Volume 6, Issue 3, September 2020, Page: 95-101
A Comparison of Network Level Pavement Condition Assessment in Road Asset Management
Junzhe Wang, Engineering Technology and Materials Research Center, China Academy of Transportation Sciences, Beijing, China
Ming Chen, Engineering Technology and Materials Research Center, China Academy of Transportation Sciences, Beijing, China
Wei Gao, Beijing Shoufa Highway Maintenance Engineering Co., Ltd, Beijing, China
Zhenhua Guo, Beijing Shoufa Highway Maintenance Engineering Co., Ltd, Beijing, China
Yangjie Liu, Beijing Shoufa Highway Maintenance Engineering Co., Ltd, Beijing, China
Received: Sep. 22, 2020;       Published: Sep. 23, 2020
DOI: 10.11648/j.ijtet.20200603.14      View  52      Downloads  39
Abstract
Transportation agencies face the challenging task to maintain, preserve and improve infrastructure condition while with limited funding. Pavements are one of the major assets of roadway systems and pavement management system (PMS) are broadly accepted and implemented by agencies and organizations to maintain pavement structures at a high level of service. PMS is a set of tools to support the decision-making process for determining the demand of maintenance, prioritizing projects and optimizing funding allocation. Pavement condition monitoring may be evaluated or assessed by means of various indicators. Performance indicators are an essential part in a PMS, individual performance indicators (IPIs) and combined performance indicators (CPIs) are proposed to monitor and report pavement conditions. IPIs characterize the general condition of the various types of pavement distress which can be related to road performance. The CPI for each road type can be developed or calculated from IPIs. Focus on network level analysis of road pavements, the objective of this paper is to review and compare the development and application of performance indicators for assessment of pavement condition of different country’s guidelines. The utilization and integration mechanism of individual indicator are described and compared among selected country guidelines. The prospective indicators and techniques for future application are further discussed. It can be conclude from this study that the majority studied guidelines have placed great emphasis on surface distress and roughness for pavement condition assessment; international roughness index (IRI) is the most commonly used parameter for evaluation of road roughness due to its objectivity while the determination of surface distress is more subjective. The integration methods from IPIs into CPIs can be summarized as “deduct system method”, “sum system method”, “weighted sum method” and “equation method”.
Keywords
Roads & Highways, Maintenance & Inspection, Pavement Condition, Management
To cite this article
Junzhe Wang, Ming Chen, Wei Gao, Zhenhua Guo, Yangjie Liu, A Comparison of Network Level Pavement Condition Assessment in Road Asset Management, International Journal of Transportation Engineering and Technology. Vol. 6, No. 3, 2020, pp. 95-101. doi: 10.11648/j.ijtet.20200603.14
Reference
[1]
R. Haas, W. Hudson and J. Zaniewski. Modern pavement management systems. Krieger Publishing Company, Florida, USA, 1994.
[2]
C. Chin, T. Martin, P. Robinson et al. Network performance indicators – next generation. Austroads Ltd., Sydney, Australia, 2011, Report No. AP–T176/11.
[3]
R. Robinson, U. Danielson and M. S. Snaith. Road maintenance management: Concepts and systems. Macmillan Press Limited, Basingstoke, UK, 1998.
[4]
R. Haas, G. Felio, Z. Lounis et al. Measurable performance indicators for roads: Canadian and international practice. In Annual Conference of Transportation Association of Canada. (Transportation Association of Canada (ed)). Transportation Association of Canada, Vancouver B. C., Canada, 2009.
[5]
G. Loprencipe and A. Pantuso. A specified procedure for distress identification and assessment for urban road surfaces based on PCI. Coatings 7 (5), 2017, pp. 65.
[6]
M. S. Snaith and D. M. Orr. Condition-based capital valuation of a road network. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Municipal Engineer 159 (2), 2006, pp. 91-95.
[7]
G. Proctor and S. Varma. Incorporating asset valuation into transportation asset management financial plans. Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC, USA, 2016, Report FHWA-HIF-16-009.
[8]
A. Pantuso, G. Loprencipe, G. Bonin et al. Analysis of pavement condition survey data for effective implementation of a network level pavement management program for kazakhstan. Sustainability 11 (3), 2019, pp. 901-916.
[9]
L. Yao, Q. Dong, F. Ni et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evaluation of pavement treatments using life-cycle cost analysis. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Part B: Pavements 145 (2), 2019, pp. 04019006.
[10]
New York State DoT. Network level condition assessment procedures. New York State Department of Transportation. New York, USA, 2010.
