Prediction of Remaining Service Life of Pavements PDF

The University of Toledo
The University of Toledo Digital Repository

Theses and Dissertations
2010
Prediction of remaining service life of pavements

Chaitanya Kumar Balla
Follow this and additional works at: http://utdr.utoledo.edu/theses-dissertations

Recommended Citation
Balla, Chaitanya Kumar, "Prediction of remaining service life of pavements" (2010). Theses and Dissertations. Paper 787.
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by The University of Toledo Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and
Dissertations by an authorized administrator of The University of Toledo Digital Repository. For more information, please see the repository's About
page.
A Thesis
entitled
Prediction of Remaining Service Life of Pavements
by
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the Master of Science Degree in Engineering
Dr. Eddie Yein Juin Chou, Committee Chair
Dr. Azadeh Parvin, Committee Member
Dr. George J. Murnen, Committee Member
Dr. Patricia Komuniecki, Dean

College of Graduate Studies

August 2010
Copyright 2010
This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law, no parts of this document
may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author.
An Abstract of
Prediction of Remaining Service Life of Pavements
by
Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Master of Science in Engineering

August 2010
Pavement management is a process that helps to maintain a pavement network in a safe

and serviceable condition in a cost effective manner. A key component of an effective
pavement management system is its ability to predict the remaining service life of
pavements. Remaining service life of pavements can be predicted using the present
pavement condition and the latest rehabilitation action performed on that particular
pavement. Survival curves are often developed to obtain remaining service life of a
pavement family. The objectives of this study are to determine the average service life of
pavements and to predict their remaining service life. Remaining Service Life is defined
as the projected number of years until rehabilitation is required.
iii
The pavement condition data in the form of Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) were used
to develop Kaplan-Meier survival curves for different PCR thresholds. PCR 60 was
considered as the terminal condition and the average service life of pavement network
was calculated as the area under PCR 60 survival curve. Derived performance curves for
all the survival probabilities were developed between pavement age and PCR using the
Weibull approximation of the Kaplan-Meier survival curves.
Derived performance
curves were employed to determine the remaining service life of individual pavements
based on current age and PCR. PCR curves were also developed for individual PCR
thresholds between RSL and pavement age by using the Weibull approximation of the
Kaplan-Meier survival curves to better understand the relationship between RSL, PCR
and pavement age. Average service life of the pavement network and remaining service
life of individual pavements obtained from this study can be used to assist in pavement
rehabilitation decision making and budget allocation.
iv
This thesis is dedicated to my mother, Tejovathi Perisetti, to my father, Late

Venkateswarlu Balla, and to my sister, Dr. Purnima Sobha Balla
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to take this opportunity to express my deepest sense of gratitude to my

advisor, Dr. Eddie Yein Juin Chou for his invaluable guidance, motivation, constant
encouragement, tolerance, and financial support without which this dissertation could not
have this shape. I would also like to thank Dr. Azadeh Parvin, and Dr. George J.
Murnen for agreeing to be my committee members for their inputs, support, and
guidance. I would also like to acknowledge the City of Toledo for funding this study and
for providing rehabilitation data.
I would like to thank my colleagues and friends Debargha Datta, Dr. Haricharan
Pulugurta, and Praneeth Nimmatoori for their generous suggestions, inputs, and
encouragement. I would also like to thank all my friends for their support, special thanks
to Abdul, Amanesh, Anil, Ashok, Bivash, Ishan, Jatin, Jun, Madhura, Parth, Prabhu,
Shravan, Sri Hari, Shuo, Thihal, and Varun.
Finally, I would like to thank my mother and my sister; for their unceasing support,
morale, love, and encouragement they provided me in course of my thesis. They are
always been my moral support in every sphere of my life. I could not have made it this
far without them.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract............................................................................................................................. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................x
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xi
1. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................1
1.2 Statement of Problem:.............................................................................................5
1.3 Objectives of the study: ...........................................................................................7
2. LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................8
2.1 Pavement Management System..............................................................................8
2.2 Prediction Levels in Pavement Management:.......................................................9
2.3 Pavement Condition ..............................................................................................10
2.3.1 Factors That Could Affect Pavement Condition...............................................12
2.3.2 Treatment Type.................................................................................................12
2.3.3 Materials ...........................................................................................................12
2.3.4 Traffic Loading .................................................................................................13
2.3.5 Pavement Thickness..........................................................................................13
2.3.6 Climate..............................................................................................................14
vii
2.3.7 Condition Prior to Treatment ............................................................................14

2.4 Prediction Methods................................................................................................14
2.5 Remaining Service Life (RSL):.............................................................................15
3. DATA AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................................21
3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................21
3.3 Calculation of Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) .............................................25
3.4 Methodology ...........................................................................................................29
3.4.1. Survival Curve .................................................................................................29
3.4.2 Kaplan-Meier method .......................................................................................29
3.4.2.1 Example.................................................................................................................................30
3.4.3 Extrapolation of incomplete survival curve using Weibull distribution function34

3.4.3.1 Example.................................................................................................................................36
3.4.4 Derived Performance Curve .............................................................................39

3.4.5 Remaining Service Life ....................................................................................40
3.4.5.1 Example.................................................................................................................................40
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ................................................................................42

4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................42
4.2 Survival Curve .......................................................................................................43
4.3 Calculation of Survival Probability......................................................................44
4.3.1 Kaplan Meier method ....................................................................................45
4.3.2 Weibull approximation of Kaplan-Meier method.............................................49
4.4 Remaining Service Life .........................................................................................55
4.4.1 Median Remaining Service Life .......................................................................59
4.4.2 Remaining Service Life by PCR and Age ........................................................61
viii
4.5 PCR Curves ............................................................................................................62

4.6 Results .....................................................................................................................65
4.7 Conclusions.............................................................................................................67
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................70
5.1 Summary.................................................................................................................70
5.2 Conclusions.............................................................................................................71
5.3 Recommendation ...................................................................................................72
5.4 Future Recommendations .....................................................................................73
APPENDIX A ...................................................................................................................74
APPENDIX B ...................................................................................................................75
References :.......................................................................................................................76
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Number of PCR collected Pavement Miles at different ages ......................24
Table 3.2 Pavement Lane Miles reached PCR 60 ......................................................31
Table 3.3 Calculation of Pt and S(t) for PCR 60...........................................................33
Table 3.4 Kaplan - Meier Survival Curve and Weibull Curve Data for PCR 60 ......38
Table 4.1 Pavement Lane Miles reached to each PCR Threshold at different ages ..44
Table 4.2 Pavement Lane Miles that were not reached to each PCR Threshold at
any respective ages...........................................................................................................46
Table 4.3 Kaplan Meier Survival Curve Data, Calculation of pt and S (t) .............47
Table 4.4 Kaplan Meier Survival Curve Data for PCR 60 .......................................49
Table 4.5 Linear Regression Solution in Microsoft Excel ............................................50
Table 4.6 Calculated S (t) values by using Weibull distribution .................................52
Table 4.7 Remaining Service Life...................................................................................57
Table 4.8 Pavement Age at different PCR values ......................................................58
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Calculating RSL for an Individual Condition Index..................................20

Figure 3.1 Toledo City and Major Streets .....................................................................22
Figure 3.2 Pavement miles with rehabilitation data .....................................................23
Figure 3.2 PCR collected Frequency Plot of Pavement Age Vs Number of
Pavements/miles ...............................................................................................................25
Figure 3.3 Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) Scale.................................................28
Figure 3.4 Kaplan Meier, Survival Probability Vs Pavement Age for PCR 60 ......34
Figure 3.5 Weibull Survival Curve, Pavement Age Vs Survival Probability.............39
Figure 3.6 Example Figure to find Remaining Service Life at 6 years. ......................41
Figure 4.1 Kaplan Meier Survival Curve ...................................................................48
Figure 4.2 Weibull approximation of Kaplan Meier Survival Curve ......................53
Figure 4.3 Average service Life of a pavement lane mile to reach PCR 60................54
Figure 4.4 Probable Life Curve ......................................................................................56
Figure 4.5 Derived Performance Curve for different percentile of pavement sections59
Figure 4.6 Calculating Median Remaining Service Life ...........................................60
Figure 4.7 Calculating Remaining Service Life by PCR and Age............................62
Figure 4.8 RSL variation for PCR 65..........................................................................63
Figure 4.9 Pavement Condition Rating Curves .........................................................64
xi
Figure 4.10 2009 PCR and RSL Miles ........................................................................65

