You are on page 1of 15

4th International Conference on Managing Pavements (1998)

DETERMINING THE VISUAL CONDITION INDEX OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS


USING ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORKS.

A van der Gryp*, SJ Bredenhann**, MG Henderson* and GT Rohde***

*Provincial Administration of the Western Cape (PAWC)


Department of Transport and Public Works
Chief Directorate: Transport
PO Box 2603
CAPE TOWN 8000
**Entech Consultants (Pty) Ltd
PO Box 413
STELLENBOSCH 7599
***Africon Engineering International
Transportation Division
PO Box 905
PRETORIA 0001

Abstract
The general Visual Condition Index is an integral component of a Pavement
Management System. The current method in use in South Africa is based on an
aggregated visual condition. The method of analysis combines the visual pavement
condition data from individual distress types into an index representing the general
pavement condition, the Visual Condition Index. The calculation of the Visual
Condition Index requires the selection of a weighting factor for each type of distress.
The aim of this paper is to evaluate the capabilities of Artificial Neural Networks in
determining the general Visual Condition Index of Flexible Pavements using distress
data collected through visual assessments of the pavement surface.

1. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the capabilities of Artificial Neural Networks
(ANN) in determining the Visual Condition Index (VCI) of flexible pavements in a
pavement management system (PMS), using distress data collected through visual
assessments of the pavement surface and compare it with the current method of
calculating the VCI. The data collection method is according to the national standard
for the identification and collection of visual distress data for flexible paved roads,
TMH 9: “Pavement Management System: Standard Visual Assessment Manual”,
1992. By using some of the pavement management visual data from the existing
database as the training set and comparing it with the assessor’s “Overall Pavement
Condition” (OPC) categories (Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor and Very Poor), the VCI
was determined, using an ANN. Instead of relying on aggregated condition indices,
this paper examines the feasibility of using an ANN to determine the VCI of flexible
pavements.

TRB Committee AFD10 on Pavement Management Systems is providing the information contained herein for use by individual practitioners
in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research
community. The information in this paper was taken directly from the submission of the author(s).
4th International Conference on Managing Pavements (1998)

Current practice

The current method of analysis is based on an aggregated formula as described in


TRH 22: “Pavement Management Systems”, 1994. The formula for calculating the
VCI is given in equations 1 to 3.


VCIp  C N 
F
 1001 *  n
  n1  ..................................................................... (Eq.1)

Where:
VCIp = Preliminary VCI
Fn = Dn*(En)*W n............................................................................................................ (Eq.2)
n = Visual assessment item number as currently in use by PAWC
Dn = Degree rating of defect n
Range: 0 to 4 for functional defects
: 0 to 5 for other defects
En = Extent rating of defect n
Range: Default 3 for functional defects
: 0 to 5 for other defects
Wn = Weight per item number for defect n (Table 2)
C = 1/  N Fn max 

 
 n1 
Fn(max) = Fn with degree and extent ratings set at maximum.

Equation 3 is applied to transform the VCIp to a standard percentage scale.


VCI = (a * VCIp +b * VCIp2)2 .................................................... (Eq.3)
where:
a = 0,02509
b = 0,0007
VCImax = 100
VCImin = 0
Factors “a” and “b” have been derived from processing condition data collected
through an expert panel throughout South Africa and to “fit” the preliminary index
(VCIp) to an acceptable 0 to 100 scale which is compatible with the condition
categories shown in Table 1. This is to facilitate comparison of PMS conditions
between provinces of South Africa.

Table 1: Condition Categories


Description of category Condition index range
Very good 85  VCI  100
Good 70  VCI < 85
Fair 50  VCI < 70
Poor 30  VCI < 50
Very poor 0  VCI < 30

TRB Committee AFD10 on Pavement Management Systems is providing the information contained herein for use by individual practitioners
in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research
community. The information in this paper was taken directly from the submission of the author(s).
4th International Conference on Managing Pavements (1998)

To try and improve the correlation of the VCI with the OPC based on the engineering
judgement of an expert panel, modifications to the formula is applied with an extent
weight factor (Yn) and a small degree factor (Sn). These factors are shown in Table
2. To accommodate these factors Equation 2 is adjusted as follows:
Fn = Dn*(En ^ yn) *W n * Sn ..................................................... (Eq.4)

The product of Dn*(En ^ yn) is limited to a maximum of 12 for functional defects, i.e.,
item no.’s 15, 16, 17 & 18 and to maximum of 25 for the other defects. The small
degree factor (Sn) is set to 1 for functional defects degree rating > 1, or for other
defects degree rating > 2, or else the Sn is according to Table 2. The values for the
constants “a” and “b” in the transformation formula 3 is set to 0,04 and 0,0006
respectively.

