Javascript is required
1.
X. Chen, Q. Dong, H. Zhu, and B. Huang, “Development of distress condition index of asphalt pavements using LTPP data through structural equation modeling,” Transp. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol., vol. 68, pp. 58-69, 2016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
2.
J. M. Pinatt, M. L. Chicati, J. S. Ildefonso, and C. R. Filetti, “Evaluation of pavement condition index by different methods: Case study of maringá, Brazil,” Transp. Res. Interdiscipl. Perspect., vol. 4, no. 1, Article ID: 100100, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
3.
M. A. Mehdi, T. Cherradi, A. Bouyahyaoui, S. El Karkouri, and A. Qachar, “Evolution of a flexible pavement deterioration, analyzing the road inspections results,” Mater. Today: Proc., vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 1222-1228, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
4.
O. Elmansouri, A. Almhroog, and I. Badi, “Urban Transportation in Libya: An overview,” Transp. Res. Interdiscipl. Perspect., vol. 8, Article ID: 100161, 2020. [Google Scholar]
5.
J. Li, T. Liu, X. Wang, and J. Yu, “Automated asphalt pavement damage rate detection based on optimized Ga-CNN,” Automat. Constr., vol. 136, Article ID: 104180, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
6.
H. Majidifard, Y. Adu-Gyamfi, and W. G. Buttlar, “Deep Machine Learning Approach to develop a new asphalt pavement condition index,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 247, Article ID: 118513, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
7.
N. G. Ahmed, G. J. Awda, and U. E. Saleh, “Development of pavement condition index model for flexible pavement in Baghdad city,” J. Eng., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 2120-2135, 2008. [Google Scholar]
8.
A. H. Hu, Q. Bai, L. Chen, S. Y. Meng, Q. H. Li, and Z. M. Xu, “A review on empirical methods of pavement performance modeling,” Constr. Build Mater., vol. 342, Article ID: 127968, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
9.
A. A. Elhadidy, S. El-Badawy, and E. Elbeltagi, “A simplified pavement condition index regression model for pavement evaluation,” Int J. Pavement Eng., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1-10, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
10.
A. Kouyate, "Evaluation of a trigonometric grey model for estimating and predicting pavement condition," Doctoral Dissertation, South Carolina University, Columbia, 2021. [Google Scholar]
11.
A. Bezuglov and C. Gurcan, “Short-term freeway traffic parameter prediction: Application of grey system theory models,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 62, pp. 284-292, 2016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
12.
D. B. Zhang, X. Li, Y. Zhang, and H. Zhang, “Prediction method of asphalt pavement performance and corrosion based on grey system theory,” Int J. Corros., vol. 2019, Article ID: 2534794, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
13.
J. M. Yu, X. N. Zhang, and C. L. Xiong, “A methodology for evaluating micro-surfacing treatment on asphalt pavement based on grey system models and grey rational degree theory,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 150, pp. 214-226, 2017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
14.
J. C. Du and D. H. Shen, “Development of pavement permanent deformation prediction model by grey modelling method,” Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 109-121, 2005. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
15.
C. Gurcan, N. Begashaw, and N. Huynh, “Improved grey system models for predicting traffic parameters,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 177, Article ID: 114972, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
16.
X. Wang, J. Zhao, Q. Li, N. Fang, P. Wang, L. Ding, and S. Li, “A hybrid model for prediction in asphalt pavement performance based on support vector machine and grey relation analysis,” J. Adv. Transport., vol. 2020, Article ID: 7534970, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
17.
“Standart Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index Surveys,” ASTM D6433-11, 2020. [Google Scholar]
18.
M. Y. Shahin, Pavement Management for Airports, Roads, and Parking Lots, New York, NY, USA, Springer, 2005. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
19.
M. Yazdani, P. Zarate, E. K. Zavadskas, and Z. Turskis, “A Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems,” Manage. Decis., vol. 57, no. 3, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
20.
A. Alosta, O. Elmansuri, and I. Badi, “Resolving a location selection problem by means of an integrated AHP-RAFSI approach,” Rep. Mech Eng., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 135-142, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
21.
A. E. Torkayesh and V. Simic, “Stratified hybrid decision model with constrained attributes: Recycling facility location for urban healthcare plastic waste,” Sustain Cities Soc., vol. 77, Article ID: 103543, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
22.
M. Bakır and Ö. Atalık, “Application of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy MARCOS approach for the evaluation of e-service quality in the airline industry,” Decis. Making: Appl. Manage. Eng., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 127-152, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
23.
M. Eshtaiwi, I. Badi, A. Abdulshahed, and T. E. Erkan, “Determination of key performance indicators for measuring airport success: A case study in Libya,” J. Air Transport Manage., vol. 68, pp. 28-34, 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
24.
M. Baydas, O. E. Elma, and D. Pamučar, “Exploring the specific capacity of different multi criteria decision making approaches under uncertainty using data from financial markets,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 197, Article ID: 116755, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
25.
J. L. Deng, “Control problems of grey systems,” Syst. control lett., vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 288-294, 1982. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
26.
P. Marcelino, M. D. Antunes, E. Fortunato, and M. C. Gomes, “Development of a multi criteria decision analysis model for pavement maintenance at the network level: Application of the Macbeth approach,” Front. Built Environ., vol. 5, pp. 6-6, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
27.
A. C. Pescador Junior, C. A. Da Silva Junior, and H. B. Fontenele, “Comparação de Métodos de Avaliação da Condição de pavimentos FLEXÍVEIS Com O Auxílio de um SIG-T,” Rev. CIATEC-UPF, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 95-103, 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Search
Open Access
Research article