Figure 4.11 Visual representation of 2009 PCR data for Toledo City .....................66
Figure 4.12 Visual representation of 2009 RSL data for Toledo City......................67
xii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter introduces the need for the prediction of remaining service life for
pavements and states the objectives of the study.
1.1 Introduction
Transportation contributes to the economic, industrial, social and cultural development of
any country. It plays a vital role for the economic development of any region or nation,
since development of transportation facilities raises living standards, and improves the
aggregate community values. The major goal of any transportation system is the safe,
rapid, and convenient movement of people and goods from one place to another in order
to enhance economic activity and development (Gedafa D. B. 2008). In the United States,
transportation over the course of its historical development has been fundamentally
influenced and shaped by legislation (Gedafa D. B. 2008). Whereas technical advances
have made it possible to transport people and goods in a more efficient manner, major
improvements in the transportation industry have been shaped by the larger institutional
systematic frame work that determines present and future needs and seeks to give them
cost effective yet far-reaching solutions (Gedafa D. B. 2008). Because, human beings are
surrounded by three basic mediums i.e. land, water and air; the modes of transportation
1
are also connected with these three mediums for the movement. Among the major modes
of transportation, transportation by road is the only mode, which provides maximum
service in terms of accessibility and mobility.
Roads are the dominant means of transportation in many countries today (Mitchell and
Maree 1994). As roads play an essential role in achievement of governments overall
social, economic, security, and developmental goals, much capital has been expended in
developing extensive road networks worldwide. The United States road network of
major highways includes almost four million miles of pavement (FHWA 1993). This
pavement network forms a significant portion of the national transportation infrastructure
and represents a cumulative investment of hundreds of billions of dollars over several
decades (Gedafa D. B. 2008). To preserve the investment spent on this huge network of
pavement, extensive maintenance and repair activities are necessary, with the intention of
using funds optimally. With a large network of highways in place, a highway engineers
concern is shifted from construction to maintenance (T.S. Vepa et al 1996). It has been
said that one dollar invested in preventive maintenance at the appropriate time in the life
of a pavement can save $3 to $4 in future rehabilitation costs (Geoffroy 1996). For
facilitating the management of the existing network, pavement management systems
(PMSs) have evolved over the last three decades. With increasingly limited national
funds for transportation infrastructure preservation and renewal, there has been a growing
need for strategic management of the national pavement network to preserve this large
capital investment.
Initially this strategic need led to the concept of increasing pavement life with the help of
Maintenance and Rehabilitation (M&R) activities. M & R activities are the activities that
are primarily concentrated on sealing surface cracks and potholes on pavement surfaces
so that they will be less likely to propagate further to endanger the stability of the
structure of the pavement (Joseph E. Ponniah et al 1996). The future performance of a
highway depends upon the suitability of the applied treatment, timing of treatment, and
quality of maintenance treatment it receives. Effective sealing of cracks and joints is
necessary to reduce the amount of water entering the pavement structure and causing
accelerated damage (Joseph E. Ponniah et al 1996).
To address the problem of managing M&R activities, the Intermodal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) was passed in 1991. ISTEAs mandates include
the development and implementation of various infrastructure and monitoring systems;
pavement, bridge, highway safety, traffic-congestion, public transportation facilities and
equipment, and intermodal facilities and management systems. The goal is to optimize
available funds in preserving the national transportation infrastructure. Consequently, in
order to qualify for federal funds, states and their local jurisdictions were to implement
working infrastructure management systems, consisting of all seven mandated categories
(Amekudzi and Attoh-Okine 1996).
Proper management of the system requires the collection, analysis, and interpretation of
factual data relating to construction and maintenance activities. Prediction of the future
condition of each pavement as well as that of the entire network is an essential element of
a management system (T.S. Vepa et al 1996).
A Pavement management system requires prediction of pavement life. Pavement life can
be defined by two terms, service life and remaining service life. Service life can be
defined as a measure in years from construction to first rehabilitation or from the last
completed work to the next. Rehabilitation work may be defined as the reconstruction or
resurfacing of present pavement. Service life of a pavement is the time elapsed between
two successive constructions performed on a particular pavement. Both service life and
remaining service life of pavement can serve as tools for PMS. The purpose of remaining
service life of a pavement is to help pavement management system assessing pavements
current and projected condition, determine budget needs to maintain the average
condition of pavement above an accepted level, prioritize projects, and optimize spending
of maintenance funds. The evaluation of remaining service life is necessary to make
optimal use of the structural capacity of the in-service pavement. It simply represents the
useful life left in the pavement until a failure condition is reached. Knowledge of
remaining service life facilitates decision making in regard to strategies for
reconstruction-rehabilitation of roads, thereby leading to the efficient use of existing
resources. Prediction of remaining service life is important because prediction of future
pavement condition is one of the most important functions of a PMS, i.e. when the
pavement will reach its terminal condition which requires rehabilitation.
The measurement and prediction of pavement condition is a critical element of any

pavement management system (PMS). Pavement condition rating (PCR), a composite
statistic derived from functional and structural conditions, is used as one measure of
serviceability (George et al 1989).
Pavement serviceability or ride quality indices have also been widely applied to monitor
pavement performance and deterioration for pavement rehabilitation, design, and other
purposes. It is known that the ride quality or serviceability index of roads can be
explained mainly by the vertical jerk experienced by raters sitting in a moving vehicle
(Chiu Liu et al 1998).
1.2 Statement of Problem:

Remaining service life (RSL) is the number of years that a pavement will be functionally
and structurally in an acceptable condition with only routine maintenance.
This
combines severity and extent of different distresses and rates of deterioration. RSL also
requires development of a performance model and establishment of a threshold value for
each distress measurement. Based on the threshold value, current distress level, and
deterioration model, time for each distress to reach the threshold value can be computed
(Baladi 1991). Calculating remaining life has been a complex task, to say the least.
Existing methods rely on various concepts from purely empirical to truly mechanistic.
The lack of adequate performance prediction models has been the major impediment in
predicting remaining life (T.S. Vepa et al 1996). Calculating RSL has been a complex
task due to lack of adequate performance prediction models required for determining
timing of the rehabilitation project. The failure of a pavement can be categorized as

structural or functional failure. In the functional failure-based approach, the remaining
life is computed on the basis of the performance of the pavement (for example,
serviceability or ride ability). A structural failure-based approach requires the structural
stability of pavement, such as pavement deflection data and visual condition data (PCR).
In the functional failure-based approach for estimating remaining life, the decrease in the
performance index with age or traffic is charted in conjunction with a functional failure
criterion.
Alternatively, the structural failure-based approach makes use of fatigue
principles, which requires the effective thickness or modulus derived from in situ
measurements (T. S. Vepa et al 1996).
The structural failure method and performance of the pavement (functional failure
method) requires historical data, which is not always available. Most pavements have the
current pavement condition data. Statistical models are based on data collected from test
roads located at diverse geographical locations. The LTTP test project is a rather extreme
example, with pavement sections monitored throughout the entire United States.
However, due to the enormous cost to construct and monitor pavements, the number of
LTPP sites in Ohio is rather limited. Therefore, a more practical and sensible approach is
to be developed in predicting remaining service life of pavement in a region. Since, it is
difficult to maintain the historical pavement performance data for each pavement section,
it is required to establish a performance model for individual pavement sections. Thus,
this study was initiated to assess the feasibility in predicting remaining service life by
using survivor curves of groups of pavements based on its age and current condition
rating.
1.3 Objectives of the study:

The main objectives of this study are:
1. To develop a remaining service life (RSL) model using the survivor curve method.
2. Analyze the average service life of pavements from RSL obtained from the
survivor curve.
3. To develop PCR curves to establish a relationship between pavement age,
condition rating, and remaining service life.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter describes the past research work that was performed to predict the remaining
service life of pavements and the possible method that can be used for the current dataset.
2.1 Pavement Management System

The pavement management system (PMS) was first conceived in the late 1960s to 1970s
as a result of pioneering work by Hudson et al (1968) and Finn et al (1977) in the United
States, and by Haas (1977) in Canada. AASHTO (1990) defines PMS as follows: A
PMS is a set of tools or methods that assist decision makers in finding optimum strategies
for providing, evaluating, and maintaining pavements in a serviceable condition over a
period of time. The products and information that can be obtained and used from a PMS
include planning, design, construction, maintenance, budgeting, scheduling, performance
evaluation, and research (Hugo et al 1989; AASHTO 1990). The goal of a PMS is to
yield the best possible value for available funds in providing and operating smooth, safe,
and economical pavements (Lee and Hudson 1985). The functions of a PMS is to
improve the efficiency of decision making, to expand the scope and provide feedback on
the consequences of the decisions, to facilitate coordination of activities within the
agency, and to ensure consistency of decisions made at different levels within the same
organization (Haas et al 1994). A PMS provides a systematic, consistent method for
selecting maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R) needs and determining priorities and the
optimal time of repair by predicting future pavement conditions (Shahin 2005).
2.2 Prediction Levels in Pavement Management:

To determine the direction and specificity of project development and planning, decisions
can be carried out at two management levels depending on the choice of the decision
maker. Those two management levels are network level and project level (Panigrahi
2004).
Network-level management focuses on determination and allocation of funds to maintain

pavement above a specified minimum operational standard. So, at the network level,
prediction model uses include condition forecasting, budget planning, inspection
scheduling, and work planning. One of the most important network uses of prediction
models is to conduct what if analyses, to study the effects of various budget levels on
future pavement condition (Shahin 1994).
Project-level management decides which specific road to repair, and the timing and
method of repair. So, prediction models at the project level are used to select specific
rehabilitation alternatives to meet expected traffic and climatic conditions (Shahin 1994).
Detailed consideration is also given to alternative conditions, M&R assignments, and unit
costs for a particular section of project within the overall program.
This level of
management involves assessing causes of pavement deterioration, determining potential

solutions, assessing effectiveness of alternative repair techniques, and selecting solution
and design parameters. The purpose of project level management is to provide the most
cost-effective feasible original design, maintenance, and rehabilitation or reconstruction
strategy possible for a selected section of pavement for the available funds (AASHTO
2001).
Different management levels will need different condition prediction models. Since the
main purpose of network-level management is to maintain the overall road network
above a specified minimum operational standard with limited budget, it does not focus on
how a specific road deteriorates. Therefore, a survival time analysis based on historical
condition data is often employed to predict the remaining service life of pavement. The
need to reasonably allocate funds requires the factors that affect pavement deterioration
be considered. Such consideration can be accomplished by introducing these factors as
parameters in prediction models.
For any pavement management system, prediction of pavement condition is the first and
foremost thing to be determined. Pavement condition can be defined by various indices.
2.3 Pavement Condition

Pavement condition is a generic phrase to describe the ability of a pavement to sustain a
certain level of serviceability under given traffic loadings. It is usually represented by
various types of condition indices such as Present Serviceability Index (PSI), Present
10
Serviceability Rating (PSR), Mean Panel Rating (MPR), Pavement Condition Index
(PCI), Pavement Condition Rating (PCR), Ride Number (RN), Profile Index (PI), and
International Roughness Index (IRI). These indices can be classified into two categories:
roughness-based and distress-based.
Roughness is defined as the variation in surface elevation that induces vibrations in

traversing vehicles in ASTM E867. It has been recognized as an important measure of
road performance since the 1940s and can be measured using either direct or indirect
methods (Huang 1993). Several commonly used roughness measures are IRI, RN, and PI.
Distress-based condition ratings, for example, PCI and PCR, evaluate the comprehensive
condition of a road by categorizing a pavements surface distresses by type, frequency,
and extent. Each distress is manually inspected for representative pavement sections. A
score is assigned to each distress found according to its frequency and severity.
Distresses are weighted according to their importance to the pavement. A PCI or PCR
pavement condition is obtained by subtracting the sum of all distresses from 100 (Shahin
1994). Thus, both PCI and PCR are numerical ratings of the pavement condition that
range from 0 to 100, with 0 being the worst possible condition and 100 being the best
possible condition. The Ohio Department of Transportation has been employing PCR as
the condition index for its highway systems since 1985 (Morse and Miller 2004).
11
2.3.1 Factors That Could Affect Pavement Condition

There are a number of variables that affect the deterioration of pavements. These major
factors affecting pavement performance are considered in pavement design procedures.
For accurate prediction, the same factors should be considered in condition prediction
models (Lytton 1987). These factors include treatment type, materials, traffic loading,
pavement structure, climates and pavement condition prior to the treatment. In practice,
the choice of factors is also limited by data availability. Prediction models can only be
developed based on available data. Those factors are discussed briefly in the following
sections.
2.3.2 Treatment Type

Various treatments can be performed on a pavement. Major treatments usually are new
construction and minor treatments are overlays on existing pavement. There are three
types of new constructions: rigid, flexible, and composite. Rigid pavement uses concrete
as the main pavement material. Flexible pavement uses asphalt concrete as the main
surface material.
Composite pavement typically consists of asphalt overlays on an
existing rigid pavement. Each treatment type is considered to have its own deterioration
behavior and forms a unique pavement family.
2.3.3 Materials
Pavement performance is affected by material characteristics. Pavements with the same
design structure in different geographical areas may have different performances due to
the following reasons: (1) different specifications may be applied during design; (2) the
12
aggregate type and its mechanical property may vary regionally; (3) the subgrade
modulus may vary from section to section. In addition, the construction quality may also
affect the strength and durability of a structure. These factors should be considered not
only in the pavement design but also in condition prediction. However, for this study,
very limited information about materials is available. Thus analysis of their effects on
pavement performance cannot be performed in this study.
2.3.4 Traffic Loading