The purpose of the extent weight factor (Yn) is to provide weighting to the extent
rating for distress types. The purpose of the small degree factor (Sn) is to reduce the
contribution of certain defects to the total index value when their degree rating is
small.

Table 2: Weight set for VCI formula


Item Assessment Items Weight Small Extent
No. degree Weight
(Wn) (Sn) (Yn)
1 Surfacing failure/patching 6,5 1,0 1,2
2 Surfacing cracks 5,0 1,0 1,1
3 Aggregate loss 4,0 1,0 1,1
4 Binder condition 3,0 0,5 0,9
5 Bleeding/flushing 3,0 0,5 1,0
6N Block/stabilisation cracks (narrow spacing) 8,0 1,0 1,2
6M Block/stabilisation cracks (medium spacing) 6,0 1,0 1,0
6L Block/stabilisation cracks (large spacing) 5,0 1,0 1,0
7 Longitudinal/slip cracks 4,5 1,0 1,0
8 Transverse cracks 4,5 1,0 1,0
9 Crocodile cracks 10,0 1,0 1,3
10 Pumping 10,0 1,0 1,3
11 Rutting 8,0 0,5 1,0
12 Undulation/settlement 4,0 0,5 1,0
13 Patching 8,0 0,8 1,1
14 Failures/Potholes 15,0 1,0 1,3
15 Riding quality 5,5 0,8 1,0
16 Skid resistance 3,0 0,5 1,0
17 Surface drainage 3,0 0,5 1,0
18 Unpaved shoulders 3,5 1,0 1,0
19 Edge breaking 3,5 0,8 1,0
All the above factors, i.e., W n, Sn & Yn are subjective factors based on a panel
appreciation of the importance of one distress type compared with the other. None is
based on proven scientific facts. This is one of the reasons why the factors Sn and
Yn were introduced to try and further improve the correlation. It will be endeavoured
in this paper to show that the subjectivity can to a large extent be avoided by the use
of an ANN. With an ANN the network solution is trained from survey data and is not
affected by any subjectivity beyond that inherent in the data.

TRB Committee AFD10 on Pavement Management Systems is providing the information contained herein for use by individual practitioners
in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research
community. The information in this paper was taken directly from the submission of the author(s).
4th International Conference on Managing Pavements (1998)

2. INTRODUCTION TO NEURAL NETWORKS

This section provides an overview of neural network principles. Neural networks can
be used for a wide variety of learning tasks. They should be considered a
mathematical tool, similar to regression analysis. The key feature of neural networks
over regression analysis is that neural networks use non-linear mathematics and
therefore can be used to model highly complex and non-linear functions.

A learning task consists of a set of data from which training examples are formed.
Each training example usually comprises input data and the desired network
response. When applying a neural network to learn from this set of data, the training
of the network requires a number of decisions related to the use of the available
training methods. Selecting the appropriate method consists of configuring a neural
network and selecting algorithms (learning rules) for training the network.

A network accepts an input vector


and generates a response in the form
of an output vector. A network
consists of a set of processing
elements connected by weights. A
subset of these processing elements
is fed to the input vector as input, and
the processed results are passed on
to act either as network outputs, or as
inputs to other processing elements
as is depicted in Figure 1.

Choosing a network consists of


selecting a network architecture, and
then selecting the kind of processing
elements comprising the network.
The network architecture determines
how the processing elements are
connected. The network output
response is adapted by modifying the Figure 1: Neural Network Components
weights on the connections.

The learning algorithms use sets of input and output vectors to train a network.
Using an error function that measures the distance between the desired output vector
and the current actual output vector, a learning algorithm adjusts the weights in the
network to reduce the average error over the set of training examples. Done
correctly, the trained network will reliably estimate the required response for new
inputs.
The activities in the training of an ANN are summarised as follows:
 Determination of the task to be performed by the network in the application.
 Analysis of the data available for the application.
 Choice of the inputs to the neural network.
 Proper pre-processing of the data for input to the network.
 Choice of the desired outputs of the neural network, including post-processing of
the outputs for use in the application.