Pavement Condition Assessment Using Pavement Condition Index and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model

omar elmansouri1,
abdulaziz alossta1,
ibrahim badi2*
1
Faculty of Engineering, Misurata University, 2449 Misurata, Libya
2
Mechanical Engineering Department, Libyan Academy-Misurata, 2429 Misurata, Libya
Mechatronics and Intelligent Transportation Systems
|
Volume 1, Issue 1, 2022
|
Pages 57-68
Received: 07-21-2022,
Revised: 08-29-2022,
Accepted: 09-09-2022,
Available online: 11-04-2022
View Full Article|Download PDF

Abstract:

Road maintenance is essential to the growth of the transportation infrastructure and, thereby, has a big impact on a nation's overall economic stability and prosperity. It is impossible to simultaneously monitor and maintain the entire network. As a result, transportation authorities are eager to develop scientific foundations for assessing the importance of maintenance tasks within the network of roads. Hence, pavement assessment methods are needed to establish the priorities and achieving the most convenient level of service. In this study, a road stretch was assessed using the sixteen criteria in the Distress Identification Manual for pavement defects, using pavement condition index (PCI) and multi-criteria decision-making models (MCDM). The two methods were compared to determine the possibility of using MCDM. The study came to the conclusion that MCDM is reliable in assessing pavement performance because both methods indicated that the road pavement is deteriorating.

Keywords: Pavement condition index (PCI), Multi-criteria decision-making models (MCDM), Grey theory, Combined compromise solution (CoCoSo)

1. Introduction

Prioritizing road reconstruction and maintenance requires careful consideration of pavement performance [1]. Experts can determine the best maintenance planning and pick the optimal installation method through precise evaluation and accurate defects estimation [1]. An assortment of observed factors regarding the structure and surface quality of the pavement has an impact on how well it is maintained [2]. Roads deteriorate as a result of the interaction between weather, traffic volume, and traffic type. Establishing a trustworthy foundation for performance assessment is therefore crucial to examining how the aforementioned factors affect pavement structural behaviour [3].

Roads sustain damage and suffering throughout their service life [4]. Therefore, regular road surface maintenance, including inspection and repair, is essential to maintaining pavement quality, extending pavement life, and maintaining the usefulness of roadways. The most frequent surface flaws include surface imperfections, surface deformation, and cracking [5]. The initial survey is a crucial first step in creating an effective maintenance management system, where the information gathered is used to inform correct and economical decisions that support maintaining network sufficiency [6].

To document the type, severity, and number of distresses based on visual inspection, a thorough survey of defects is conducted. Later, using performance evaluation models, the data gathered is applied to assess the pavement condition. Various techniques have been developed throughout the years to more accurately assess the performance of road pavement. One of the most well-known models in the field is the pavement condition index (PCI). The evaluation result is a numerical indicator with a range of zero for damaged surfaces to one hundred for perfect conditions [7].

This paper investigates a heavy traffic road in the city of Misurata, Libya to evaluate its pavement condition. Two approaches were adopted, namely, pavement condition index (PCI), and Multi-criteria decision-making models (MCDM). PCI is based on information gathered by two qualified engineers regarding faults of certain road segments. MCDM, on the other hand, is based on distributed survey interviews on four experts with more than fifteen years of experience in the transportation industry.The purpose of the study is to investigate whether MCDM can be used to assess pavement performance. A comparison of the results between MCDMs and PCI was carried out to spot differences and assess the accuracy and reliability of the results.

2. Literature Review

For transportation agencies across the world, it is a critical task to keep a dependable Pavement Management System (PMS). A country's economic progress is significantly impacted by the expansion of its road network. Pavement surface continues to deteriorate over time unless suitable rehabilitation is provided due to traffic loading, daily and seasonal climate fluctuation, and other factors. Therefore, in order to preserve the pavement, periodic monitoring of the status of the pavement is required, and this monitoring must be followed by rapid treatment [8]. Several transportation bodies have created rules and policies to preserve the road network. The policies contain steps for evaluating the system's pavement condition, and choosing when to apply the optimal maintenance option.

The evaluation of pavement condition using pavement performance indices is a crucial part of any PMS. Numerous indices, including the pavement condition index (PCI), the international roughness index (IRI), the pavement serviceability rating (PSR), etc., have been widely adopted [9]. Pavement performance models are needed to assess the status quo and forecast the performance of the pavement sectors. It is necessary to collect information on the state of the pavement, identify the factors that contribute to pavement degradation, and then choose the mathematical model that best illustrates the relationship between the pavement conditions and the identified factors [10].