Three types of traffic data; Average Daily Traffic (ADT), Average Daily Truck Traffic
(ADTT), and Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) are usually collected by
transportation agencies. ESAL value converts all traffic into an equivalent damage done
by the passing of a single 18,000-pound axle. Since higher traffic loadings will cause
more damage to the pavement, design procedures generally account for increased traffic
loading with increased pavement thickness. The effect of traffic loading on pavement
performance should be considered whenever appropriate.
2.3.5 Pavement Thickness

Pavement thickness is a major factor that could affect pavement performance. The
thickness of a treatment is usually determined by specific design procedure and should be
considered in pavement condition prediction models.
13
2.3.6 Climate
Temperature, snowfall, and precipitation affect pavement performance as pavement
materials may deteriorate faster in more severe climatic conditions. Climate effects
should be included in pavement condition prediction models.
2.3.7 Condition Prior to Treatment

Pavement condition prior to rehabilitation may affect pavement performance. It may be
hypothesized that pavements in better condition prior to overlay may perform better than
those pavements with worse prior condition. Pavement condition rating (PCR), which
accounts for various distresses, represents the overall pavement condition. STRD, which
stands for structural deduct, is an indicator of the overall remaining structural capacity of
a pavement.
These two quantities may be considered during condition prediction
modeling.
2.4 Prediction Methods

Methods for predicting pavement conditions can be generally classified into three
categories according to the format of the mathematical representation: deterministic,
probabilistic and other methods such as neural network method.
Deterministic regression is perhaps the most popular prediction model in pavement

condition prediction studies. It is usually expressed as a regression equation with the
dependent variable being the condition index and independent variables being the age of
the pavement, pavement type, and other influential factors. Several regression equations
14
might be developed - one for each family of pavements.
A family is a group of
pavements that have similar characteristics and thus are expected to deteriorate similarly.
According to the need, family determination can be subjective or based on potential
explanatory variables such as pavement type, repair alternative, and traffic loading
(Shahin 1994). Linear and non-linear regression analysis is often used in developing
deterministic prediction models (Lytton 1987). Power curve (Chan et al 1997) and
sigmoidal curve (Sadek et al 1996) are the most popular non-linear regression formats in
predicting pavement conditions. B-spline approximation was also employed to seek
potential improvements for condition prediction (Shahin et al 1987). However, most
non-linear models used in pavement condition prediction can be converted into linear
models by variable transformation (Laird and Ware 2004). Prior knowledge of the
factors that affect performance is essential in developing reasonable empirical models.
Unlike deterministic models, probabilistic models predict the pavement condition with
certain probability. The result from such a model is usually a probability distribution but
not a fixed number. A probabilistic model can easily take the previous condition into
account for the current condition prediction (Lytton 1987). Thus, it has some advantages
over a deterministic model especially for overlays on an old pavement.
2.5 Remaining Service Life (RSL):

The remaining service life (RSL) is the anticipated number of years that a pavement is in
acceptable condition to accumulate enough functional or structural distress under normal
conditions, given that no further maintenance is performed or distress points equal to an
15
as defined threshold value (Baladi 1991). RSL is calculated from the condition of the
asset during that year and the projected number of years until rehabilitation is required.
Once RSL is estimated for each pavement section in the network, the sections are
grouped into different categories (Dicdican et al 2004). It combines the severity and
extent of different distresses and the rate of deterioration. It requires development of a
performance model and establishment of a threshold value for each distress type. Based
on these threshold values, the current distress level and deterioration model for each
particular distress, and time for each distress to reach the threshold value, can be
computed. The shortest of these time periods is the RSL of the pavement section (Baladi
1991). The definition of the threshold values depends on the criteria used to control longterm network conditions (Kuo et al 1992). Existing methods rely on various concepts
from purely empirical to truly mechanistic. Lack of adequate performance prediction
models has been the major impediment in predicting remaining life (Vepa et al 1996).
Remaining service life (RSL) can be estimated in many different ways. Some researchers
tried to estimate pavement remaining service life from fatigue test (Witczak and Bell
1978, Carson and Rose 1980, Huang 1993, McNerney et al 1997). Other researchers
correlated the number of punchout failures per mile to the remaining ESALs,
equivalently the remaining life, for continuously reinforced concrete (Dossey et al 1996).
Artificial Neural Network was also applied in estimating the RSL by researchers in Texas
(Ferregut et al 1999, Abdallah et al 2001). In 1986, AASHTO proposed an important
method to estimate the RSL for overlay design. In this method, the RSL of the existing
pavement is estimated using the Non-destructive Test (NDT). The current pavement
16
layer elastic modulus is back-calculated from the deflection data. Then, the existing
pavement condition is related to its initial structural capacity by a condition factor, Cx.
The RSL of overlaid pavements, which is expressed as a function of the value of Cx, was
calculated based on the projected future traffic applications and the ultimate number of
repetitions to failure time (Zhou et al 1989). The advantage of this mechanistic method is
that historical traffic data are not required. A main drawback of this method is that it
requires the back calculation of the subgrade moduli, which is highly variable; therefore,
a very large number of deflection data would be required.
Yet another commonly used method to estimate the RSL of a pavement is to use the
performance regression model. By predefining the terminal condition, for example, PCR
of 70, it is possible to back calculate the age to reach that condition. Then, the RSL is
determined by subtracting the current age from the back calculated age.
The most popular method to estimate RSL is the survival time analysis, which is
considered a probabilistic model. This method was employed to obtain the RSL for
pavements in the United States as early as in 1940s (Winfrey and Farrell 1941).
Survival curves were developed for pavements built in each calendar year from 1903 to
1937 in 46 states using the life table method. According to Winfrey and Farrell (1941),
the distribution of survival times is divided into a certain number of equal intervals, e.g. 1
year or half a year. For each interval, the mileage of pavement sections still in service at
the beginning of the respective interval, the mileage of pavement sections that were out
of service at the end of the respective interval, and the mileage of pavement sections that
17
were lost (for example, a road was completely out of service) during the respective
interval are counted. Survival probability of each interval is calculated by dividing the
remaining mileage by the total mileage entered for the respective interval. Survival curve
is formed by drawing the probability versus the time interval in a chronological order.
The remaining service life can be estimated by extrapolating the survival curve to zero
percent survival. The life table method has been extensively used in the analysis of
pavement RSL (Gronberg et al 1956, Winfrey and Howell 1967).
The Kaplan-Meier method, which is also called the product-limit method (Kaplan et al
1958) is another procedure often used to generate survival curves. In the Kaplan-Meier
method, the probability of survival to time t is expressed as the product of the survival of
each year till time t. The Kaplan-Meier method and the life table method are identical if
the intervals of the life table contain at most one observation.
Survival curves method, which assumes an underlying failure distribution of the data, is
an alternative to analyze RSL (Prozzi and Madanat 2000). Because survival function is
now expressed explicitly in terms of a certain parametric distribution function, it is
possible to estimate the coefficients of those parameters, or in other words, the effects of
influential factors. However, the need to assume the underlying distribution introduces
another problem, that is, the shape of the data may not be described by a known
distribution. This is the major limitation of this method.
18
RSL is used for future planning and budgeting purposes. This is not only useful for
timing a major rehabilitation but also assists managers in forecasting long-term needs of
the network. The evaluation of RSL is necessary to make optimal use of the structural
capacity of in-service pavements. Knowledge of RSL facilitates decision making in
regard to strategies for reconstruction-rehabilitation of roads, thereby leading to efficient
use of existing resources (Vepa et al 1996). Accurate RSL models improve the process
of allocating funds and resources for maintenance and rehabilitation of asphalt pavements
(Romanoschi and Metcalf 2000).
To calculate RSL for a pavement section, the agency needs its current condition, a
definition of serviceable condition, and a mechanism to predict deterioration of the
pavement condition. Figure 2.1 shows the information required to calculate RSL.
19
Condition Index
Present Condition
Performance Curve
Serviceable
Condition
Threshold
Value
Remaining Service Life
Time (Years)
Figure 2.1 Calculating RSL for an Individual Condition Index
20
CHAPTER 3
DATA AND METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the data used and the methodology adapted to predict the
remaining service life of pavements.
3.1 Introduction
Monte Carlo (or stochastic) modeling techniques have long been used for exploring the
impact of uncertainty.
In its purest sense, Monte Carlo simulation employs a
mathematical model that interjects randomness between limits to determine a

probabilistic or likely outcome. Typically, this result is in the form of a probability
distribution, the shape of which lends insight into what is likely to occur if the modeled
course of action is pursued.
In this chapter data used in this study is described and the methodology used to predict
the remaining service life is also discussed.
21
3.2 Data
The City of Toledo is divided into six districts. Its road system has a total of 1121 miles
and is divided into Major Streets and Residential Streets according to their importance,
location and traffic carried. There are a total of 356 miles of major streets and 765 miles
of residential streets. Major streets of Toledo are further divided into state routes and
county routes.
Figure 3.1 Toledo City and Major Streets
The data used to demonstrate the methodology are detailed pavement condition and
project history of Major streets of Toledo. Detailed Pavement condition is obtained in
22
the form of Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) from the Ohio Department of
Transportation (ODOT) for both state routes and county routes. ODOT has maintained
state routes Pavement Condition Rating data and project history data since 1985 and
county routes data for every alternate year since 2003 i.e. for years 2003, 2005, 2007 and
2009. For county routes, the City of Toledo maintains the project history data. Figure
3.1 shows the City of Toledo and its Major streets.
In order to know the PCR data variation with age the pavement age must be known. Out
of 356 miles of major streets pavement rehabilitation data is available for 199 miles.
Figure 3.2 shows the number of unique miles with the rehabilitation data in major streets
category of City of Toledo.
157 Miles,
45%
199 Miles,
55%
Rehabilitated
Others
Figure 3.2 Pavement miles with rehabilitation data
23
In order to know the PCR data variation with age we need to know the pavement age.
This is possible by taking the construction year for a particular pavement as zero. Table
3.1 shows the tabulated number of pavement miles with PCR data at each age.
Table 3.1 Number of PCR collected Pavement Miles at different ages