TRB Committee AFD10 on Pavement Management Systems is providing the information contained herein for use by individual practitioners
in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research
community. The information in this paper was taken directly from the submission of the author(s).
4th International Conference on Managing Pavements (1998)

 Choice of the neural network learning method and algorithm (learning rule) to be
used for training.
 Setting of the parameters associated with the network chosen, including number of
the processing elements in each layer, type of processing elements and learning
constants.
 Training the neural network on the training data.
 Verification of the trained network on the test data.
 Analysis of the results and possible re-training of the network or modifications of
parameters or pre-processing.
 Integration of the trained network into the application software.

3. DESIGN OF ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK

3.1 Selection of neural network software

Initially the available neural network software on the World Wide Web was reviewed.
The software package ThinksPro™ (Logical Design Consulting Inc., 1996) was
selected. It operates in the Windows environment, including Windows 95 (Microsoft
Corporation) and Windows NT (Microsoft Corporation). ThinksPro™ provides
everything needed to develop powerful neural network applications in one easy-to-
use program. It allows the professional user to build custom Windows based
software.

3.2 Selection of input and output parameters


An example of the pavement assessment form is given in appendix 1.
In an effort to determine the VCI with Neural Networks, the input parameters
(independent variables) as described in TMH 9 were selected. The assessors OPC
was selected as the dependent variable in the training set. The Overall Pavement
Condition (OPC) is an indication of the visual condition of the road at the time of the
assessment as seen by the assessor. These selections were made to be consistent
with the standard used in South Africa. Parameters are summarised in Table 3.

TRB Committee AFD10 on Pavement Management Systems is providing the information contained herein for use by individual practitioners
in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research
community. The information in this paper was taken directly from the submission of the author(s).
4th International Conference on Managing Pavements (1998)

Table 3: Summary of Parameters


Parameter Defect Levels Range
I1 Failure/Patching Degree 6 0-5
I2 Failure/Patching Extent 6 0-5
I3 Surface cracks Degree 6 0-5
I4 Surface cracks Extent 6 0-5
I5 Aggregate loss Degree 6 0-5
I6 Aggregate loss Extent 6 0-5
I7 Binder condition Degree 6 0-5
I8 Binder condition Extent 6 0-5
I9 Bleeding/Flushing Degree 6 0-5
I10 Bleeding/Flushing Extent 6 0-5
I11 Block/Stabilisation cracks Spacing 3 1-3
I12 Block/Stabilisation cracks Degree 6 0-5
I13 Block/Stabilisation cracks Extent 6 0-5
I14 Longitudinal/Slip cracks Degree 6 0-5
I15 Longitudinal/Slip cracks Extent 6 0-5
I16 Transverse cracks Degree 6 0-5
I17 Transverse cracks Extent 6 0-5
I18 Crocodile/Failure cracks Degree 6 0-5
I19 Crocodile/Failure cracks Extent 6 0-5
I20 Pumping Degree 6 0-5
I21 Pumping Extent 6 0-5
I22 Rutting Degree 6 0-5
I23 Rutting Extent 6 0-5
I24 Undulation/Settlement Degree 6 0-5
I25 Undulation/Settlement Extent 6 0-5
I26 Patching Degree 6 0-5
I27 Patching Extent 6 0-5
I28 Failures/Potholing Degree 6 0-5
I29 Failures/Potholing Extent 6 0-5
I30 Riding quality 9 0-4
I31 Skid resistance 9 0-4
I32 Surface drainage 3 0 - 4*
I33 Unpaved shoulders 3 0 - 4*
I34 Edge breaking Degree 6 0-5
I35 Edge breaking Extent 6 0-5
D1 Overall Pavement Condition 9 1-5
* only values 0, 2 & 4.
The normalisation factors are taken as the maximum of the range, i.e., 5 for a range
of 0 - 5.

TRB Committee AFD10 on Pavement Management Systems is providing the information contained herein for use by individual practitioners
in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research
community. The information in this paper was taken directly from the submission of the author(s).
4th International Conference on Managing Pavements (1998)

3.3 Data preparation

A total of approximately 13 500 visual assessments (data points) are available in the
PAWC PMS database (the total population). An effort was made to evaluate all
these data points in the ANN. However, the magnitude of the data led to long
computing times. A screening process had to be implemented to reduce the data
used in the ANN model. An inspection of the data revealed that approximately 50
data points are available in the low (very poor) OPC category, see Figure 2. It was