In the United States and Canada, the PCI method is a frequently used instrument for evaluating asphalt and concrete pavements. Detailed field survey data that reflect the pavement's present condition is employed to calculate PCI. In a typical field survey, the pavement surface distresses are fully described and measured using either eye inspection surveys or image-based surveys [10].

The accuracy of pavement performance prediction models is greatly affected by the availability of distress data. Grey models (GM) are found to be intuitive, flexible, able to handle sudden changes in parameters, and only need a small number of data points to update predictions [11]. Over the past few decades, many studies have been undertaken with GMs in the field of pavement management.

To forecast pavement conditions, Kouyate created a trigonometric GM and compared the results with a first-order GM and two S-shaped nonlinear models. The results revealed that the proposed trigonometric model performed better than the other two models [10].

With the aid of GM (1,1) models, Zhang et al. [12] calculated the rutting, skid resistance, and smoothness of the pavement. To gauge how well their model performed as compared to field-measured data, they employed residuals and grey absolute correlation as measures, and discovered that the GM (1,1) has a high level of accuracy.

Based on a weighted function of the four components PCI, riding quality index, rut depth, and skid resistance index, Yu et al. [13] created a new pavement quality index (PQI), and proved that GM (1,1) and grey relational analysis can be used in specific situations.

Using a multivariate GM, Du and Shen [14] developed a model that predicts rut depth (1,2). The model was successful in forecasting rut depth.

Regarding the prediction of traffic characteristics, Bezuglov et al. [11] and Gurcan et al. [15] looked at three grey models and contrasted them with nonlinear models. Lower prediction errors and better accuracy were achieved by grey models.

Wang et al. [16] combined grey relation analysis (GRA) and support vector machine regression (SVR) to predict asphalt pavement performance. GRA was employed to identify important characteristics influencing pavement performance, and SVR was utilized to anticipate pavement performance with those factors. The model was implemented to forecast the rutting depth index. Compared to other models, GRA-SVR was proved to be accurate and time-independent, despite being rather complex.

3. Methodology

The U.S Army Corps of Engineers developed the PCI method for the aim of pavement condition evaluation [6]. PCI is a numerical rating of the pavement condition that ranges from 0 to 100 with 0 being the worst possible condition and 100 being the best possible condition [17]. The pavement to be evaluated is divided into branches, which are then further divided into sections. Each section is split into sample units. Visual evaluation of pavement sample units determines the kind and severity of pavement deterioration [18]. The quantity of the distress is measured accordingly and the PCI is determined for each sample unit. Based on the PCI of the examined sample units inside the section, the PCI of the pavement section is calculated following steps on Figure 1 [17].

Figure 1. Pavement condition index calculation flowchart

PCI numerical values are converted to verbal rating that describes the condition of the pavement surface varies from "failed" to "excellent". The upper part of the scale indicates pavement with minor defect and requires regular maintenance. Pavement on the lower part of the scale requires major rehabilitation or reconstruction.

The use of multi-criteria decision methods has steadily increased in recent years. There are many applications that use these methods, such as the applications in the field of logistics [19], [20], transportation [21], [22], financial [23]. One of the methods used is Grey System Theory, introduced by Deng in the early 1980s [24], which focuses on solving problems with incomplete information or small samples. Hence, it generates and extracts useful information from the available data. This paper is based on a hybrid Grey-COCOSO methods. COCOSO model was created by Deng [25] in 2019. The calculation is created using macros developed with MS Excel software. The steps of the proposed method are as follows:

The Grey-COCOSO model consists of the following steps:

Step 1: Selecting the set of the most important attributes, describing the alternatives.Step 2. Determine the attribute weights: Attribute weight Wj can be calculated as follows:

$\otimes W_j=\frac{1}{K}\left[\otimes W_j^1+\otimes W_j^2+\cdots+\otimes W_j^K\right]$
(1)
$\otimes W_j^K=\left[\underline{W}_j^K, \underline{W}_j^K\right]$
(2)

Step 3. Alternatives evaluated by the decision makers: decision makers use linguistic or verbal variables when evaluating alternatives according to various criteria.

$\otimes G_{i j}^K,(i=1,2, \ldots, m ; j=1,2, \ldots, n)$ is the attribute value given by the kth decision maker to any attribute value of the alternative. In grey system this value is shown as, $\otimes G_{i j}^K=\left[\underline{G}_{i j}^K, \bar{G}_{i j}^K\right]$ and computed as:

$\otimes G_j=\frac{1}{K}\left[\otimes G_j^1+\otimes G_j^2+\cdots+\otimes G_j^K\right]$

Step 4. The construction of Grey Decision Matrix:

$G=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}\otimes G_{11} & \otimes G_{12} & \cdots & \cdots & \otimes G_{1 n} \\ \otimes G_{21} & \otimes G_{22} & \cdots & \cdots & \otimes G_{2 n} \\ \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \\ \otimes G_{m 1} & \otimes G_{m 2} & \cdots & \cdots & \otimes G_{m n}\end{array}\right]$
(3)

Step 5. The normalization of Decision Matrix:

$D^*=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}\otimes G_{11}^* & \otimes G_{12}^* & \cdots & \cdots & \otimes G_{1 n}^* \\ \otimes G_{21}^* & \otimes G_{22}^* & \cdots & \cdots & \otimes G_{2 n}^* \\ \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \\ \otimes G_{m 1}^* & \otimes G_{m 2}^* & \cdots & \cdots & \otimes G_{m n}^*\end{array}\right]$
(4)

For a benefit attribute $\otimes G_{i j}^*$ is expressed as:

$\otimes G_{i j}^*=\left[\frac{G_{i j}}{G_j^{\max }}, \frac{\bar{G}_{i j}}{G_j^{\max }}\right]$

where, $G_j^{\max }=\max _{1<i<m}\left\{\bar{G}_{i j}\right\}$ and for a cost attribute $\otimes G_{i j}^*$ is expressed as

$\otimes G_{i j}^*=\left[\frac{G_j^{\text {min }}}{\bar{G}_{i j}}, \frac{G_j^{\text {min }}}{\underline{G}_{i j}}\right\rceil$

where, $G_j^{\min }=\min _{1<i<m}\left\{\underline{G}_{i j}\right\}$.

Step 6. Weighted Normalized Grey Decision Matrix normalized $D^*$ matrix is weighted by the

$\otimes V_{i j}=\otimes G_{i j}^* X \otimes W_j$

Process which establishes the weighted normalised grey decision matrix $D_w^*$.

$D^*=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}\otimes G_{11}^* & \otimes G_{12}^* & \cdots & \cdots & \otimes G_{1 n}^* \\ \otimes G_{21}^* & \otimes G_{22}^* & \cdots & \cdots & \otimes G_{2 n}^* \\ \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \\ \otimes G_{m 1}^* & \otimes G_{m 2}^* & \cdots & \cdots & \otimes G_{m n}^*\end{array}\right]$
(5)

Step 7: The total weighted comparability sequence (Si) and the sum of the weighted comparability sequences (Pi) for each alternative are calculated as follows:

$S_i=\sum_{j=1}^n\left(w_j r_{i j}\right)$
(6)

This Si value is achieved based on grey relational generation approach:

$P_i=\sum_{j=1}^n\left(r_{i j}\right)^{w_j}$
(7)

Step 8: Relative weights of the alternatives using the following aggregation strategies are computed. In this step, three appraisal score strategies are used to generate relative weights of other options, which are derived using the following formulas:

$K_{i a}=\frac{P_i+S_i}{\sum_{i=1}^m\left(P_i+S_i\right)}$
(8)
$k_{i b}=\frac{S_i}{\min _i S_i}-\frac{P_i}{\min _i P_i}$
(9)
$k_{i c}=\frac{\lambda\left(S_i\right)+(1-\lambda)\left(P_i\right)}{\left(\lambda \max _i S_i+(1-\lambda) \max _i P_i\right)} ; \quad 0 \leq \lambda \leq 1$
(10)

Step 9: The final ranking of the alternatives is determined as follows:

$k_i=\left(k_{i a} k_{i b} k_{i c}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}+\frac{1}{3}\left(k_{i a}+k_{i b}+k_{i c}\right)$
(11)

4. The Case Study

This paper studies a road section that serves an industrial area located in the city of Misurata, Libya. The road is about 10.4 m wide with a total length of 1300 m. It was constructed a long time ago (more than thirty-five years) and has never been maintained. The heavy trucks often use the route to dump industrial wastes into a nearby landfill. Most of the traffic on the road is classified as heavy traffic. The evaluation was based on a traditional visual inspection of defects that appear in the pavement surface.

Two professional engineers collected detailed information on distresses. Defects data were obtained manually according to the distress identification manual for the long-term pavement performance program (LTPP). Table 1 contains the defects data on pavement surfaces and their severity levels. The pavement condition assessment was carried out and the eight types found are Fatigue cracking, Longitudinal cracking, Transverse cracking, Patches, Potholes, Polished aggregate, and Depression.

Table 1. Pavement distress assessment

No

Distress Type

Severity level

L

M

H

1

Fatigue Cracking (m2)

977

91

1125

2

Block Cracking

0

0

0

3

Edge Cracking

0

0

0

4

Longitudinal Cracking (m)

9

24

60

5

Reflection Cracking

0

0

0

6

Transverse Cracking (m)

466

1272

3712

7

Patch/Patch Deterioration (m2)

0.3

10

118

8

Potholes (m2)

4.55

6.35

23

9

Rutting

0

0

0

10

Shoving

0

0

0

11

Bleeding

0

0

0

12

Polished Aggregate (m2)

0

2515

773

13

Ravelling

0

0

0

14

Lane-to-Shoulder Drop-off

0

0

0

15

Water Bleeding and Pumping

0

0

0

16

Depression

0

78

138

(a)
(b)
Figure 2. Severity level of damaged pavement sections

After completing the full survey of visible defects, the data collected shows that the pavement condition of 86 sections varies and is divided into three main levels. One fifth of the total road area suffers from minor or moderate defects such as low-intensity transverse cracks or polished aggregate as shown in Figure 2. The rest of the area, on the other hand, is severely damaged and faces fatigue cracks and depression in the paving layers, in addition to polished aggregate and high-intensity transverse cracks as shown in Figure 2.