Age
Miles
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
79
74.9
69.7
69.2
70.9
52.2
58.8
43.6
65.5
60.6
66.6
55.5
51.3
44.7
34
32.1
26.1
21
13.6
6.2
5.1
2.4
1.3
1.2
0.6
0.6
24
Figure 3.2 shows the frequency plot of number of pavement miles with PCR data
according to their age.
90
Number of Pavement Miles
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Pavement Age
Figure 3.2 PCR collected Frequency Plot of Pavement Age Vs Number of

Pavements/miles
3.3 Calculation of Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) is a distress based rating which evaluates the
comprehensive condition of a road by categorizing 14 different distresses: raveling,
bleeding, patching, surface disintegration / debonding, rutting, map cracking, base failure,
settlements, transverse cracks, wheel track cracking, longitudinal cracking, edge cracking,
pressure damage / upheaval, and crack sealing deficiency.
25
The rating method is based upon the visual inspection of pavement distress. The rating
method provides a procedure for uniformly identifying and describing, in terms of
severity and extent, pavement distress.
The mathematical expression for pavement
condition rating (PCR) provides an index reflecting the composite effects of varying
distress types, severity, and extent upon the overall condition of the pavement.
The model for computing PCR is based upon the summation of deducts points for each
type of observable distress. Deduct values are a function of distress type, severity, and
extent. Deduction for each distress type is calculated by multiplying distress weight
times the weights for severity and extent of distress. Distress weight is the maximum
number of deductible points for each distress type. The mathematical expression for PCR
is as follows.
PCR = 100 -
Deduct
I =1
Eq (3.1)
Where, n = number of observable distresses, and

Deduct = (Weight for distress) (Weight for severity) (Weight for Extent)
The Appendix A & Appendix B describe various distresses for local flexible pavement
adopted by ODOT for establishing their severity and extent. Three levels of severity
(Low, Medium and High) and three levels of extent (Occasional, Frequent, and Extensive)
are defined.
26
To illustrate the method for calculating PCR, consider the distress raveling in a
hypothetical local asphalt pavement. If the severity of this distress in the pavement is
Medium and extent is Frequent, then, the deduct points for Raveling in the
pavement would be equal to [(10) (0.6) (0.8)] or 4.8. If an extensive amount of medium
severity Surface Disintegration is also observed the deduct points for this distress
would be equal to [(5) (0.6) (1)] or 3.0. According to equation 3.1, PCR for the pavement
based upon these two distresses would be equal to [100 (4.8+3.0)] or 92.2.
To know the pavement behavior with age, the PCR values must be plotted according to
age of the pavement. To get the age of pavement the construction year of the pavement
must be known. After subtracting the latest constructed year from the present year the
age of the pavement can be obtained. In the current study, construction year of the
pavements in City of Toledo was obtained from Ohio Department of Transportation
(ODOT) and City of Toledo.
Table 3.1 shows the number of pavement sections
reconstructed in each year.
Figure 3.3 illustrates the PCR scale adopted in this study and the descriptive condition of
a pavement associated with the various ranges of the PCR values. The scale has a range
from 0 to 100; a PCR of 100 represents a perfect pavement with no observable distress
and a PCR of 0 represents a pavement with all distress present at their High levels of
severity and Extensive levels of extent.
27
Figure 3.3 Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) Scale
28
3.4 Methodology
This section describes the method used to predict the remaining service life (RSL) for the
pavement data described in section 3.2.
3.4.1. Survival Curve

Changes in the pavement age can be described by using survival curves. Survival curves
give the percentage of pavement sections that last a certain number of years before a
terminal event. Survival curves can be constructed for an individual pavement or a
pavement population.
An individual survival curve plots the probability that an
individual pavement section will remain in service as a function of age. A population

survival curve plots the fraction of pavement population that remains in service as a
function of age. When a pavement section fails, then it will be out of the system. The
height of the curve begins at one and declines as age and time increase. The slope of the
curve depends on the rate of pavement failures, with steeper decreases in periods of
higher rate of pavement failures.
3.4.2 Kaplan-Meier method

In this study, the Kaplan-Meier method is used to calculate the survival probability using
available historical PCR data. According to Kaplan-Meier, the survival probability at a
given year is a multiplication of each of the preceding years conditional probability of
failure.
The conditional probability of failure in a particular year is calculated by
dividing the number of failures occurring in that year by the number of pavements at risk
29
of failure at the beginning of that year. The conditional probability pt of surviving
t th year after having survived t 1 years is calculated as:

pt = 1
Number of pavements failed in interval t th year and t + 1th year

,
Number of pavements at risk of failure begining of t th year
Eq (3.2)
The probability of survival to time t , S (t ) is calculated as:
S (t ) = p1 p2 ... pt
Eq (3.3)
The graph of S (t ) versus the t gives the Kaplan-Meier survival curves. In the current
study, survival analysis is used to determine: (1) average age of pavement network before
its terminal condition; and (2) the remaining service life of pavements.
3.4.2.1 Example
Let the PCR of 60 be the criterion for failure of a pavement. That means when a
pavement reaches PCR of 60, that pavement has failed and will be out of the system.
Table 3.2 shows the number of miles of pavements in City of Toledo that reached PCR
60 at each age.
Total number of lane miles of pavements in the data set is 199.02. If in year 6, the
number of lane miles of pavements falling to a PCR 60 is 1.40 and the cumulative
number of lane miles of pavements that reached PCR 60 at this age is 2.65 miles (0.44
miles + 0.81 miles + 1.40 miles). That means, total number of lane miles of pavements
that have not reached PCR 60 at this age is 199.02 2.65 = 197.77.
Using equation 3.2, the conditional probability pt can be calculated as described below.
30
p6 = 1
Number of pavements failed in interval 6 th year and 7 th year

Number of pavements at risk of failure begining of 6 th year
Table 3.2 Pavement Lane Miles reached PCR 60
Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Pavement
Lane Miles
reached PCR
60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.44
0.81
1.40
1.41
2.33
6.05
11.34
12.25
17.05
17.34
15.86
14.96
16.23
17.97
9.61
3.03
3.97
2.04
0.32
0.81
0.58
0.58
0.00
0.00
31
p6 = 1
2.65
= 0.99
197.77
Similarly,
p7 = 1
4.06
=0.99
196.37
Probability of survival to time t for year 6 can be calculated by using equation 3.3
S (6) = 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.99 = 0.99
By using the above illustration, S (t) values for all the pavement ages are obtained and are
given in Table 3.3.
32
Table 3.3 Calculation of Pt and S(t) for PCR 60
Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Pavement
Lane Miles
reached PCR
60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.44
0.81
1.40
1.41
2.33
6.05
11.34
12.25
17.05
17.34
15.86
14.96
16.23
17.97
9.61
3.03
3.97
2.04
0.32
0.81
0.58
0.58
0.00
0.00
Pavement
Lane Miles
at risk of
failure
199.02
199.02
199.02
199.02
199.02
198.58
197.77
196.37
194.96
192.63
186.58
175.24
162.99
145.94
128.60
112.74
97.78
81.55
63.58
53.97
50.94
46.97
44.93
44.61
43.80
43.22
42.64
42.64
33
Pt
S(t)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.97
0.94
0.93
0.90
0.88
0.88
0.87
0.83
0.78
0.85
0.94
0.92
0.96
0.99
0.98
0.99
0.99
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.94
0.88
0.82
0.73
0.65
0.57
0.49
0.41
0.32
0.27
0.26
0.24
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.21
Figure 3.4 shows the plot of Kaplan-Meier curve for the data given in Table 3.3.
1.00
0.90
Survival Probability, S(t)
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Pavement Age
Figure 3.4 Kaplan Meier, Survival Probability Vs Pavement Age for PCR 60
3.4.3 Extrapolation of incomplete survival curve using Weibull distribution function

A Kaplan-Meier survival curve cannot be completed for the incomplete pavement
condition data. To get unbiased estimates from a stub survival curve, the tail of the
survival curve should be extrapolated to reach zero survival probability (Reilly 1998). A
34
Kaplan-Meier survival curve can be extrapolated to zero survival probability by using the
Weibull survival function.
The Weibull survival function that is given by:
Age
S(t) = e A
Eq (3.4)
Where S (t ) is the survival probability at an age, Age in years. A is the scale parameter
that determines the spread of the Weibull curve; and B is the shape parameter, which
determines the shape of the Weibull curve.
The parameters A and B are estimated by reducing the residual sum of squares. Then the
Weibull survival function becomes
ln S(t) = ln e
Age B
Age
ln S (t ) =
Eq (3.5)
B
1 Age
=
ln
S (t ) A
Eq (3.6)
B
Eq (3.7)
B
1
Age
= ln
ln ln
A
S (t )
Eq (3.8)
1
= B[ln( Age ) ln( A)]
ln ln
(
)
S
t
Eq (3.9)
35
1
= B ln ( Age ) B ln( A)
ln ln
S (t )
Eq (3.10)
It is in linear form and is similar to,

y = mX + C
Eq (3.11)
Where,
X = ln ( Age )
m=B
C = B ln ( A) = m ln( A) ln ( A) =
C
C
A=e m
m
1
y
y
1
1
= e y
ln
y = ln ln
= e e S (t ) = e e
S (t )
S (t )
S (t )
Eq (3.12)
Eq (3.13)
By using the linear regression option in Microsoft Excel, the solutions for B and C are
found and A obtained from the relation in equation 3.12.
3.4.3.1 Example
In Table 3.3, the calculated conditional probability of survival to time t, is shown by

using the Kaplan-Meier method described in section 3.4.2. This example shows how to
extrapolate the incomplete survival curve using Weibull distribution.
By using the X and y values from the equation (3.11) and equation (3.13) respectively,
the linear equation is solved by using the Regression option in Microsoft Excel as
illustrated below.
Tools > Data Analysis. Then regression option is selected in the pop up window.
36
Regression analysis gives the result of the right hand side of the linear equation. This is
the y column in Table 3.4. Table 3.4 shows the calculated Weibull curve data for the
corresponding Kaplan-Meier survival curve data for PCR 60.
Weibull probability of survival to time, S(t) is found by using equation (3.13). Figure 3.5
shows the generated Weibull curve for the data and calculation shown in this example.
From Figure 3.5 it is observed that Weibull distribution function closely approximates the
Kaplan-Meier Survival Curve.
37
Table 3.4 Kaplan - Meier Survival Curve and Weibull Curve Data for PCR 60
Kaplan - Meier Survival Curve Data
Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Pavement
Lane Miles
reached PCR
60
Pavement
Lane Miles
at risk of
failure
Pt
S(t)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.44
0.81
1.40
1.41
2.33
6.05
11.34
12.25
17.05
17.34
15.86
14.96
16.23
17.97
9.61
3.03
3.97
2.04
0.32
0.81
0.58
0.58
0.00
0.00
199.02
199.02
199.02
199.02
199.02
198.58
197.77
196.37
194.96
192.63
186.58
175.24
162.99
145.94
128.60
112.74
97.78
81.55
63.58
53.97
50.94
46.97
44.93
44.61
43.80
43.22
42.64
42.64
1
1
1
1
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.97
0.94
0.93
0.90
0.88
0.88
0.87
0.83
0.78
0.85
0.94
0.92
0.96
0.99
0.98
0.99
0.99
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.94
0.88
0.82
0.73
0.65
0.57
0.49
0.41
0.32
0.27
0.26
0.24
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.21
38
Weibull Curve Data
ln(Age)
0.00
0.69
1.10
1.39
1.61
1.79
1.95
2.08
2.20
2.30
2.40
2.48
2.56
2.64
2.71
2.77
2.83
2.89
2.94
3.00
3.04
3.09
3.14
3.18
3.22
3.26
3.30
S(t)
11.94
-9.00
-7.28
-6.06
-5.12
-4.35
-3.69
-3.13
-2.63
-2.18
-1.78
-1.41
-1.07
-0.76
-0.46
-0.19
0.07
0.31
0.54
0.76
0.96
1.16
1.35
1.53
1.70
1.87
2.03
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.96
0.93
0.89
0.84
0.78
0.71
0.63
0.53
0.44
0.34
0.26
0.18
0.12
0.07
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.90
Kaplan-Meier Survival Curve

