NCHRP Synthesis 20-05/Topic 50-09 [Active (Synthesis)]
Performance Based Pavement Warranty Practices
[ NCHRP 20-05 (Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Practices) ]
| Project Data
|Authorization to Begin Work:
||5/1/2018 -- estimated |
||Jo Allen Gause
There is currently no national standard for pavement warranty projects. Some state departments of transportation (DOTs) have developed their own warranty specifications. These specifications vary in terms of pavement type, warranty type, warranty period, risk allocation items, performance evaluation methods, enforcement methods, etc.
The objective of this synthesis is to document the use and effectiveness of performance-based pavement warranties by DOTs. The study will focus on both asphalt and concrete pavement projects with warranty periods of at least one year.
Information to be documented includes (but is not limited to):
• Performance criteria and threshold values for warranty specifications;
• Identification of suitable candidates for warranty;
• Warranty periods for different types of pavements and treatments;
• Methods for measuring pavement conditions relative to warranty performance criteria;
• Aspects of warranty enforcement (e.g., warranty guarantee, bonds, reporting out and notification of exceeding thresholds, conflict resolution methods);
• Extent of use relative to total pavement program;
• Frequency of invoking the warranty (order of magnitude); and
• DOT experience with pavement warranties (i.e., is the pavement better using warranties and does it cost more or less).
Information will be gathered through literature review, survey of DOTs, collection of relevant sample documents, and follow up interviews with selected agencies for the development of case examples. The synthesis will identify knowledge gaps and suggest research to address those gaps.
Information Sources (partial):
1. FHWA. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/warranty/ . Last accessed in May 2011.
2. Battaglia, I. K. Pavement Warranty Program in Wisconsin: 12-Year Evaluation, Final Report # WI-03-09, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, 2009.
3. Goldbaum, J. Use of Long-Term Warranties for the Colorado Department of Transportation Pilot Projects, Interim Report #CDOT-DTD-R-2006-10,Colorado Department of Transportation, 2006.
4. Aschenbrener, T. and J. E. Goldbaum. Current Cost-Benefit Evaluation of Short-Term Warranties for Hot Mix Asphalt Pavements, Final Report, No. cdot-2007-10, Colorado Department of Transportation. 2007
5. Singh, P., S. Labi, B. G. McCullouch, and K. C. Sinha. An Evaluation of the Cost- Effectiveness of Warranty Contracts in Indiana, Final Report FHWA/IN/JTRP- 2004/34, Indiana Department of Transportation, 2004.
6. TRB AFH20. Research Needs Statement by the “Management of QualityAssurance” Committee. http://rns.trb.org/dproject.asp?n=13038 Accessed in February 2016.
7. Qi, Y., Gendy, A. El, Wang, F., & Li, Y., “Effectiveness Evaluation of Mississippi’s Pavement Warranty Program,” Journal of TRB, Transportation Research Record No. 2366, pp 98-109. 2013.
Jo Allen Gause
First Panel: October 11, 2018, Washington, DC
Teleconference with Consultant: November 1, 2018, 1:30 p.m., EST
Second Panel: July 10, 2019, Washington, DC
Anita K. Bush, Nevada DOT
Xingwei Chen, Louisiana DOTD
Gerald A. Huber, Heritage Research Group
Thomas A. Kane, New York State DOT
Munir D. Nazzal, Ohio Univeristy
Cynthia J. Smith, Mississippi DOT
Charles Wienrank, Illinois DOT
Katherine A. Petros, Federal Highway Administration
Nelson H. Gibson, Transportation Research Board