Considering a New Sample Unit Definition for Pavement Condition Index

Document Type: Research Papers

Authors

1 uni. of zanjan

2 university of zanjan

Abstract

One of the main components of pavement management system (PMS) is pavement evaluation. Several indices have been defined for the evaluation of existing pavement. The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is a common index used for pavement evaluation. In order to calculate PCI, a significant volume of condition data -based on distress surveying- is required. The objective of this research is to reduce the volume of required data by introducing a new sample unit definition. For this reason, “wheel path sample units” were defined and used instead of the standard sample unit (according to ASTM D6433). The analysis of results showed that not only there is no significant difference between standard and wheel path PCIs, but also there is a good correlation between standard PCI and both wheel path PCI (PCIw) and outside wheel path PCI (PCIow), corresponding to R2 = 0.929 and R2 = 0.874, respectively. Also, PCIow saves a great amount of time and energy.

Keywords

Main Subjects


AASHTO Report. (1990). “AASHTO guidelines for pavement management system”, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

AASHTO Reports. (2001). “Standard practice for quantifying cracks in asphalt pavement surfaces”, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Arhin, S.A., Williams, L.N., Ribbiso, A. and Anderson, M.F. (2015). “Predicting pavement condition index using international roughness index in a dense urban area”, Journal of Civil Engineering Research, 5(1), 10-17.

ASTM D6433-07. (2007). “Standard practice for roads and parking lots pavement condition index surveys”, Copyright ASTM International, West Conshohocken, USA.

Babashamsi, P., Yusoff, N.I.M., Ceylan, H., Nor, N.G.M. and Salarzadeh Jenatabadi, H. (2016). “Evaluation of pavement life cycle cost analysis: Review and analysis”, International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, 9(4), 241-254.

Broten, M. and Sombre, R.D. (2001). “The airfield Pavement Condition Index (PCI) evaluation procedure: Advantages, common misapplications, and potential pitfalls”, 5th International Conference on Managing Pavements, Seattle, Washington.

Ceylan, H., Gopalakrishnan, K., Bayrak, M.B. and Guclu, A. (2012). “Noise-tolerant inverse analysis models for nondestructive evaluation of transportation infrastructure systems using neural networks”, Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation, 28(3), 233-251.

Dennis, E.P., Hong, Q., Wallace, R., Tansil, W. and Smith, M. (2014). “Pavement condition monitoring with connected vehicle”, Michigan Department of Transportation, Center for Automotive Research, https://www.cargroup.org/?module=Publications&event=View&pubID=104.

Hu, J., Vennapusa, P.K.R., White, D.J. and Beresnev, I. (2016). “Pavement thickness and stabilised foundation layer assessment using ground-coupled GPR”, Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation, 31(3), 267-287.

Hudson, W.R., Haas, R. and Pedigo, R.D. (1979). “NCHRP report 215: Pavement management system development”, Transportation Research Board.

Kropáč, O. and Múčka, P. (2005). “Be careful when using the International Roughness Index as an indicator of road unevenness”, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 287(4), 989-1003.

Luo, W., Wang, K.C.P. and Li, L. (2012). “Wheel path definition based on multi-factor traffic wander model”, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, United States.

Miller, J.S. and Bellinger W.Y. (2014). “Distress identification manual for the long-term pavement performance program”, U.S. Department of Transportation, Report No: FHWA-HRT-13-092.

Múčka, P. (2013). “Correlation among road unevenness indicators and vehicle vibration response”, Journal of Transportation Engineering, 138 (9), 1099-1112.

Papagiannakis, A., Gharaibeh, N., Weissmann, J. and Wimsatt, A. (2009). “Pavement scores synthesis”, Texas Transportation Institute, Report No: FHWA/TX-09/0-6386-1.

Pierce, L.M., McGovern, G. and Zimmerman, K.A. (2013). “Practical guide for quality management of pavement condition data collection”, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.

Prozzi, J.A. and Madanat, S.M. (2002). “A non-linear model for predicting pavement serviceability”, Seventh International Conference on Applications of Advanced Technologies in Transportation (AATT), Boston Marriot, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States.

Saraf, C.L. (1998). “Pavement condition rating system: Review of PCR methodology”, Ohio Department of Transportation, Report No: FHWA/OH-99/001.

Shah, R., McMann, O. and Borthwick, F. (2017). “Challenges and prospects of applying asset management principles to highway maintenance: A case study of the UK”, Transportation Research: Part A, 97, 231-243.

Shah, Y.U., Jain, S.S., Tiwari, D. and Jain, M.K. (2013). “Development of overall pavement condition index for urban road network”, 2nd Conference of Transportation Research Group of India (2nd CTRG), Agra, Utter Pradesh, India, 332-341. 

Suh, Y.C., Kwon, H.J., Park, K.S., Ohm, B.S. and Kim, B.I. (2017). “Correlation analysis between pavement condition indices in Korean roads”, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 22(4), 1-8.

Taherkhani, H. (2016a). “Investigating the effects of nanoclay and nylon fibers on the mechanical properties of asphalt concrete”, Civil Engineering Infrastructure Journal, 49(2), 235-249.

Taherkhani, H. (2016b). “Investigating the properties of asphalt concrete containing glass fibers and nanoclay”, Civil Engineering Infrastructure Journal, 49(1), 45-58.

Walker, D., Entine, L. and Kummer, S. (2013). “Pavement surface evaluation and rating study- (PASER)”, Transportation Information Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Wolters, A., Zimmerman, K., Schattler, K. and Rietgraf, A. (2011). “Implementing pavement management systems for local agencies”, Illinois Centre for Transportation. Research Report ICT-11-094-1.

Zimmerman, K.A. and Peshkin, D.G. (2004). “Issues in integrating pavement management and preventive maintenance”, Transportation Research Record, 1889(1), 13-20.