Weibull Curve
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Pavement Age
Figure 3.5 Weibull Survival Curve, Pavement Age Vs Survival Probability.
3.4.4 Derived Performance Curve
Derived performance curves were drawn between pavement age and PCR for different
survival probabilities for different PCR values of 95, 90, 85, 80, 75, 70, 65, and 60 by
using the Weibull approximation of Kaplan-Meier survival curves which was described
in sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.3.
39
3.4.5 Remaining Service Life
Remaining service life (RSL) is another important parameter for network level pavement
management. Generally, a RSL distribution of a road network is constructed to analyze
the impact of M&R actions on the future condition, to optimize and prioritize the M&R
actions, to determine life-cycle cost, and to obtain the feedback on current M&R
strategies. A uniform RSL distribution is an indication of an ideal M&R policy. RSL is
defined as the amount of time in years from a specified time (usually the latest survey
year) to the year when the pavement reaches a threshold or requires the next treatment.
Since the pavements will be at different ages at the latest condition survey year, the RSL
changes at each age.
According to Winfrey (1967) and Reilly (1998), the RSL is
determined as the ratio of area under the complete survival curve to the right of an age to
survival probability at that age. For example, the remaining service life of a pavement
that is currently x years old can be calculated as:
RSL x =
Area under survival curve to the right of x years

.
Survival probablity at x years
Eq (3.14)
3.4.5.1 Example
By using the Weibull survival curve data from Example 3.3.3.1 and using the Remaining
Service Life equation as given in equation 3.14 the remaining service life curve is
established.
By using the equation 3.14, Remaining Service Life for a pavement network to reach
PCR 60 at the age of 6 years can be established as explained below.
40
Area under survival curve to the right of 6 years

(shaded area in Figure 3.6)
Survival probablity at 6 years
RSL 6 =
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Pavement Age
Figure 3.6 Example Figure to find Remaining Service Life at 6 years.
Area under Weibull Survival Curve to the right of 6 years is 10.22 units and 0.99 is the
corresponding survival probability.
From equation (3.14) remaining service life for
pavement network to reach PCR 60 at the age of 6 years is
41
10.22
i.e. 10.35 years.
0.99
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
In this chapter, the remaining service lives (RSL) of the City of Toledo major streets were
determined by the derived performance curves as described in chapter 3.
4.1 Introduction
Remaining service life is an important parameter in making decisions regarding
pavement rehabilitation. As discussed in chapter 3, the Kaplan-Meir method with the
Weibull approximation can be used to determine the pavements remaining service life
by using survival curves. In this chapter, by using the data described in chapter 3,
remaining service life is estimated for an entire pavement network by taking PCR 60 as
the terminal condition and individual pavement RSL is estimated by using derived
performance curves. PCR curves were also derived from Weibull approximation of
Kaplan-Meier survival curves for individual PCR values between pavement age and RSL
to better understand the relationship between PCR, pavement age, and RSL.
42
4.2 Survival Curve

In the current study, survival curves were developed for different PCR thresholds based
on the Kaplan-Meier method using available historical pavement rehabilitation data, and
PCR data described in chapter 3. Survival curves give the percentage of pavement lane
miles that last a certain number of years before a terminal event.
Using the method explained in section 3.4 for each individual PCR threshold, pavement
lane miles were separated based on their age and the details are given in Table 4.1 and the
frequency plot between pavement age and number of miles is given in Figure 4.1.
43
Table 4.1 Pavement Lane Miles reached to each PCR Threshold at different ages
Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PCR
95
2.60
17.82
22.29
52.03
55.03
50.17
54.41
44.20
65.33
60.58
65.89
55.22
51.97
44.28
33.54
31.96
26.10
21.00
13.56
6.24
5.13
2.40
1.25
1.17
0.58
0.58
PCR
90
0.00
1.40
5.88
20.86
38.18
40.14
47.74
39.80
59.93
59.45
65.07
55.22
51.97
44.28
33.54
31.96
26.10
21.00
13.56
6.24
5.13
2.40
1.25
1.17
0.58
0.58
Pavement Lane Miles Reached

PCR
PCR
PCR
PCR
85
80
75
70
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
13.29
5.04
1.71
0.00
19.76 10.95
4.56
1.85
27.50
8.53
4.91
2.58
37.38 19.85
9.13
3.94
36.34 24.99 14.82
7.87
54.10 47.74 35.83 23.10
57.50 51.00 37.13 28.52
61.16 54.67 47.64 34.33
54.59 52.49 45.99 36.68
51.76 49.86 46.15 38.18
44.07 43.20 41.67 37.96
33.32 33.07 31.68 30.17
31.96 31.78 29.57 27.77
26.10 26.10 25.05 24.58
21.00 21.00 20.13 20.13
13.56 13.56 12.69 12.69
6.24
6.24
6.24
6.24
5.13
5.13
5.13
5.13
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.58
PCR
65
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.06
0.81
3.67
2.46
11.86
14.20
17.27
24.16
28.62
26.50
26.47
23.53
23.28
20.07
12.62
6.17
5.13
2.40
1.25
1.17
0.58
0.58
PCR
60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.44
0.81
1.40
1.41
2.33
6.05
11.34
12.25
17.05
17.34
15.86
14.96
16.23
17.97
9.61
3.03
3.97
2.04
0.32
0.81
0.58
0.58
4.3 Calculation of Survival Probability

This section describes the calculation of survival probability for different PCR thresholds
by using the method described in chapter 3.
44
4.3.1 Kaplan Meier method

In this study, the Kaplan-Meier method is used to calculate survival probability. In order
to calculate the survival probability according to Kaplan-Meier method, by using the data
shown in Table 4.1, conditional probability needs to be calculated.
Conditional
probability at any age is the percentage of pavement lane miles that has not reached a
corresponding PCR threshold in a particular year.
Before calculating conditional
probability it is necessary to calculate the number of lane miles of pavement length that
has survived by not reaching a particular PCR threshold. Table 4.2 shows the number of
pavement miles that were not reached to each PCR threshold at any respective age.
The Probability of survival to time S(t) is the product of present year conditional
probability and the previous year probability of survival to time.
45
Table 4.2 Pavement Lane Miles that were not reached to each PCR Threshold at
any respective ages
Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PCR
95
199.02
196.42
178.60
156.31
104.28
49.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
PCR
90
199.02
199.02
197.62
191.74
170.88
132.70
92.56
44.82
5.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Pavement Lane Miles Not Reached

PCR
PCR
PCR
PCR
85
80
75
70
199.02 199.02 199.02 199.02
199.02 199.02 199.02 199.02
198.48 199.02 199.02 199.02
195.47 199.02 199.02 199.02
182.18 193.98 197.31 199.02
162.42 183.03 192.75 197.17
134.92 174.50 187.84 194.59
97.54 154.65 178.71 190.65
61.20 129.66 163.89 182.78
7.10
81.92 128.06 159.68
0.00
30.92 90.93 131.16
0.00
0.00
43.29 96.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
60.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
21.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
PCR
65
199.02
199.02
199.02
199.02
199.02
197.96
197.15
193.48
191.02
179.16
164.96
147.69
123.53
94.91
68.41
41.94
18.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
PCR
60
199.02
199.02
199.02
199.02
199.02
198.58
197.77
196.37
194.96
192.63
186.58
175.24
162.99
145.94
128.60
112.74
97.78
81.55
63.58
53.97
50.94
46.97
44.93
44.61
43.80
43.22
The conditional probability pt and probability of survival to time S (t), calculated by

using equations 3.3 and 3.4 and are given in Table 4.3.
46
Table 4.3 Kaplan Meier Survival Curve Data, Calculation of pt and S (t)
Age
PCR 95
Pt S(t)
PCR 90
Pt S(t)
PCR 85
Pt S(t)
PCR 80
Pt S(t)
PCR 75
Pt S(t)
PCR 70
Pt S(t)
PCR 65
Pt S(t)
PCR 60
Pt S(t)
0.99
0.99
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
0.90
0.99
0.99
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.88
0.79
0.97
0.96
0.98
0.98
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.67
0.52
0.89
0.86
0.93
0.92
0.97
0.97
0.99
0.99
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.47
0.25
0.78
0.67
0.89
0.82
0.94
0.92
0.98
0.97
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.70
0.47
0.83
0.68
0.95
0.88
0.97
0.94
0.99
0.98
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.99
0.00
0.00
0.48
0.23
0.72
0.49
0.89
0.78
0.95
0.90
0.98
0.96
0.98
0.97
0.99
0.99
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.03
0.63
0.31
0.84
0.65
0.92
0.82
0.96
0.92
0.99
0.96
0.99
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.04
0.63
0.41
0.78
0.64
0.87
0.80
0.94
0.90
0.99
0.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.38
0.16
0.71
0.46
0.82
0.66
0.92
0.83
0.97
0.94
10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.48
0.22
0.74
0.49
0.90
0.74
0.94
0.88
11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.62
0.30
0.84
0.62
0.93
0.82
12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.37
0.11
0.77
0.48
0.90
0.73
13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.72
0.34
0.88
0.65
14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.61
0.21
0.88
0.57
15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.44
0.09
0.87
0.49
16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.83
0.41
17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.78
0.32
18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.85
0.27
19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.94
0.26
20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.92
0.24
21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.96
0.23
22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.99
0.22
23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.98
0.22
24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.99
0.22
25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.99
0.21
The graph of S (t ) versus the t gives the Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Figure 4.1 shows
the Kaplan Meier survival curves generated for each PCR threshold by using PCR data
and is obtained by plotting the values given in Table 4.3.
One can observe that survival curve for PCR 60 is incomplete because of the incomplete
data. According to Reilly (1998), average service life is the service life of a group of
47
pavements which is calculated as the area under the complete survival curve. In this case,
since the survival curve for PCR 60 is incomplete, the area under this survival curve is
infinity, which means the average service life of a particular pavement to reach PCR 60 is
infinity.
1.00
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
0.90
Survival Probability
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0
10
15
20
25
30
Pavement Age
Figure 4.1 Kaplan Meier Survival Curve