6000

5000
Number of obs.

4000

3000

2000

1000

Good
Poor

Fair
Very poor

Very good
Figure 2: Number of Data Points per OPC

decided to select data uniformly from all OPC categories on a random basis. The
1996 data was excluded and used as the testing set.
The first runs of the ANN revealed certain anomalies in the data. Close investigation
showed that data errors were present in the assessment of the OPC. These errors
were corrected before being included in the final model.
Table 4: Data points per OPC category before and after data verification
OPC Pre verification Post verification
Very poor 32 24
Very poor/Poor 50 50
Poor 50 47
Poor/Fair 50 51
Fair 50 44
Fair/Good 50 54
Good 50 54
Good/Very good 50 53
Very Good 50 55
One can see from this how useful a tool the ANN can be by identified individual data
anomalies during the verification process. The distribution of the data points after
verification is shown in Table 4.

TRB Committee AFD10 on Pavement Management Systems is providing the information contained herein for use by individual practitioners
in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research
community. The information in this paper was taken directly from the submission of the author(s).
4th International Conference on Managing Pavements (1998)

3.4 Selection of the most appropriate network architecture and training


parameters

In setting up the most appropriate network architecture and training parameters it


was decided to keep to the most commonly used features. The general procedure
for setting up a neural network is as follows:
 Select architecture.
 Select the network error type.
 Select the number of hidden layers.
 Select the number of processing elements for the hidden layers and the output
layer.
 For the output layer and each hidden layer, select a learning rule. This may vary
within a given network and different learning rules may be selected.
 Select an input pre-processing function for the input layer.
 Select the input function for the output layer and each hidden layer.
 Select a transfer function for each hidden layer and the output layer.
3.4.1 Architecture
The architecture type determines how the weights are interconnected in the network.
After testing different architecture it was decided to use the Multilayer Normal Feed
Forward architecture as this is most commonly used and is recommended for most
applications. A multilayer feed forward network consists of one or more layers of
processing elements. Each layer receives an input vector, which is either the
external input vector or the output vector of the prior layer.

3.4.2 Network error type


The network error type determines how the error is computed. Since the goal of
neural network training is to minimise the error, the network error type method affects
weight adjustments and specifically how outliers are handled. The Mean Square
Error (MSE) was used. This is the most commonly used type and is generally
recommended for most applications. The MSE is given by

MSE   D  Y  / M
ij ij
2
...................................................................... (Eq.5)

where:
Dij = the ith desired output for training example
j Yij = the ith actual network output for example j
M = the number of outputs times the number of examples

3.4.3 Number of hidden layers


The number of layers of processing elements (nodes) in between the output layer
and the inputs to the network was set to one. Two and three hidden layers were
tested but the MSE was not significantly improved.

3.4.4. Number of processing elements in the hidden layer and the output layer
The number of processing elements in the hidden layer was set to 12. The MSE was
not significantly improved by varying the number of processing elements between 8
to 20 processing elements in the improvement of the MSE. The output layer is one
as this is the estimate of the Overall Pavement Condition.

TRB Committee AFD10 on Pavement Management Systems is providing the information contained herein for use by individual practitioners
in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research
community. The information in this paper was taken directly from the submission of the author(s).
4th International Conference on Managing Pavements (1998)

3.4.5. Learning rule in the hidden layer and the output layer
It was decided to use the Jacob’s Enhanced Back Propagation (JEBP) learning rule
for both the hidden and the output layer. The software developers recommended the
use of this learning rule. The JEBP learning algorithm can be thought of in terms of
Back Propagation with added functionality. Back Propagation is probably one of the
most popular and commonly used algorithms. A detailed explanation of the JEBP
learning rule is available in ThinksPro™ User’s Guide. (Logical Designs Consulting,
Inc.)
3.4.6. Pre-processing function for the input layer
The input variables were normalised as explained in paragraph 3.2 and there was no
pre-processing.
3.4.7. Input function for the input layer and hidden layer
For both the output layer and the hidden layer the Dot Product Input Function was
used. The Dot Product function is a weighted sum of the inputs plus a bias value.
The Dot product function scales each input according to its relative influence in
increasing the net input to the processing element.
3.4.8. Transfer function for the hidden layer and output layer
The transfer function acts on the value returned by the input function. For the hidden
layer the Sigmoid Transfer Function was used. It is the most popular transfer
function among neural network users. The sigmoid acts as a "squasher,"
compressing the input function when it takes on large positive or large negative
values. Large positive values asymptotically approach 1, while large negative values
are squashed to 0. The sigmoid limits the output of the processing element to the
interval [0,1] and the function is given by Equation 6 and is shown in Figure 3.
tf   1/1  exp f  ............................................................................... (Eq.6)