In this section, the same defects described above are evaluated. Four experts were invited to participate in determining the importance of each of these criteria (defects). Each expert was interviewed with the aim of clarifying the goal of the research as well as its methodology. Table 2 shows the evaluation criteria and their type.

Table 2. Criteria used

No

Criteria

Type

C1

Fatigue Cracking

Cost

C2

Block Cracking

Cost

C3

Edge Cracking

Cost

C4

Longitudinal Cracking

Cost

C5

Reflection Cracking

Cost

C6

Transverse Cracking

Cost

C7

Patch/Patch Deterioration

Cost

C8

Potholes

Cost

C9

Rutting

Cost

C10

Shoving

Cost

C11

Bleeding

Cost

C12

Polished Aggregate

Cost

C13

Ravelling

Cost

C14

Lane-to-Shoulder Dropoff

Cost

C15

Water Bleeding and Pumping

Cost

C16

Depression

Cost

Linguistic variables can be expressed in grey numbers on a scale shown in Table 3. The case study was also assessed using the grey metrics shown in Table 4.

Table 5 shows the experts' evaluation of each of the criteria (defects) utilized in the study. It also shows the conversion of the linguistic variables into numerical weights, in addition to the whitening degree calculation. The result shows that error 1 is the most important with a weight of 0.05, followed by error 3 with a weight of 0.04 and then error 5 with a weight of 0.03.

Table 3. The importance of grey number for the weights of the criteria

Importance

Abbreviation

Scale of grey number

Very Low

VL

[0.0, 0.1]

Low

L

[0.1, 0.3]

Medium Low

ML

[0.3, 0.4]

Medium

M

[0.4, 0.5]

Medium High

MH

[0.5, 0.6]

High

H

[0.6, 0.8]

Very High

VH

[0.8, 1.0]

Table 4. Linguistic assessment and the associated grey values

Performance

Abbreviation

Scale of grey number

Very Poor

VP

[0.0, 1.0]

Poor

P

[1.0, 2.0]

Medium Poor

MP

[2.0, 4.0]

Fair

F

[4.0, 5.0]

Medium Good

MG

[5.0, 6.0]

Good

G

[6.0, 8.0]

Very Good

VG

[8.0, 10.]

Table 5. The linguistic assessment of the attributes by experts

Ci

Expert #1

Expert #2

Expert #3

Expert #4

Whitening degree

C1

VH

VH

VH

L

0.63

0.83

0.7250

C2

M

H

VH

L

0.48

0.65

0.5625

C3

ML

M

VH

L

0.40

0.55

0.4750

C4

M

M

M

L

0.33

0.45

0.3875

C5

ML

MH

MH

L

0.35

0.48

0.4125

C6

M

M

M

L

0.33

0.45

0.3875

C7

MH

M

L

ML

0.33

0.45

0.3875

C8

H

MH

MH

M

0.50

0.63

0.5625

C9

H

VH

VH

VH

0.75

0.95

0.8500

C10

MH

MH

VH

MH

0.58

0.70

0.6375

C11

M

VL

VL

VL

0.10

0.20

0.1500

C12

L

M

M

ML

0.30

0.43

0.3625

C13

ML

L

L

ML

0.20

0.35

0.2750

C14

M

L

L

L

0.18

0.35

0.2625

C15

MH

M

M

L

0.35

0.48

0.4125

C16

H

VH

H

VH

0.70

0.90

0.80

The linguistic assessment of each site by experts is shown in Table 6. Transform the linguistic variables into grey numbers according to scales of grey numbers, as shown in Table 3 and Eq. (‎3). By the assessment of the consequences, grey decision matrix D is calculated.

Table 6. Experts views on suggested technique selection criteria

Cj

Sites

Expert #1

Expert #2

Expert #3

Expert #4

ÄGij

C1

Unsatisfactory

G

VG

G

VG

[7.009.00]

Degraded

VP

VP

MP

VP

[0.501.75]

Adequate

VP

VP

VP

VP

[0.001.00]

C2

Unsatisfactory

VP

VP

VP

VP

[0.00 1.00]

Degraded

VP

VP

VP

VP

[0.00 1.00]

Adequate

VG

VG

VG

VG

[8.00 10.0]

C3

Unsatisfactory

VP

VP

VP

VP

[0.00 1.00]

Degraded

VP

VP

VP

VP

[0.00 1.00]

Adequate

VG

VG

VG

VG

[8.00 10.0]

C4

Unsatisfactory

P

VP

P

VP

[0.50 1.50]

Degraded

MG

VG

G

VG

[6.75 8.50]

Adequate

VP

VP

VP

VP

[0.00 1.00]

C5

Unsatisfactory

VP

VP

VP

VP

[0.00 1.00]

Degraded

VP

VP

VP

VP

[0.00 1.00]

Adequate

VG

VG

VG

VG

[8.00 10.0]