According to Reilly (1998), to get unbiased estimates from a Kaplan - Meier survival
curve, the tail of the survival curve should be extrapolated to reach zero survival
probability. The Kaplan-Meier survival curve can be fitted with a curve to extrapolate it
to zero survival probability. In the current study, the Weibull distribution function is
used to complete the curve.
48
4.3.2 Weibull approximation of Kaplan-Meier method

Table 4.4 shows the Kaplan Meier survival curve data for pavement lane miles reaching
PCR 60.
Table 4.4 Kaplan Meier Survival Curve Data for PCR 60
Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Pavement
Lane Miles
reached PCR
60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.44
0.81
1.40
1.41
2.33
6.05
11.34
12.25
17.05
17.34
15.86
14.96
16.23
17.97
9.61
3.03
3.97
2.04
0.32
0.81
0.58
0.58
0.00
0.00
Pavement
Lane Miles
at risk of
failure
199.02
199.02
199.02
199.02
199.02
198.58
197.77
196.37
194.96
192.63
186.58
175.24
162.99
145.94
128.60
112.74
97.78
81.55
63.58
53.97
50.94
46.97
44.93
44.61
43.80
43.22
42.64
42.64
Pt
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.97
0.94
0.93
0.90
0.88
0.88
0.87
0.83
0.78
0.85
0.94
0.92
0.96
0.99
0.98
0.99
0.99
1.00
1.00
49
S(t) ln(Age) ln(ln(1/S(t)))

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.94
0.88
0.82
0.73
0.65
0.57
0.49
0.41
0.32
0.27
0.26
0.24
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.00
0.69
1.10
1.39
1.61
1.79
1.95
2.08
2.20
2.30
2.40
2.48
2.56
2.64
2.71
2.77
2.83
2.89
2.94
3.00
3.04
3.09
3.14
3.18
3.22
3.26
3.30
-6.11
-5.07
-4.31
-3.88
-3.42
-2.74
-2.06
-1.61
-1.17
-0.83
-0.57
-0.34
-0.11
0.13
0.27
0.31
0.37
0.40
0.40
0.41
0.42
0.43
0.43
0.43
Table 4.3 also shows the values of ln (Age) and ln (ln (1/S(t))), which is useful in
calculating the scale parameters A and B in the Weibull survival function given in
equation 3.9.
Table 4.5 shows the linear regression solution for equation (3.11) and equation (3.13) by
using the method described in section 3.3.3.
Table 4.5 Linear Regression Solution in Microsoft Excel

SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Standard
Error
Observations
Regression
Residual
Total
0.996
0.99
0.99
0.19
17
Significance F
df
SS
MS
1
15
16
67.95
0.57
68.51
67.95
0.04
1803.2
Standard
Error
t Stat
P-value
Lower
95%
Upper
95%
Lower
95.0%
Upper
95.0%
0.24
0.10
-49.2
42.5
5.3E-18
4.8E-17
-12.5
4.03
-11.42
4.45
-12.46
4.03
-11.42
4.45
Coefficients
Intercept
X Variable 1
ANOVA
-11.94
4.24
4.80E-17
By using the intercept and X variable from Table 4.4 and applying them in equations 3.11,
3.12 and 3.13, the scale parameters A, B and modified S (t) are obtained. Table 4.6
shows the calculated S (t) by using the parameters stated in Table 4.5.
50
The parameters A and B for equation 3.4 are estimated by using the regression function
in Microsoft Excel. The Weibull survival function is:
S(t) = e
Age
16.73
51
4.24
Eq (4.1)
Table 4.6 Calculated S (t) values by using Weibull distribution

Kaplan - Meier Survival Curve Data
Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Pavement
Lane Miles
reached PCR
60
Pavement
Lane Miles
at risk of
failure
Pt
S(t)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.44
0.81
1.40
1.41
2.33
6.05
11.34
12.25
17.05
17.34
15.86
14.96
16.23
17.97
9.61
3.03
3.97
2.04
0.32
0.81
0.58
0.58
0.00
0.00
199.02
199.02
199.02
199.02
199.02
198.58
197.77
196.37
194.96
192.63
186.58
175.24
162.99
145.94
128.60
112.74
97.78
81.55
63.58
53.97
50.94
46.97
44.93
44.61
43.80
43.22
42.64
42.64
1
1
1
1
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.97
0.94
0.93
0.90
0.88
0.88
0.87
0.83
0.78
0.85
0.94
0.92
0.96
0.99
0.98
0.99
0.99
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.94
0.88
0.82
0.73
0.65
0.57
0.49
0.41
0.32
0.27
0.26
0.24
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.21
52
Weibull Curve Data

ln(Age)
0.00
0.69
1.10
1.39
1.61
1.79
1.95
2.08
2.20
2.30
2.40
2.48
2.56
2.64
2.71
2.77
2.83
2.89
2.94
3.00
3.04
3.09
3.14
3.18
3.22
3.26
3.30
S(t)
-11.9
-9.00
-7.28
-6.06
-5.12
-4.35
-3.69
-3.13
-2.63
-2.18
-1.78
-1.41
-1.07
-0.76
-0.46
-0.19
0.07
0.31
0.54
0.76
0.96
1.16
1.35
1.53
1.70
1.87
2.03
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.96
0.93
0.89
0.84
0.78
0.71
0.63
0.53
0.44
0.34
0.26
0.18
0.12
0.07
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
Figure 4.2 shows the aforementioned Weibull approximation to the Kaplan Meier
survival curves for different PCR thresholds such as 95, 90, 85, 80, 75, 70, 65, and 60. It
can be seen that the Weibull fit shows more reasonable estimates to the survival
probabilities as it closely follows the Kaplan Meier survival curve.
1
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
95-St
90-St
85-St
80-St
75-St
70-St
65-St
60-St
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
Pavement Age, Years
Figure 4.2 Weibull approximation of Kaplan Meier Survival Curve

The R-square ( R 2 ) is a statistical term expressing how good the regression equation is at
predicting the dependent variable. If R 2 is 1.0 then given the value of one term, you can
perfectly predict the value of another term. If R 2 is 0.0, then knowing one term doesn't
not help you know the other term at all.
53
R 2 is most often used in linear regression. Given a set of data points, linear regression
gives a formula for the line most closely matching those points. It also gives an R 2 value
to say how well the resulting line matches the original data points.
The R 2 obtained for the model is 0.99, which indicates high accuracy of the fitted
Weibull model. The average service life for each PCR threshold is obtained by looking
at the corresponding age to the 50 percent survival probability. For example, from figure
4.3, average service life of a pavement lane mile to reach PCR 60 is 15.2 years. The next
section describes how the aforementioned survival curves can be used to determine the
remaining service life.
1
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
Pavement Age, Years
Figure 4.3 Average service Life of a pavement lane mile to reach PCR 60
54
40
4.4 Remaining Service Life

Remaining service life (RSL) is another important parameter for network level pavement
management. According to equation 3.14, it is obvious that RSL for a pavement that is
zero years old i.e. newly rehabilitated is exactly the average service life. A probable
service life curve (Reilly 1998) is then derived from the survival curve and the RSL. A
probable service life curve shows the probable service life for pavements at any age.
Figure 4.4 shows the Weibull survival function and probable life curve and RSL
illustration for a pavement that is 15 years old.
55
1
0.9
PCR 60 Survival Curve
Probable Service Life
0.8
0.7
RSL, 4.4 Years
0.6
Age, 15 Years
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
Pavement Age, Years
Figure 4.4 Probable Life Curve
Table 4.7 shows the average RSL and probable life values derived from the survival
curve. It can be seen from Table 4.7 that the average service life of a newly rehabilitated
pavement is 15.2 years.
56
Table 4.7 Remaining Service Life
Age, Average
Years
RSL
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
15.21
15.21
14.21
13.22
12.24
11.28
10.35
9.46
8.62
7.83
7.09
6.42
5.82
5.27
4.79
4.37
4.00
3.68
3.41
3.19
3.00
2.84
2.69
2.53
2.28
1.69
0.00
Probable
Service
Life
15.21
16.21
16.21
16.22
16.24
16.28
16.35
16.46
16.62
16.83
17.09
17.42
17.82
18.27
18.79
19.37
20.00
20.68
21.41
22.19
23.00
23.84
24.69
25.53
26.28
26.69
26.00
From Table 4.7 it can be seen that the probable service life is increasing with the age as
average remaining service life is decreasing. Also, one can observe from Figure 4.4 that
as the age of the pavement increases remaining service life decreases. Remaining Service
57
Life decreases with the decrease in Survival Probability. Therefore, Remaining Service
Life is directly proportional to the survival probability and indirectly proportional to the
age of the pavement.
To explain the remaining service life calculation more clearly, it is necessary to establish
performance curves between PCR and pavement age. Table 4.8 shows the pavement age
calculated between survival probability and PCR. Values in Table 4.8 were calculated
using the Weibull approximation of Kaplan-Meier survival curves shown in Figure 4.2.
Table 4.8 Pavement Age at different PCR values

PCR
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Pavement Age (Percentile)

0
39
25
19
15
15
14
11
9
7
0
10
31
20.4
15.3
12.7
11.9
10.5
8
6.6
4.9
0
20
28.3
18.7
14.2
11.8
10.9
9.5
7.3
5.9
4.3
0
30
26.3
17.5
13.4
11.1
10.2
8.7
6.7
5.5
3.8
0
40
50
60
70
80
90
24.5 22.8 21.1 19.3 17.1 14.2
16.4 15.3 14.3 13.1 11.7 9.8
12.6 11.9 11.1 10.3 9.3
8
10.5 10
9.4 8.7 7.9 6.8
9.5 8.9 8.2 7.5 6.7 5.6
8.1 7.5 6.9 6.2 5.5 4.4
6.2 5.7 5.2 4.7 4.1 3.2
5
4.6 4.3 3.8 3.3 2.6
3.4 3.1 2.7 2.3 1.9 1.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
By using the data in Table 4.8, derived performance curves were drawn between PCR
values and pavement age for different percentile values of survival probability. Figure
4.5 shows the drawn derived performance curves using the data in Table 4.8.
58
100
95
Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)
5th Percentile
90
85
50th Percentile
80
75
70
95th
Percentile
65
60
0
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Pavement Age
Figure 4.5 Derived Performance Curve for different percentile of pavement sections
Figure 4.5 can be used for calculating the remaining service life using the PCR values.
For example, if a particular pavements PCR value is known, then its age can be
calculated by selecting the appropriate derived performance curve from Figure 4.5.
4.4.1 Median Remaining Service Life