[11]
Ministry of Transport PRC. JTG H20-2007: Highway performance assessment standards. China Communications Press. Beijing, China, 2007.
[12]
British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. Pavement surface condition rating manual. Opus International Consultants (Canada) Limited. British Columbia, Canada, 2016.
[13]
Highways Agency. HD 29/08: DMRB volume 7 pavement design and maintenance: Section 3 pavement maintenance assessment part 2 data for pavement assessment The Stationery Office. Norwich, UK, 2008.
[14]
ASTM. D6433-09: Standard practice for roads and parking lots pavement condition index surveys. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2009.
[15]
Austroads. Guide to pavement technology part 5: Pavement evaluation and treatment design Austroads Incorporated. Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2011.
[16]
Austroads. Guide to asset management – technical information part 12: Pavements. Austroads Incorporated. Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2018.
[17]
Ministry of Transport PRC. Interim measures for inspection and evaluation of highway maintenance quality. China Communication Press. Beijing, China, 1979.
[18]
Ministry of Transport PRC. Standard for inspection and evaluation of highway maintenance quality. China Communication Press. Beijing, China, 1994.
[19]
N. Li, K. Tom and K. Apple. Key pavement performance indicators and prediction models applied in a Canadian pms. In 8th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets. (National Research Council (U.S.), Transportation Research Board, Universidad CatóLica De Chile and Ingenieria Dictus (eds)). Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Santiago, Chile, 2011.
[20]
W. Phang, M. Shahin and S. Kohn. Pavement condition rating and rehabilitation needs. Transportation Research Record 700, 1979, pp. 11-19.
[21]
J. Hajek and W. Phang. Moving from subjective to objective evaluation of pavement performance. Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Ontario, Canada, 1986.
[22]
N. Li, T. Kazmierowski, S. Tighe et al. Integrating dynamic performance prediction models into pavement management maintenance and rehabilitation programs. In 5th International Conference on Managing Pavements. (University of Washington and Washington (State) Department of Transportation (eds)). Engineering Professional Programs, University of Washington, Seattle Washington, United States, 2001.
[23]
J. Hajek, T. Kazmierowsk and G. Musgrove. A switch to the international roughness index. Transportation Research Board 1643, 1998, pp. 116-124.
[24]
Highway Research Board. The AASHO road test. National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, Washington DC, USA, 1961, Report 1061.
[25]
W. N. Carey Jr and P. E. Irick. The pavement serviceability-performance concept. Highway Research Board, Washington DC, USA, 1961, Report 250.
[26]
United States Code. 23 U.S.C. 150: National goals and performance management measures, 2016.
[27]
AASHTO. R43: Standard practice for quantifying roughness of pavements. AASHTO. Washington DC, USA, 2007.
[28]
AASHTO. R48: Standard practice for determining maximum rut depth in asphalt pavements. AASHTO. Washington DC, USA, 2008.
[29]
AASHTO. R36: Standard practice for evaluating faulting of concrete pavements. AASHTO. Washington DC, USA, 2017.
[30]
R. A. Cartwright and A. Pickett. TTS defects index preliminary analysis. Chris Britton Consultancy, Surrey, UK, 2004, Report Final version 2.
[31]
S. Mcrobbie. Scanner condition indicator parameter thresholds and weightings. TRL Limited, Wokingham, UK, 2006, Report PPR 238.
[32]
S. Mcrobbie, L. Walter, C. Read et al. Developing scanner road condition indicator parameter thresholds and weightings. TRL Limited, Wokingham, UK, 2007, Report PPR199.
[33]
Department for Transport. Scanner surveys for local roads user guide and specification. TRL Limited, London, UK, 2011.
[34]
Ministry of Transport PRC. JTG 5210-2018: Highway performance assessment standards. China Communications Press. Beijing, China, 2018.
[35]
A. Simpson, G. Rada, B. Visintine et al. Development of next generation pavement performance measures. Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC, USA, 2013 Report FHWA-HIF-13-042.
[36]
P. Marcelino, M. D. Lurdes Antunes and E. Fortunato. Comprehensive performance indicators for road pavement condition assessment. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 14 (11), 2018, pp. 1433-1445.
[37]
Y. Dong, Y. Shao, X. Li et al. Forecasting pavement performance with a feature fusion lstm-bpnn model. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. (Jiang M and Qiao M (eds)). Association for Computing Machinery, Beijing, China, 2019, pp. 1953–1962.
Browse journals by subject