Figure 3: Sigmoid Function

TRB Committee AFD10 on Pavement Management Systems is providing the information contained herein for use by individual practitioners
in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research
community. The information in this paper was taken directly from the submission of the author(s).
4th International Conference on Managing Pavements (1998)

The transfer function for the output layer was set to the Threshold Linear Transfer
Function, which returns f when it lies in the interval [0,1]. 0 is returned when f<0 and
1 is returned when f>1. See Equation 7 and Figure 4.

tf   f ................................................................................................... (Eq.7)

Figure 4: Threshold Linear Function

4. FINDINGS

After training the ANN and using the training set (432 data points) described in the
previous paragraphs, the 1996 visual data (1912 data points) was used for the
testing set and evaluated. Figure 5 shows the MSE for both the training and test set

Figure 5: Error Graph


over the number of iterations. The MSE after a 1 000 iterations for the training set is
0,067 and for the test set 0,141 over the range of [0,1]. In terms of the percentage
scale [0,100] it is 6,7% and 14,1% respectively.
Figure 6 is a graph that displays the performance of the training set in terms of the
desired output (dependent variable) versus the ANN’s actual output after a 1 000
iterations. The step-wise line is the desired output (D1) and the scattered line is the
actual output (O1) according to the ANN.

TRB Committee AFD10 on Pavement Management Systems is providing the information contained herein for use by individual practitioners
in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research
community. The information in this paper was taken directly from the submission of the author(s).
4th International Conference on Managing Pavements (1998)

Figure 6: Desired vs. Actual Output

4.1. Comparison of ANN with VCI in terms a standard scale

To compare the ANN output values, which are in the range [0,1], to the calculated
VCI as per Equation 3, the output value was multiplied by 100 to convert it to a
percentage scale [0,100], which is similar to the VCI scale.
4.2. Comparison of ANN with VCI
A graphical comparison of the data is shown in Figure 7, which is a scatter plot of the

Figure 7: Plot of VCI vs. ANN index


VCI versus the index as produced by the ANN. Graphically the comparison is
acceptable, and bearing in mind that the visual evaluation is a subjective assessment
of the road condition, there seems to be no significant difference in the two methods.
Comparing the data statistically by doing a paired t-test there is however a significant

TRB Committee AFD10 on Pavement Management Systems is providing the information contained herein for use by individual practitioners
in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research
community. The information in this paper was taken directly from the submission of the author(s).
4th International Conference on Managing Pavements (1998)

difference. The result is summarised


Table 6: Paired t-test
in Table 6. The t value is 10,966 which
is greater than the critical value t95 = Group Mean Std.dev SEM
2,431 for degrees of freedom of equal VCI 69,172 15,818 0,362
to 1911. ANN 67,109 18,932 0,433
Difference 2,063 8,202 0,188
When displaying the data in a
histogram the difference is more
Table 5: Summary of data
obvious. Figure 8 shows the
histograms. From the histograms it is Group Median 25 % 75 %
clear that the ANN index is a wider VCI 71,550 60,200 80,650
spread over the range [0,100] than the ANN 67,643 54,145 81,402
VCI index. The Wilcoxon Matched
Pairs test indicates there is a
difference in the values. See Table 5.

Figure 8: Histogram of ANN vs. VCI

TRB Committee AFD10 on Pavement Management Systems is providing the information contained herein for use by individual practitioners
in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research
community. The information in this paper was taken directly from the submission of the author(s).
4th International Conference on Managing Pavements (1998)

4.3. Categorising indexes


In practice, the index is used to categorise the road condition as given in Table 1.
This is done in terms of the kilometres it represents to indicate the amount of
kilometres per condition category. This is shown in Figure 9. It is clear that the Very

3000

2500

2000

ANN
Km

1500
VCI

1000

500

0
Very P oo r F a ir G ood V e ry
poor good
OPC

Figure 9: Kilometres per OPC


Poor and Poor categories have increased in terms of the ANN index at the expense
of the Good and Very Good condition. Table 7 shows the distributions of the
conditions in terms of kilometres, as displayed in Figure 9, and in terms of the
condition as a percentage.
Table 7: Distribution of Condition Categories
Condition Kilometres Percentage
Category ANN VCI ANN VCI
Very poor 147,52 131,99 2,13 1,91
Poor 968,28 633,76 14,01 9,17
Fair 2384,57 2218,89 34,51 32,11
Good 1924,48 2846,39 27,85 41,19
Very good 1485,37 1079,19 21,50 15,62