Median remaining service life is the remaining service life calculated by following the
50th percentile performance curve or the 0.5 survival probability.
59
100
95
5th Percentile
90
50th Percentile
85
80
RSL = 15.3 - 10 = 5.3 years
75
95th
Percentile
70
65
60
0
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Pavement Age
Figure 4.6 Calculating Median Remaining Service Life
In this section, calculation of median remaining service life is described for the Airport
Hwy section between Fearing Blvd and Detroit Ave. In calculating the median service
life, the terminal PCR is taken as 60 and from the Figure 4.6, one can see that the median
percentile (50th Percentile) age at PCR 60 is 15.3 years.
In Figure 4.6, Remaining Service Life calculation of the above pavement is explained.
The Airport Hwy section between Fearing Blvd and Detroit Ave was constructed before
1993 and its latest PCR was 70 which was collected in the year 2009. Since the latest
construction year was before the latest PCR data collected year, the consider 2009 PCR
value is considered to calculate its remaining service life in the year 2009. Using the 50th
60
percentile derived performance curve, the median RSL in the year 2009 for the Airport
Hwy section is found based on its 2009 PCR value as 5.3 years.
In calculating the remaining service life, 50th percentile curve is taken and hence the
calculated remaining service life is called as median remaining service life.
Considering 50th percentile deterioration is acceptable if the construction year of that

particular pavement is unknown.
But, it makes sense to consider the percentile
deterioration curve that represents the construction year and current condition rating of a
particular pavement section.
The next section describes the calculation of remaining service life by following the
deterioration curve which represents both construction year and condition rating.
4.4.2 Remaining Service Life by PCR and Age

In Figure 4.7, remaining service life calculation of the Hill Ave section from Bonaparte
Drive to Clarion Ave is explained.
The Hill Ave section from Bonaparte Drive to Clarion Ave was constructed in 2004 and
its latest PCR was 80 which was collected in the year 2009. Hence the age of this
pavement section in the PCR data collection year is 5 years. Since the latest construction
year was before the latest PCR data collected year, 2009 PCR value may be used to
calculate its remaining service life in the year 2009.
61
100
95
5th Percentile
90
85
85th Percentile
80
RSL = 10.9 - 5 = 5.9 years
75
95th
Percentile
70
65
60
0
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Pavement Age
Figure 4.7 Calculating Remaining Service Life by PCR and Age
Based on the pavement age and its PCR value, the 85th percentile performance curve may
be considered. By using 85th percentile performance curve, RSL in the year 2009 for the
Hill Ave section based on its 2009 PCR value as 5.9 years.
4.5 PCR Curves

Based on derived performance curves shown in Figure 4.5 and the method described in
section 4.4.2, we can observe that RSL varies for any particular PCR value. For example,
for a pavement section which has PCR of 65, its RSL varies from minimum value of 0.8
years to a maximum value of 6 years. This was explained in figure 4.8.
62
100
95
0th Percentile
90
99th Percentile
85
RSLMin = 5.6 - 4.8 = 0.8 years
80
75
RSLMax = 25 - 19 = 6 years
70
65
60
0
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Pavement Age
Figure 4.8 RSL variation for PCR 65
PCR curves were developed between pavement age and remaining service life for
different PCR values and are shown in Figure 4.9.
63
19
95 - PCR
18
17
90 - PCR
16
15
85 - PCR
14
Remaining Service Life
13
12
80 - PCR
11
75 - PCR
10
9
70 - PCR
8
7
65 - PCR
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
11
Pavement Age
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Figure 4.9 Pavement Condition Rating Curves

From Figure 4.9, it is observed that for each PCR value there is a wide range of
remaining service life and pavement age values. Also, remaining service life increases
with the pavement age for any individual PCR. For example, considering a PCR 65, its
remaining service life varies from 0.8 years to 6 years. It can be explained, if a pavement
attains 65 PCR in its 5th year that means its deterioration rate is faster and hence it has
only 1 more year left to achieve PCR 60. On the other hand, if a pavement attains 65
PCR in its 19th year that means its deterioration rate is slower than the pavement which
reaches to 65 PCR in 5 years hence it has the remaining service life of 6 years.
64
4.6 Results
Figure 4.10 shows the 2009 PCR and corresponding RSL miles calculated based on the
method described in section 4.4.2 for the City of Toledo. For sections which do not have
rehabilitation data and have only PCR data RSL is calculated by following the 50th
percentile curve by using the method described in section 4.4.1.
100%
95%
90%
85%
80%
96.4 Miles
85.2 Miles
91 - 100
> 10
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
58.4 Miles
98.8 Miles
81 - 90
64.7 Miles
6 - 10
6 - Miles
10
355.6
71 - 80
52.9 Miles
40%
35%
30%
25%
77.6 Miles
3-5
61 - 70
37.8 Miles
1-2
20%
15%
10%
5%
69.7 Miles
69.7 Miles
38 - 60
2009 PCR
2009 RSL
0%
Figure 4.10 2009 PCR and RSL Miles

Figure 4.11 shows the visual presentation of 2009 PCR data for all Toledo City streets.
65
Figure 4.11 Visual representation of 2009 PCR data for Toledo City
Figure 4.12 shows the visual representation of 2009 RSL data for all City of Toledo
streets. Converting Figure 4.11 to Figure 4.12 all the streets with a PCR 60 or below
have RSL 0. In this study, the terminal condition was taken as PCR 60. That means
when a pavement section reaches PCR 60 it has failed and attains RSL 0.
66
Figure 4.12 Visual representation of 2009 RSL data for Toledo City
4.7 Conclusions
In this study, the Kaplan Meier method is used to predict remaining service life for
pavement sections and the terminal PCR which describes when the pavement is out of the
system was assumed as 60.
In the Kaplan-Meier method, survival curves were developed by using the pavement
rehabilitation and condition data. Average service life, defined as the time taken by a
newly rehabilitated pavement section to reach a terminal condition i.e. PCR 60, is then
calculated as the area under the survival curve. Also, it was observed that there are
67
pavement sections that are still surviving at the end of the analysis period i.e. 2009.
Hence, the survival curve does not reach zero percent survival, and resulting in an
incomplete survival curve (Reilly 1998). Completing the survival curve is important
because the area under incomplete survival curve is infinite that means the average
service life of a pavement is infinite. In order to fix the incomplete survival curve and to
force the survival curve to reach zero percent survival probability, survival curves were
fitted with the Weibull function to complete the survival curve before computing the
average service life.
Then, the remaining service life was computed by using the methodology proposed by
Reilly (1998). It was observed that the remaining service life calculated is for a group of
pavements and not for individual pavements. Hence, the requirement is to determine the
remaining service lives of individual pavements based on the latest PCR values and age.
Therefore, derived performance curves were developed between the PCR and the
pavement age to predict the remaining service life of individual PCR values.
In this dataset there are two types of pavement sections. Some pavement sections have
only the condition rating and some pavement sections have both construction date and
pavement condition rating.
Remaining service life for pavement sections which have only condition rating can be
calculated by following 50th percentile performance curve. But, for pavement sections
which have both construction date and pavement condition rating it is necessary to follow
68
the performance curve which suits their construction date and latest pavement condition
rating.
Based on derived performance curves, PCR curves were developed which describes the
variation of remaining service life variation according to the pavement age. From the
PCR curves, it is observed that remaining service life increases with the pavement age for
any particular PCR. This is because if a pavement achieves a particular PCR at a lower
age than another pavement section has lower remaining service life.
The average service life and the remaining service life obtained by using the KaplanMeier method can be used to determine the impact of M&R actions on future condition,
to optimize and prioritize the M&R actions, to determine life-cycle cost, and to obtain the
feedback on current M&R strategies.
69
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter gives the summary, conclusions and future recommendations based on the
results obtained from chapter 4.
5.1 Summary
Remaining Service Life prediction plays an important role in pavement management.
Survival curves are often used to obtain estimation of remaining service life of pavements.
Pavement service life is affected by various factors, such as construction quality and
materials, traffic loadings, climates, pavement thickness, and pavement condition prior to
the previous repair. The most commonly used method to determine the service life of
pavement is Kaplan-Meier method. The data used in this study is detailed pavement
condition and rehabilitation data.
Detailed pavement condition data in the form of
Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) was obtained from Ohio Department of

Transportation (ODOT) and rehabilitation data was also obtained from both ODOT and
City of Toledo.
70
Using the available data, survival curve was drawn to find the service life for a group of
pavements by assuming a terminal PCR of 60. Since the available rehabilitation data is
incomplete, the developed survival curve is incomplete. The Weibull approximation was
used to complete the survival curve and then individual survival curves were drawn for
different PCR values to determine the remaining service life for groups of pavement
sections with different PCR values.
From the survival curves drawn for different PCR values, derived performance curves
and PCR curves were drawn to determine the remaining service life for individual
pavements and to better explain the remaining service life variation with pavement age.
From the PCR curves it was observed that remaining service life increases with increase
in pavement age.
5.2 Conclusions
As a result of this study, the following conclusions were made:
1.
Using incomplete data results in infinite average service life for the Kaplan
Meier survival curve, which means survival probability never reaches a zero value.
2.
To complete the survival curve, the Weibull approximation was used to complete
the incomplete survival curve and the constants of Weibull survival curve were
obtained by using regression analysis.
71
3.
R-square value of Weibull survival curve is 0.99 which means the Weibull
survival curve is a very good fit for the stub survival curve.
4.
Since the assumed terminal PCR is 60 hence the average service life to reach PCR
60 is the average service life of pavement sections in the selected data set.
According to Reilly (1998) the average service life to reach PCR 60 is the area
under the survival curve for PCR 60. In the current dataset, average service life
for PCR 60 is 15.2 years.
5.
Derived performance curves were drawn using the Weibull approximation of the
Kaplan-Meier survival curves.
These curves were useful in predicting the
remaining service life of pavement sections with respect to their PCR values.
6.
To better understand the remaining service life variation, PCR curves were drawn.
From PCR curves it is clearly understood that remaining service life increases
with the pavement age. This is because, if a pavement takes less time to reach a
particular PCR, it has less remaining service life than a pavement that takes more
time to reach the same PCR value.
5.3 Recommendation
In this study, it was found that the Weibull method can be used to approximate the
Kaplan Meier method in predicting the remaining service life of pavements. It is found
that the pavements in City of Toledo on average deteriorate to a PCR value of 60 in about
72
15.2 years. Also, it is recommended to use PCR curves shown in figure 4.8 to predict the
RSL for any pavement section in the City of Toledo.
5.4 Future Recommendations

