R., and GhavamifarK.. Selection of Project Delivery Method in Transit: Drivers and Objectives. Journal of Management Engineering, Vol. 27, No. 1, 2011, pp. 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1061/(Asce)Me.1943-5479.0000027.
27.
ShresthaP. P., O’ConnorJ. T., and GibsonG. E.Jr. Performance Comparison of Large Design–Build and Design–Bid–Build Highway Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 138, No. 1, 2012, pp. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1061/(Asce)Co.1943-7862.0000390.
28.
ShakyaB.Performance Comparison of Design–Build and Construction Manager/General Contractor Highway Projects. MS thesis. University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 2013.
29.
MinchinR.Jr., LiX., IssaR., and VargasG.. Comparison of Cost and Time Performance of Design–Build and Design–Bid–Build Delivery Systems in Florida. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 139, No. 10, 2013, pp. 0401–3007. https://doi.org/10.1061/(Asce)Co.1943-7862.0000746.
30.
BinghamE.Analysis of the State of Practice and Best Practices for Alternative Project Delivery Methods in the Transportation Design and Construction Industry. PhD dissertation. Arizona State University, Tempe, 2014.
KaramihasS. M., and SennK. A.. Curl and Warp Analysis of the LTPP SPS-2 Site in Arizona. Final Report. Turner–Fairbank Highway Research Center, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, McLean, Va., 2012.