C6

Unsatisfactory

VG

G

VG

G

[7.00 9.00]

Degraded

VP

MG

P

MP

[2.00 3.25]

Adequate

VP

VP

VP

VP

[0.00 1.00]

C7

Unsatisfactory

P

VP

VP

VP

[0.25 1.25]

Degraded

MG

F

P

MG

[3.75 4.75]

Adequate

VP

G

G

MG

[4.24 5.75]

C8

Unsatisfactory

VP

VP

VP

VP

[0.00 1.00]

Degraded

MP

MP

F

MG

[3.25 4.75]

Adequate

F

MG

MG

MG

[4.75 5.75]

C9

Unsatisfactory

VP

VP

VP

VP

[0.00 1.00]

Degraded

VP

VP

VP

VP

[0.00 1.00]

Adequate

VG

VG

VG

VG

[8.00 10.0]

C10

Unsatisfactory

VP

VP

VP

VP

[0.00 1.00]

Degraded

VP

VP

VP

VP

[0.00 1.00]

Adequate

VG

VG

VG

VG

[8.00 10.0]

C11

Unsatisfactory

VP

VP

VP

VP

[0.00 1.00]

Degraded

VP

VP

VP

VP

[0.00 1.00]

Adequate

VG

VG

VG

VG

[8.00 10.0]

C12

Unsatisfactory

MG

VG

VG

VG

[7.25 9.00]

Degraded

MP

VP

P

VP

[0.75 2.00]

Adequate

VP

VP

VP

VP

[0.00 1.00]

C13

Unsatisfactory

VP

VP

VP

VP

[0.00 1.00]

Degraded

VP

VP

VP

VP

[0.00 1.00]

Adequate

VG

VG

VG

VG

[8.00 10.0]

C14

Unsatisfactory

VP

VP

VP

VP

[0.00 1.00]

Degraded

VP

VP

VP

VP

[0.00 1.00]

Adequate

VG

VG

VG

VG

[8.00 10.0]

C15

Unsatisfactory

VP

VP

VP

VP

[0.00 1.00]

Degraded

VP

VP

VP

VP

[0.00 1.00]

Adequate

VG

VG

VG

VG

[8.00 10.0]

C16

Unsatisfactory

F

G

G

MG

[5.25 6.75]

Degraded

MP

F

MP

MG

[3.25 4.75]

Adequate

VP

VP

VP

VP

[0.00 1.00]

5. Results

PCI of any pavement section is determined according to ASTM D6433 by calculating the average PCI of all sample units within the inspected section. This is typically created for routine management purposes which allow for early detection of major rehabilitation needs [24]. The average PCI value for the 86 pavement sections considered in this study using the procedure from ASTM D6433 was 31%. The PCI rating indicates unsatisfactory condition of the pavement.

Table 7. Normalised decision-making matrix

Unsatisfactory

Degraded

Adequate

Weight

C1

0

0.0001

0.4125

0.725

C2

0.325

0.325

0

0.5625

C3

0.275

0.275

0

0.475

C4

0.0001

0

0.225

0.3875

C5

0.2375

0.2375

0

0.4125

C6

0

0

0.225

0.3875

C7

0.2575

0.0236

0.0236

0.3875

C8

0.3125

0

0

0.5625

C9

0.475

0.475

0

0.85

C10

0.35

0.35

0

0.6375

C11

0.1

0.1

0

0.15

C12

0

0

0.2125

0.3625

C13

0.175

0.175

0

0.275

C14

0.175

0.175

0

0.2625

C15

0.2375

0.2375

0

0.4125

C16

0

0

0.45

0.8

Table 8. Weighted normalised decision-making matrix

Unsatisfactory

Degraded

Adequate

C1

0

0

0.299

C2

0.183

0.183

0

C3

0.131

0.131

0

C4

0

0

0.087

C5

0.098

0.098

0

C6

0

0

0.087

C7

0.1

0.009

0.009

C8

0.176

0

0

C9

0.404

0.404

0

C10

0.223

0.223

0

C11

0.015

0.015

0

C12

0

0

0.077

C13

0.048

0.048

0

C14

0.046

0.046

0

C15

0.098

0.098

0

C16

0

0

0.36

Table 9. Relative weights of the alternatives for different aggregation strategies

Pi

Si+Pi

kia

kib

kic

ki

rank

Unsatisfactory

6.321

7.842

0.426

3.774

1.000

2.905

1

Degraded

5.417

6.671

0.362

3.182

0.851

2.458

2

Adequate

2.981

3.900

0.212

2.000

0.497

1.498

3

The next step is to form normalised decision-making matrix, which shown in Table 7. Table 8 shows the weighted normalised decision-making matrix. The weights obtained by using grey theory are used.

Table 9 shows the relative weights of the alternatives using different aggregation strategies. The results show that the road is in unsatisfactory condition.