5. CONCLUSION

The application of an ANN for determining the VCI of surface roads has been proven
a feasible method. The subjectivity in determining the OPC is minimised by the use
of an ANN with the only remaining subjectivity lying with the original evaluation of the
assessor. No subjective functions and factors are built into the final answer in
contrast to the method currently used to calculate the VCI. It is therefore
recommended that either of the following is to be done to calibrate the ANN:

TRB Committee AFD10 on Pavement Management Systems is providing the information contained herein for use by individual practitioners
in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research
community. The information in this paper was taken directly from the submission of the author(s).
4th International Conference on Managing Pavements (1998)

 Obtain results from an expert panel by visiting and evaluating at least the 5 major
categories of the OPC. The problem with this method is that it is very costly and
to obtain enough samples with the various combinations within each category is
an almost impossible task.
 Use the existing ANN configuration and the existing complete database to
determine the VCI using an ANN. This is then updated annually with the addition
of new data, as they become available. In such a way more examples per
category can be identified. The disadvantage of this method is that the ANN
would become biased towards the Fair condition, as this is currently the condition
with the highest occurrence.
The latter method is recommended.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The permission of the Deputy Director-General, Department of Transport and Public


Works, to publish this paper is gratefully acknowledged. The assistance of my co-
authors in preparing the paper and the personnel in the PMS section in verifying the
visual data, is also acknowledged.

REFERENCES

Committee of State Road Authorities, 1992. TMH 9: Pavement Management


Systems: Standard Visual Assessment Manual. Department of Transport,
Pretoria.
Committee of State Road Authorities, 1994. TRH 22: Pavement Management
Systems. Department of Transport, Pretoria.
Logical Designs Consulting, Inc., 1996. ThinksPro™: Neural Networks for
Windows, User’s Guide. Rev A-March 21, 1996
.

TRB Committee AFD10 on Pavement Management Systems is providing the information contained herein for use by individual practitioners
in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research
community. The information in this paper was taken directly from the submission of the author(s).
4th International Conference on Managing Pavements (1998)

APPENDIX 1

P.A.W.C. Transport and Public Works


VISUAL EVALUATION

ROUTE/SECTION : ASSESSOR: .

SEGMENT: Km: from : to DATE:

DISTRICT:

CLIMATE: Very Wet Wet Moderate Dry TERRAIN: Mountains Rolling Flat

m: m: m: m:
ROAD WIDTH km: km: km: km:
DC:

SURFACING
TEXTURE VARYING FINE MEDIUM COARSE
CURRENT SURFACE VOIDS VARYING NONE FEW MANY
DEGREE EXTENT
Slight Severe Isolated Common
0 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
FAILURE/PATCHING
CRACKS
AGGREGATE LOSS
BINDER CONDITION
BLEEDING/FLUSHING
STRUCTURE DEGREE EXTENT
Small/Slight Large/Severe Isolated Common
0 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
BLOCK/STAB. CRACKS N M L
LONGITUDINAL/SLIP CRACKS
TRANSVERSE CRACKS
CROCODILE/FAILURE CRACKS
PUMPING
RUTTING
UNDULATION/SETTLEMENT
PATCHING
FAILURES/POTHOLING
OCCURRENCE STRUCTURES EDGES DEPRESSIONS GRADES CUTTINGS GENERAL

FUNCTIONAL
RIDING QUALITY VERY GOOD GOOD FAIR POOR VERY POOR

Problem UNDULATION SETTLEMENT CORRUGATION

SKID RESISTANCE VERY GOOD GOOD FAIR POOR VERY POOR

Problem BLEEDING POLISHED

SURFACE DRAINAGE ADEQUATE WARNING INADEQUATE

Problem RUTTING SHOULDERS UNDULATION FAILURE SIDE DRAINS

UNPAVED SHOULDERS SAFE WARNING UNSAFE

Problem ERODED RUTTED TOO HIGH NARROW INCLUDED OVERGROWN

0 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
EDGE BREAKING
SUMMARY
TYPE ACTION NEEDED NONE STRUCTURE SURFACE ROUTINE

C B A C B A C B A
OVERALL PAVEMENT CONDITION VERY GOOD GOOD FAIR POOR VERY POOR

TRB Committee AFD10 on Pavement Management Systems is providing the information contained herein for use by individual practitioners
in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research
community. The information in this paper was taken directly from the submission of the author(s).