As an extension to this study, it was recommended to study the cost effectiveness of the
time and type of treatment to increase the average pavement condition and to lessen the
percentage of pavements with 0 remaining service life in for City of Toledo.
73
APPENDIX A
ASPHALT SURFACE RATING FORM FOR LOCAL STREETS
74
APPENDIX B
PAVEMENT CONDITION RATING FORM FOR LOCAL STREETS
75
References :
AASHTO. AASHTO Guidelines for Pavement Management Systems. AASHTO,
Washington, D.C., 1990.
AASHTO. AASHTO Provisional Standards. Interim Edition. AASHTO, Washington,
D.C., 2001.
Abdallah, I., D. Yuan, and S. Nazarian. Integrating Seismic and Deflection Methods to
Estimate Pavement Moduli. In Transportation Research Record 1755, 2001, pp.43-50.
Amekudzi, A. A. and N. O. Attoh-Okine. Institutional Issues in Implementation of
Pavement Management Systems by Local Agencies. Transportation Research
Record, Vol. 1524, 1996, pp. 10-15.
Baladi, G. Analysis of Pavement Distress Data, Pavement Distress Indices, and
Remaining Service Life. An Advanced Course in Pavement Management Systems,
FHWA, Boston, MA, 1991.
Carson, J. M., and Rose, J. L. (1980). An ultrasonic nondestructive test procedure for the
early detection of fatigue damage and the prediction of remaining life. Materials
Evaluation, 27-34, American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Evanston, Illinois.
Chan, P. K., Oppermann, M. C., and Wu, S. S. (1997). North Carolina's experience in
development of pavement performance prediction and modeling. Transportation
Research Record, Vol. 1592, 80-88. Transportation Research Board, Washington,
D.C.
Chiu, L., R.H., and McCullough, B.F (1998). Pavement Deterioration, Rate of Dynamic
Force, and Ride Quality, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
76
Transportation Research Board, No. 1643, TRB, National Research Council,

Washington, D.C., pp. 14-19.
Dicdican, R.Y., Y.Y. Haimes, and J.H. Lambert. Risk-Based Asset Management
Methodology for Highway Infrastructure Systems. Final Contract Report No. VTRC
04-CR11, Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, Virginia, 2004.
Dossey, T., Easley, S. and McCullough, B. F. (1996). Methodology for estimating
remaining life of continuously reinforced concrete pavements. Transportation
Research Record, Vol. 1525, 83-90, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
D.C.
Ferregut, C., Abdallah, I., Melchor, O., and Nazarian, S. (1999). Artificial neural
network-based methodologies for rational assessment of remaining life of existing
pavements. Development of a comprehensive, rational method for determining of
remaining life of an existing pavement. Report No. TX-99 1711-1, Texas
Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas.
FHWA. Selected Highway Statistics and Charts. FHWA, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Washington, D.C., 1993.
Finn, F. N., C. Saraf, R. Kulkarni, K. Nair, W. Smith, and A. Abdullah. Development of
Pavement
Structural
Subsystems.
Final
Report,
NCHRP
Project
1-10B.
Washington,D.C., Feb. 1977.

Gadefa, D. B. (2008). Estimation of Remaining Service Life of Flexible Pavements
From Surface Deflections, Ph.D. Dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan,
Kansas.
77
Geoffroy, D. N. (1996). Cost Effective Preventive Pavement Maintenance, NCHRP

Synthesis of Highway Practice 223, TRB, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C.
George, K. P., Rajagopal, A.S., and Lim, L. K. (1989). Models for Predicting Pavement
Deterioration, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, No. 1215, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp.
1-7.
Haas, R. A Guide to Pavement Management. Good Roads Association, Canada, 1977.
Hudson, W. R., F. N. Finn, B. F. McCullough, K. Nair, and B. A. Vallerga. Systems
Approach to Pavement Design, Systems Formulation, Performance Definition, and
Materials Characterization. Final Report, NCHRP Project 1-10, TRB, National
Research Council Washington, D.C., March 1968.
Hugo, F., W. J. Scholtz, M. Sinclair, and P. C. Curtayne. Management of Pavement
Rehabilitation. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., North-Holland, 1989.
Joseph E. P., and Gerhard J. K., (1996). Crack Sealing in Flexible Pavements: A LifeCycle Cost Analysis Transportation Research Record, No. 1529, pp 86-94
Kaplan, E.L. and Meier, P. (1958).
Nonparametric estimation from incomplete
observations. Journal of the American Statistical Association. Vol. 53, 457-481.

Kuo, W.H., E.C. Novak and G. Baladi. Development of Optimal Long-Term Network
Strategies Using Remaining Service Life, Pavement Management Implementation. In
ASTM STP 1121, Philadelphia, PA, 1992.
Laird, N.M., and Ware, J.H. (2004). Applied longitudinal analysis. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc. New Jersey.
78
Lee, H., and W. R. Hudson. Reorganizing the PMS Concept. In Proceedings of PMSNorth American Conference on Managing Highways, Ontario, Canada, 1985, pp. 59
80.
Lytton, R. L. (1987). Concepts of pavement performance prediction and modeling.
Proceedings, 2nd North American Conference on Managing Pavements. Vol. 2.
Ministry of Communication and Transportation, Ontario, Canada.
McNerney, M. T., McCullough, B. F., Stokoe, K. H., Lee, N., Bay, J. and Wilde, J. (1997)
Prediction of remaining life on airport pavements, Conference Proceedings:
Aircraft/Pavement Technology in the Midst of Change, 77-93, Seattle, Washington.
Mitchell, M. F. and J. H. Maree. Pavement Management as Part of Strategic Road
Management. In Proceeding of 3rd International Conference on Managing Pavements,
Vol. 2, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 64-73.
Morse, A. A., and Miller, D.W. (2004). Pavement Design and Rehabilitation Manual.
The Ohio Department of Transportation, Columbus.
Panigraphi, D. Developing Analytical Tools for a Local Agency Pavement Management
System. M.S. Thesis, University of Missiouri, Columbia, MO, 2004.
Prozzi J. A., and Madanat S. M., (2000). Using Duration Models to Analyze
Experimental Pavement Failure Data Transportation Research Record, No. 1699, pp
87-94.
Reilly, R. F., and Schweihs, R.P. (1998). Valuing Intangible Assets. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
79
Romanoschi, S. A., and Metcalf, J. B. (2000). Evaluation of Probability Distribution

Function for the Life of Pavement Structures. Transportation Research Record, Vol.
1730, 91-98. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Sadek, A. W., Freeman, T. E., and Demetsky, M. J. (1996). Deterioration prediction
modeling of Virginia's interstate highway system. Transportation Research Record,
Vol. 1524, 118-129. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Shahin, M. Y., Nunez, M. M., Broten, M. R., Carpenter, S. H., and Sameh, A. (1987).
New techniques for modeling pavement deterioration. Transportation Research
Record, Vol. 1123, 40-46. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Shahin, M.Y. Pavement Management for Airports, Roads, and Parking Lots. Second
Edition, Springer Science, New York, 2005.
Vepa T.S., George K. P., and Shekharan A. R., (1996). Prediction of Pavement
Remaining Life Transportation Research Record, No. 1524, pp 137-144.
Winfrey, R. and Farrell, F.B. (1941). Life characteristics of surfaces constructed on
primary rural highways. Public Roads, Vol. 22(1), 1-24.
Winfrey, R. (revised by Cowles, H.,A.)
(1967).
Statistical Analyses of Industrial
Property Retirements. Ames, IA: Engineering Research Institute, Iowa State

University
Witczak, M. W. and Bell, K. R. (1978). Remaining life analysis of flexible pavements.
Association of Asphalt Paving Technologies Proceeding, Vol. 47, 229-269,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
80
Zhou, H., Hicks, R. G., and Huddleston, I. J. (1989). Evaluation of the 1986 AASHTO
overlay design method. Transportation Research Record, Vol. 1215, 299-316.
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
81

Prediction of Remaining Service Life of Pavements PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prediction of Remaining Service Life of Pavements PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The University of Toledo

The University of Toledo Digital Repository

Prediction of remaining service life of pavements

Follow this and additional works at: http://utdr.utoledo.edu/theses-dissertations

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the

Dr. Eddie Yein Juin Chou, Committee Chair

Dr. Azadeh Parvin, Committee Member

Dr. George J. Murnen, Committee Member

Dr. Patricia Komuniecki, Dean

The University of Toledo

Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

The University of Toledo

Pavement management is a process that helps to maintain a pavement network in a safe

This thesis is dedicated to my mother, Tejovathi Perisetti, to my father, Late

I would like to take this opportunity to express my deepest sense of gratitude to my

2.3.7 Condition Prior to Treatment ............................................................................14

3.4.3 Extrapolation of incomplete survival curve using Weibull distribution function34

3.4.4 Derived Performance Curve .............................................................................39

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ................................................................................42

4.5 PCR Curves ............................................................................................................62

Figure 2.1 Calculating RSL for an Individual Condition Index..................................20

Figure 4.10 2009 PCR and RSL Miles ........................................................................65

To address the problem of managing M&R activities, the Intermodal Surface

The measurement and prediction of pavement condition is a critical element of any

1.2 Statement of Problem:

timing of the rehabilitation project. The failure of a pavement can be categorized as

Alternatively, the structural failure-based approach makes use of fatigue

1.3 Objectives of the study:

2.1 Pavement Management System

2.2 Prediction Levels in Pavement Management:

Network-level management focuses on determination and allocation of funds to maintain

management involves assessing causes of pavement deterioration, determining potential

2.3 Pavement Condition

Roughness is defined as the variation in surface elevation that induces vibrations in

2.3.1 Factors That Could Affect Pavement Condition

2.3.2 Treatment Type

Composite pavement typically consists of asphalt overlays on an

2.3.4 Traffic Loading

2.3.5 Pavement Thickness

2.3.7 Condition Prior to Treatment

These two quantities may be considered during condition prediction

2.4 Prediction Methods

Deterministic regression is perhaps the most popular prediction model in pavement

might be developed - one for each family of pavements.

2.5 Remaining Service Life (RSL):

Figure 2.1 Calculating RSL for an Individual Condition Index

DATA AND METHODOLOGY

In its purest sense, Monte Carlo simulation employs a

mathematical model that interjects randomness between limits to determine a

Figure 3.1 Toledo City and Major Streets

Figure 3.2 Pavement miles with rehabilitation data

Table 3.1 Number of PCR collected Pavement Miles at different ages

Number of Pavement Miles

Figure 3.2 PCR collected Frequency Plot of Pavement Age Vs Number of

3.3 Calculation of Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

The mathematical expression for pavement

Where, n = number of observable distresses, and

Table 3.1 shows the number of pavement sections

reconstructed in each year.

Figure 3.3 Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) Scale

3.4.1. Survival Curve

An individual survival curve plots the probability that an