6. Discussion

Figure 3. Case study PCI values as per ASTM 6433 procedure

Based on the results, similar evaluation conclusions were obtained by comparing the two methods. Distress estimation on both models has given comparable evaluation outcomes. However, both pavement performance assessments are identical, where the road surface is obviously damaged and deteriorated and urgent maintenance is required very soon. 80% of the total road area suffers from highly defected pavements. Figure 3 shows the pavement condition along the road, where PCI values fall below 55 for most roadway sections. The results also show that rutting, depression, and fatigue cracking are ranked sequentially as the most important aspects. These defects have a direct influence on the safety of people and the targeted level of service. On the other hand, Marcelino et al. [26] evaluated pavement condition based on functional and structural aspects. Functional criteria include traffic and safety, while structural criteria include pavement condition and social equity. Moreover, Pescador Junior et al. [27] estimated pavement condition objectively and subjectively.

To ensure the applicability and the accuracy of the MCDM model in the evaluation process of pavement performance, a statistical analysis was carried out using the t-test paired two-sample method assuming unequal variances. The results indicated that there is no significant difference between values as shown in Table 10. Therefore, the MCDM model is a reliable method that could be used in the field of pavement performance evaluation. Similarly, Pescador et al. [27] concluded that the results on both methods are almost identical. In addition, Marcelino et al. [26] study demonstrated that MCDM methods are suitable and useful. However, the application of the model is limited to the existence of experience, and adequate data that are coherently related to the precision of the results. Although pavement evaluation methods are widely used, a well-trained assessment team is demanded to evaluate the roadway pavement condition, and provide enough information on road defects. Thus, the models' accuracy is limited to the experience and skills of the surveyors and the sufficiency of data.

Table 10. t-Test: Two-Sample assuming unequal variances

MCDM

PCI

Mean

0.077

237.5458

Variance

0.01216

470228.2

Observations

48

48

Hypothesized Mean Difference

0

df

47

t Stat

-2.39924

P(T<=t) one-tail

0.010224

t Critical one-tail

1.677927

P(T<=t) two-tail

0.020447

t Critical two-tail

2.011741

7. Conclusion

It is very important to inspect the road surface as it will be damaged over its service life due to weather factors and heavy traffic. This inspection helps identify the types of damage and, therefore, the maintenance methods that can ensure that the road remains in good condition and serviceable for the longest possible time. As an essential first step in an effective maintenance management system, an initial assessment is conducted to identify the most significant road defects. This helps decision-makers make appropriate decisions regarding future maintenance operations.

