Development of a pavement condition index for urban management systems

Development of a flexible pavement condition index for urban road network

“…The pavement condition indexes analyze condition of pavement layers and support decision making for segment prioritization and M&R interventions. Some indexes developed for interurban or rural or urban networks may be cited, such as Present Serviceability Index, Pavement Condition Index, Global Severity Index, Pavement Quality Index, Urban Pavement Condition Index and Overall Pavement Condition Index (Carey and Irick, 1960;Picado et al, 2004;ASTM D6433-18;Loprencipe and Pantuso, 2017;Fuentes et al, 2021;DNIT-PRO 006/2003a;Reza, Boriboonsomsin and Bazlamit, 2006;Osorio et al, 2014;Sadeghi, Najafabadi and Kaboli, 2017;Arevalo et al, 2017;Shah et al, 2013). Urban network index can be more complex, because in the cities there are some factors such as water and sanitation systems, bus stops and others that may favor emergence of pavement distresses.…”

“…Some indexes were developed to improve the evaluation of asphalt pavement condition in urban and interurban areas. In our research, some indexes were chosen quoting the Distress Manifestation Index Network Level (Chamorro et al, 2010), Pavement Condition Index (ASTM D6433-18), and Urban Pavement Condition Indexes (Osorio et al, 2014;Arevalo et al, 2017). The Distress Manifestation Index Network Level (DMINL) was developed and validated to be used in the road network of Ontario.…”

“…( : potholes (%). In Brazil, Arevalo et al (2017) developed an urban pavement condition index (UPCI) to the Federal District. The calculation of the UPCI is made by equation 5.…”

“…The most principal difference for distress indexes cited above is that PCI (ASTM D6433-18) takes account 20 distresses for ?lexible pavement, while DMINL (Chamorro et al, 2010) and UPCI (Osorio et al, 2014) take into account 5 distresses (fatigue, transverse and longitudinal cracks, rutting, deterioration of patching and potholes). Although UPCI (Arevalo et al, 2017) were carried out from 15 distresses, 96.57% of occurrences on pavements studied by them are represented by fatigue cracks, rutting, and deterioration of patching, potholes and raveling.…”

“…No doubt, PCI is very robust, complete distress index and well recognized worldwide for evaluation pavement condition on roads and parking lots. In spite that, some wear and tear could not be usual on urban roads, so pavement condition index that consider less quantity of distress, but with more frequency and signi?icance could simplify steps of pavement evaluation, decreasing time of data collection and costs, and minimizing solutions for maintenance and rehabilitation activities on them (Chamorro et al, 2010;Sahah et al 2013, Osorio et al, 2014Arevalo et al, 2017). In addition, the PCI demands more time to collect distress and achieve results, becoming more expensive, and dif?icult to implement that indicator to support pavement management systems in municipalities (Elhadidy et al, 2021).…”