In this study, PCI was obtained both objectively and subjectively. It should be mentioned that there was no significant difference between the values obtained by the two methods. As a matter of fact, the t-test was used to compare the results obtained, and the result showed that there was no significant difference between the results obtained by the two methods. This indicates the possibility of using subjective methods for an initial assessment of the condition of the roads and an appropriate decision on their maintenance. In addition, this work identified the areas with the highest frequency of defects. The results showed that 80% of the road studied suffers from major defects and requires maintenance. This study approach can be extended for future studies by comparing objective and subjective results on different topics that require a decision-making. Future research should aim to replicate results of MCDM with other pavement performance measures.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References
1.
X. Chen, Q. Dong, H. Zhu, and B. Huang, “Development of distress condition index of asphalt pavements using LTPP data through structural equation modeling,” Transp. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol., vol. 68, pp. 58-69, 2016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
2.
J. M. Pinatt, M. L. Chicati, J. S. Ildefonso, and C. R. Filetti, “Evaluation of pavement condition index by different methods: Case study of maringá, Brazil,” Transp. Res. Interdiscipl. Perspect., vol. 4, no. 1, Article ID: 100100, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
3.
M. A. Mehdi, T. Cherradi, A. Bouyahyaoui, S. El Karkouri, and A. Qachar, “Evolution of a flexible pavement deterioration, analyzing the road inspections results,” Mater. Today: Proc., vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 1222-1228, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
4.
O. Elmansouri, A. Almhroog, and I. Badi, “Urban Transportation in Libya: An overview,” Transp. Res. Interdiscipl. Perspect., vol. 8, Article ID: 100161, 2020. [Google Scholar]
5.
J. Li, T. Liu, X. Wang, and J. Yu, “Automated asphalt pavement damage rate detection based on optimized Ga-CNN,” Automat. Constr., vol. 136, Article ID: 104180, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
6.
H. Majidifard, Y. Adu-Gyamfi, and W. G. Buttlar, “Deep Machine Learning Approach to develop a new asphalt pavement condition index,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 247, Article ID: 118513, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
7.
N. G. Ahmed, G. J. Awda, and U. E. Saleh, “Development of pavement condition index model for flexible pavement in Baghdad city,” J. Eng., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 2120-2135, 2008. [Google Scholar]
8.
A. H. Hu, Q. Bai, L. Chen, S. Y. Meng, Q. H. Li, and Z. M. Xu, “A review on empirical methods of pavement performance modeling,” Constr. Build Mater., vol. 342, Article ID: 127968, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
9.
A. A. Elhadidy, S. El-Badawy, and E. Elbeltagi, “A simplified pavement condition index regression model for pavement evaluation,” Int J. Pavement Eng., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1-10, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
10.
A. Kouyate, "Evaluation of a trigonometric grey model for estimating and predicting pavement condition," Doctoral Dissertation, South Carolina University, Columbia, 2021. [Google Scholar]
11.
A. Bezuglov and C. Gurcan, “Short-term freeway traffic parameter prediction: Application of grey system theory models,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 62, pp. 284-292, 2016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
12.
D. B. Zhang, X. Li, Y. Zhang, and H. Zhang, “Prediction method of asphalt pavement performance and corrosion based on grey system theory,” Int J. Corros., vol. 2019, Article ID: 2534794, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
13.
J. M. Yu, X. N. Zhang, and C. L. Xiong, “A methodology for evaluating micro-surfacing treatment on asphalt pavement based on grey system models and grey rational degree theory,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 150, pp. 214-226, 2017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
14.
J. C. Du and D. H. Shen, “Development of pavement permanent deformation prediction model by grey modelling method,” Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 109-121, 2005. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
15.
C. Gurcan, N. Begashaw, and N. Huynh, “Improved grey system models for predicting traffic parameters,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 177, Article ID: 114972, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
16.
X. Wang, J. Zhao, Q. Li, N. Fang, P. Wang, L. Ding, and S. Li, “A hybrid model for prediction in asphalt pavement performance based on support vector machine and grey relation analysis,” J. Adv. Transport., vol. 2020, Article ID: 7534970, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
17.
“Standart Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index Surveys,” ASTM D6433-11, 2020. [Google Scholar]
18.
M. Y. Shahin, Pavement Management for Airports, Roads, and Parking Lots, New York, NY, USA, Springer, 2005. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
19.
M. Yazdani, P. Zarate, E. K. Zavadskas, and Z. Turskis, “A Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems,” Manage. Decis., vol. 57, no. 3, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
20.
A. Alosta, O. Elmansuri, and I. Badi, “Resolving a location selection problem by means of an integrated AHP-RAFSI approach,” Rep. Mech Eng., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 135-142, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
21.
A. E. Torkayesh and V. Simic, “Stratified hybrid decision model with constrained attributes: Recycling facility location for urban healthcare plastic waste,” Sustain Cities Soc., vol. 77, Article ID: 103543, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
22.
M. Bakır and Ö. Atalık, “Application of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy MARCOS approach for the evaluation of e-service quality in the airline industry,” Decis. Making: Appl. Manage. Eng., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 127-152, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
23.
M. Eshtaiwi, I. Badi, A. Abdulshahed, and T. E. Erkan, “Determination of key performance indicators for measuring airport success: A case study in Libya,” J. Air Transport Manage., vol. 68, pp. 28-34, 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
24.
M. Baydas, O. E. Elma, and D. Pamučar, “Exploring the specific capacity of different multi criteria decision making approaches under uncertainty using data from financial markets,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 197, Article ID: 116755, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
25.
J. L. Deng, “Control problems of grey systems,” Syst. control lett., vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 288-294, 1982. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
26.
P. Marcelino, M. D. Antunes, E. Fortunato, and M. C. Gomes, “Development of a multi criteria decision analysis model for pavement maintenance at the network level: Application of the Macbeth approach,” Front. Built Environ., vol. 5, pp. 6-6, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
27.
A. C. Pescador Junior, C. A. Da Silva Junior, and H. B. Fontenele, “Comparação de Métodos de Avaliação da Condição de pavimentos FLEXÍVEIS Com O Auxílio de um SIG-T,” Rev. CIATEC-UPF, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 95-103, 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

Cite this:
APA Style
IEEE Style
BibTex Style
MLA Style
Chicago Style
Elmansouri, O., Alossta, A., & Badi, I. (2022). Pavement Condition Assessment Using Pavement Condition Index and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model. Mechatron. Intell Transp. Syst., 1(1), 57-68. https://doi.org/10.56578/mits010107
O. Elmansouri, A. Alossta, and I. Badi, "Pavement Condition Assessment Using Pavement Condition Index and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model," Mechatron. Intell Transp. Syst., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 57-68, 2022. https://doi.org/10.56578/mits010107
@research-article{Elmansouri2022PavementCA,
title={Pavement Condition Assessment Using Pavement Condition Index and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model},
author={Omar Elmansouri and Abdulaziz Alossta and Ibrahim Badi},
journal={Mechatronics and Intelligent Transportation Systems},
year={2022},
page={57-68},
doi={https://doi.org/10.56578/mits010107}
}
Omar Elmansouri, et al. "Pavement Condition Assessment Using Pavement Condition Index and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model." Mechatronics and Intelligent Transportation Systems, v 1, pp 57-68. doi: https://doi.org/10.56578/mits010107
Omar Elmansouri, Abdulaziz Alossta and Ibrahim Badi. "Pavement Condition Assessment Using Pavement Condition Index and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model." Mechatronics and Intelligent Transportation Systems, 1, (2022): 57-68. doi: https://doi.org/10.56578/mits010107
cc
©2022 by the author(s). Published by Acadlore Publishing Services Limited, Hong Kong. This article is available for free download and can be reused and cited, provided that the original published version is credited, under the CC BY 4.0 license.